Lean Enterprise Processes in Facilities

SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

Lean Enterprise Processes In Facilities Presented to Presented to Community College Facilities Coalition

November 9, 2010 1

Lean Processes

Agenda • Our Challenge • Lean Custodial Practices – – – –

Identify services Custodial Beat Leveling Cleaning Standards Management By Walking Around (MBWA)

• Lean Work Order Processes – – – – – –

Centralized Work Order Center Service Level Agreement (SLA) Work Flow Process Mapping Material/Supply Store Pl Planner/Schedulers /S h d l CMMS

• Electronic Work Order Delivery • Safety/Training Programs 2

San Diego Community College District (SDCCD)

About the District • 2nd Largest Community College District in CA Largest Community College District in CA • 6th in Nation • Centralized M & O • 4 Regions – 3 main campuses (City, Mesa & Miramar Colleges) – 6 Continuing Education campuses 3

San Diego Community College District (SDCCD)

About the District Current Square Footage Current Square Footage Buildings = 2,078,008 Gross Square Feet (GSF) Parking = 377,712 Gross Square Feet (GSF)

Current Acres of Landscape = 130.2 Current Utilities Consumption Current Utilities Consumption Electric = $3,971,950 Gas = $480,821 Water = $774 070 Water = $774,070 Total = $5,226,841

4

San Diego Community College District (SDCCD)

About the District Projected Square Footage Additional Building GSF = 1,601,443 Additi l B ildi GSF 1 601 443 Total Building GSF = 3,679,451 Additional Parking GSF Additional Parking GSF = 987,289 987,289 Total Parking GSF = 1,365,001

Grand Total GSF = 5,044,452

5

San Diego Community College District (SDCCD)

About the District Projected Acres of Landscape Additional Acres of Landscape = 19 dd l f d Total Acres of Landscape = 149.2

Projected Utilities Consumption Projected Utilities Consumption Additional Utility Costs = $4,542,390 Total Annual Costs = $8,790,209

6

Lean Processes

Our Challenge • Current economic conditions continue to d impact SDCCD • SDCCD Facilities Services must reduce FY09‐16 forecasted expenditures forecasted expenditures • While While current state revenue is down, SDCCD current state revenue is down SDCCD must plan for future doubling service base without doubling the budget 7

Lean Processes

Potential Cumulative Savings FY

FY 09/10

Custodial

FY09

FY10

FY11

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY15

FY16

Ave Salary

C t di l F Custodial Forecast H/C t H/C

104

113

132

149

162

173

189

191

$ $ 58,643 58 643

Cust Forecast Salary Custodial Adj HC Custodial Adj HC

$ 6,098,855 $ 6,650,098 $ 7,769,004 $ 8,731,333 $ 9,504,832 $ 10,169,255 $ 11,098,158 $ 11,227,172 77

82

88

100

122

130

140

147

45

Custodial Adj Budget

$ 4,497,197 $ 4,782,522 $ 5,187,077 $ 5,878,320 $ 7,150,669 $ 7,622,296 $ 8,208,826 $ 8,597,611

Delta

$ 1,601,658 $ 1,867,576 $ 2,581,927 $ 2,853,013 $ 2,354,162 $ 2,546,959 $ 2,889,331 $ 2,629,561 $ 19,324,187 Hold HC Flat untill projection exceeds current HC p j

$ 13,273,027 $ , ,

Maintenance Maint Forecast H/C Maint Forecast Salary Maintenance Adj H/C

45

50

57

64

69

73

79

80

$ 76,457

$ 3,440,546 $ 3,793,010 $ 4,344,262 $ 4,857,286 $ 5,245,685 $ 5,579,036 $ 6,044,656 $ 6,108,880 29

32

37

41

45

47

51

52

28

Maint Adj Salary

$ 2,236,355 $ 2,465,457 $ 2,823,770 $ 3,157,236 $ 3,409,695 $ 3,626,373 $ 3,929,027 $ 3,970,772

