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