Delta

$ 1,204,191 $ 1,327,554 $ 1,520,492 $ 1,700,050 $ 1,835,990 $ 1,952,663 $ 2,115,630 $ 2,138,108 $ 13,794,676 Hold HC Flat untill projection exceeds current HC

$25,863,512 Opportunity

$ 12,590,485

8

Lean Processes

Benchmarking and Goals Custodial • Beginning cleanable sf ‐ 13,900 per custodian • Increase to 25,000 sf

Maintenance • Beginning cost per sf Beginning cost per sf ‐ $3.93 • Reduce to $2.25 sf

9

Lean Processes

Custodial Practices • • • • • • • •

Identify our core mission Identify how we were spending time Load Levelingg Increase cleaning square footage Beat books Beat books Cleaning Standards MBWA g Pride Program 10

Lean Processes

Assessment of Services • Findings – Opening doors – Stock room duties – Personal assistants – Event set ups p – Temperature checks – Movers Movers – Cleaning

11

Lean Processes

Opportunities for Improvement pp p • Get back to Core mission Get back to Core mission • Board of Trustees and Chancellor buy in – Developed an door opening policy Developed an door opening policy – Developed an out of scope work list – Directing work requests through the call center Directing work requests through the call center – Plan and schedule work

12

Lean Custodial Practices

Custodial Load Level – Finding the Balance

• Identify the type of space use and the finishes used p y g within the space to identify the base cleaning factor for that space type 13

Lean Custodial Practices

Assign Cleaning Time Based on Space

Calculate the time to clean based on the assignable square footage and the base cleaning factor 14

Lean Custodial Practices

Summarize Head Count Requirements

•

With all buildings added, the total required HC for Level 2 Cleaning at San Diego Mesa College is 26

The space is then summed from room up to building and then up to campus.

– This leads to a qualitative method to determine the proper HC requirements – Enables the supervisor to develop project teams to tackle larger projects that Enables the supervisor to develop project teams to tackle larger projects that require more man power and are outside the daily cleaning requirements 15

Lean Custodial Practices

SDCCD Cleaning Standards

• •

SDCCD defined the acceptable level of cleaning for district as a Level 2. At the start p j y y 4. of the project they were consistently at a level 3 – This underlined the need to improve the level of service 16

Lean Custodial Practices

SDCCD Cleaning Standards – Level 1 & 2

17

Lean Custodial Practices

Implementation of Pride Program Began by implementing Management by Walking A Around (MBWA) to track building scores. The indicator d (MBWA) t t k b ildi Th i di t of success for this phase was simply number or percentage of MBWA inspections completed over time.

18

Lean Custodial Practices

Tracking and Trending Discrepancies

Buildings are inspected and discrepancies are tracked by work week 19

Lean Custodial Practices

Management By Walking Around (MBWA) First Goal of the Pride Program was to inspect all buildings consistently

20

Lean Custodial Practices

Transitioning from MBWA to Pride Program • Once the team has been trained on doing inspections, and they are occurring regularly it was time to move to and they are occurring regularly, it was time to move to the Pride Program – Designed to build a sense of Pride with those who have ownership for the space or function hi f h f i

• Began entering the data of discrepancies into a d b database to begin tracking the actual data vs. simply b k h ld l whether the inspection has occurred.

• Track and trend the types of discrepancies and the total overall score.

21

Lean Custodial Practices

Converting the Data to Building Scores

• Score is created by taking the number of discrepancies and subtracting from 100.

• The score is then normalized based on building sized with 20 000 ASF assumed as normal sized with 20,000 ASF assumed as normal 22

Lean Custodial Practices

Trend by Discrepancy: Campus Example

Each week, the top discrepancies are identified 23

Lean Custodial Practices

Discrepancies

Discrepancy Trend Over Time: Campus Example

Work Week 24

Lean Custodial Practices

Use of Data to Improve Performance The data collected from this tool/process is used to: – Drive Drive for Continuous Improvement for Continuous Improvement – Chart performance goals for a campus, department or individual • Campus Trend • Trend by Discrepancy (i.e., burned out lights) • Trend by Area Owner

– Implement a recognition program • “Pride Award” based on best scoring building • Most Improved p

– Performance Management • Improve area by 10% • Lowest performing area owner Lowest performing area owner 25

Lean Work Order Processes

Maintenance Assessment

• • • • •

Identify how we were spending time Examine priorities Examine priorities Scrutinize processes Sh ld Should we redesign or improve this process d i i hi What tools do we need to do this

26

Lean Work Order Processes

Maintenance Process Findings

• • • • •

We were a reactive organization No formal method of prioritization No formal method of prioritization Inefficient, unpredictable processes T Too much windshield time for technicians h i d hi ld i f h i i We needed a more robust computerized maintenance management system

27

Lean Work Order Processes

Maintenance Process Improvement • • • •

Develop a method prioritization Design new work flow processes k fl Create a centralized work distribution center Standardize triage and follow up procedures to pp p support processes and reduce windshield time • Purchase a more robust computerized maintenance management system maintenance management system • Start an MRO store 28

Lean Work Order Processes

Work Prioritization • SDCCD SDCCD ‐ in its quest to be in its quest to be “service service oriented oriented” ‐ had no formal work prioritization processes – This led to 85%+ of work being reactive This led to 85%+ of work being reactive – Open WO grew to in excess of 1,600

• A A prioritization matrix was developed to prioritization matrix was developed to establish a service level agreement within the District – Approved by Chancellor's Cabinet and Management Services Council Services Council 29

Lean Work Order Processes

Priority Matrix: Service Level Agreement

30

Lean Work Order Processes

Service Level Agreement: Priority Level 1 Example

31

Lean Work Order Processes

Call Center / Work Distribution Center / •

Centralized

•

Standardized

•

Customer Service

•

Comments 32

Lean Work Order Processes

Lean Process Flows: Prioritize Work

33

Lean Work Order Processes

Lean Process Flows: Triage

34

Lean Work Order Processes

Work Flow Priority 1‐3 Work – Maintenance Supervisor Receive Request

Scope Job

Assign Assign Resources

Verify Details Verify Details of WO

Turn WO into Scheduling / Planning

Schedule in “Look Ahead Schedule”

Receive WO Back

Update Job Plan

Receive WO from Tech

Verify Details of WO

Turn WO into Scheduling / Planning

Receive WO Receive WO from Tech

Priority 4 & 5 Work – Maintenance Planner / Scheduler Request Received

Scope Job

Plan Job

Priority 4 & 5 Work – Maintenance Supervisor Receive Planned Schedule

Assign WO to Techs

Provide Work Direction

• Planning / Scheduling is focused on future work • All ongoing work is under the direct control of the maintenance supervisor All ongoing work is under the direct control of the maintenance supervisor 35

Lean Work Order Processes

Without Planning / Scheduling Activity Cleanup and putting away tools Idle Time Material delays Passdown meetings (start / end of shift, feeding work to technicians) Starting late / quitting early Too many technicians per job / task Traveling and Transportation Unclear work direction Sub Total of non‐productive time

% 5 9 5 5 4 7 16 16 67

Productive time = 100‐67 or 33% Thi t This translates to 2.7 hrs in an 8 hr shift l t t 27h i 8 h hift 36

Lean Work Order Processes

Lean Process Flows: Planning / Scheduling

37

Lean Work Order Processes

Productive Maintenance Time

Average reactive organizations Average reactive organizations have a wrench time of only 20% while proactive organizations approach organizations approach Maintain 60% or higher. g 1

38

Lean Work Order Processes

Productive Maintenance Time The Case for Planner / Schedulers

oductive Hourss Pro

60% 50%

Preventative 40%

30%

Reactive

• Three techs without planning • 3 x 30% = 90% • One planner with two technicians • 1 x 0% + 2 x 50% = 100% • 50% / 30% = 1.67 ( 67% Improvement ) • 45 techs x 1.67 = 75 technicians

% Wrench Time •

In today's economy, how are you going to get 67% more resources for maintenance?

11/3/2010

Copyright © 2009, Step Function – FMC, L.L.C.

39

Lean Work Order Processes

Megamation g ((CMMS)) • Web based • Work request entry by customers and Facilities • Useful dashboard/work order console Auto generated due date for priorities 1‐4 4 • Auto generated due date for priorities 1 • Key performance indicator reports • Time keeping • Unlimited training Unlimited training 40

Lean Work Order Processes

Megamation g ((CMMS))

41

Lean Work Order Processes

Megamation g ((CMMS)

42

Lean Work Order Processes

Megamation g ((CMMS))

43

Lean Work Order Processes

Work Order Metrics

Process implemented in conjunction with a new CMMS system – Open WO and Work Order Aging dropped dramatically • Open WO from 1,600+ to ~500 • WO Aging 70+ days to just under 20 WO A i 70 d t j t d 20 44

Lean Work Order Processes

Work Order Metrics Average Days Open Average Days Open Average Days Open

69

72

74

75

74

62 54 45 38 32 23 16

14

11

11

10

11

13

15 10

9

6

45

Lean Work Order Processes

Reduce Windshield Time

•5 technicians x 1 hour windshield time daily x 45 weeks=1125 x 45 weeks 1125 hours hours •3 3 months per region months per region •Reduced access to supply house Painters success success •Painters

46

Lean Work Order Processes

MRO Stores •45 technicians x 1 hour windshield time daily •45 technicians x 1 hour windshield time daily x 45 weeks = 2045 hours •Build of materials •Kit materials •Kit materials •Truck stock •Drop ship •Drop ship •P/O 47

Lean Work Order Processes

Electronic Work Order Delivery Electronic Work Order Delivery Objective To enable maintenance employees to receive work orders, and log time on task, by use of held cellular orders, and log time on task, by use of held cellular device.

Common Types of Operating Platforms • Laptop • Cellular 48

Lean Work Order Processes

Electronic Work Order Delivery Electronic Work Order Delivery Integration To Maintenance Management Software • Browser • Designing a form that would interface with our maintenance software maintenance software

T ti Testing and Implementation dI l t ti • • • •

Pilot test group Ch Champions i Roll out to all users Two key components for success Two key components for success 49

Lean Processes

Hand Held With Screen Hand Held With Screen • Log on

• Work Count Work Count

50

Lean Work Order Processes

Hand Held With Screen Open Work Order

51

Lean Processes

Hand Held With Screen Time start Time stop

52

Lean Work Order Processes

Electronic Work Order Delivery Electronic Work Order Delivery

BENEFITS • • • • • •

Less paper and printing “Real Real time time” logging of time on task logging of time on task Can be assigned to multiple employees Less driving time Less driving time Less data entry from paper to computer for staff, allowing more time for other tasks Fewer lost or misplaced work orders 53

Lean Processes

Safety/Training

• • • • • •

Commitment To Our Employees Universal Reporting Form Universal Reporting Form Safety Topics By Department E l Employee Hours Trained H T i d Vendor Training Fairs Accidents and Near Misses

54

Lean Processes

Safety/Training

55

Lean Processes

Safety/Training y/ g

56

Lean Processes

Safety/Training

57

SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT Questions?

Deb Canning Don Betz D bC i D B t Regional Facilities Officer Acting Director Facilities Services San Diego Community College District San Diego Community College District Mesa College dbetz@sdccd.edu g @ dcanning@sdccd.edu (619) 388‐6422 (619) 388‐2814 Charlie Williams Charlie Williams Business Process Supervisor San Diego Community College District chwillia@sdccd.edu ( (619)388‐6422 )

David Umstot, PE David Umstot PE Vice Chancellor, Facilities Management San Diego Community College District dumstot@sdccd.edu ( (619) 388‐6456 )

58