FACILITIES SERVICESBALANCED SCORECARD REPORTFY2018 Q1 (JUL – SEP 2017)

FACILITIES SERVICES ACCOMPLISHMENTS  

Building Services Department 

Hosted Annual Custodial Services Recognition event to recognizing the staff for their performance, attendance and years of service. 

Held a Custodial Job Fair that gathered 185 attendees - 165 were interviewed and 110 were passed on as acceptable candidates. 

UW Recycling collected over 15 tons of trash and recycling during Husky Neighborhood Cleanup to prevent illegal dumping in the Greek housing community north of campus. 

UW Recycling promoted recycling at the UW Haring Center Summer Youth Program for children with learning disabilities.  

Transportation Services 

The TS Sales & Admin team implemented numerous processes improvements including: extending office hours during Fall Quarter start and automating citation notice letters. 

TS reached its highest level of safety training compliance to date, with 100% compliance for the first time since the measure has been recorded. 

Reduced lines at gatehouses by limiting manual permit issuance and adding a "fast pass" lane in the CPG parking garage.  

Facilities Maintenance & Construction 

Regulated Materials processes historical data requests were reviewed, resulting in improved safety for employees and building occupants and could save the University up to $500k in haz-mat testing fees. 

South Campus Center replaced a water main header increasing system lifespan by approximately 20 years and repaired a cooling coil ahead of a scheduled “Grand Opening”. 

SWZ accomplished 92% completion of the HFS summer punchlist surpassing the 90% goal and received kudos from the client/HFS. 

Grounds Operations successfully renovated a deteriorating landscape adjacent to Physics Astronomy improving the safety and security needs at the southwest corner of the building. 

Shop 18 Building Envelope Glaziers installing Glass Writing Boards in Foster School of Business as a long-term fix that would save the school time and money in cleaning costs. 

 

Strategic Planning, Engineering, Communications, and Customer Care 

Launched the Quality Assurance program to identify off track work orders and initiate service recovery practices.

Began developing a Customer Care Team UW Connect knowledge base to be used as a living resource and standard work documentation center

Engineering collaborated with Transportation to modernize their campus bike rack and locker inventory and created a public web map. 

Developed a digital three-dimensional inventory of the West Campus Utility Plant (WCUP) allowing CEO and their consultants to take measurements and review the current state of the plant remotely, resulting in significant cost and time savings. 

Finance & Business Services 

FS Stores implemented a new process for ordering lockout-tagout locks ensuring trades staff receive their locks immediately following training. 

UW Shuttles implemented a badge check process on the South Lake Union (SLU) shuttle route, which will alleviate passenger congestion and validate ridership affiliation. 

Fleet Services launched its new asset management software, Assetworks, providing a better system for billing, vehicle maintenance, and metrics tracking. 

Surplus transitioned its electronic newsletter platform to Marketo which is more visually appealing on mobile and desktop with better analysis capabilities. 

Surplus created a new sales report that eliminated the need to retain cash receipts, creating efficiencies and reducing the need for almost 10,000 pieces of paper per year, or one tree.  

 

UW Emergency Management 

Replaced 70 EOC computers and workstations with no loss of service, potentially saving thousands in UW-IT service costs. 

For the 2nd year in a row, successfully completed the annual full-scale test of the UW Indoor Alert System (200+ buildings) with no major issues or complaints. 

Eli King was recognized after being tasked to provide critical (remote) support to Hurricane Harvey recovery efforts in Texas as part of a volunteer team. 

UWEM Director Steve Charvat provided on-site technical evaluation of Florida International University’s emergency management program prior to Hurricane Irma, aiding in a rapid re-opening of their campus. 

UWEM and the EOC was recertified in July 2017 by the UW’s Office of Sustainability, as a “GREEN-certified” office (6 years in a row).  

 

Facilities Employee Services 

FES Safety met with EH&S to develop specific refresher trainings, improving the effectiveness of those trainings. 

With Labor Relations, created a new process for responding to records requests, reducing the resources required to handle future requests. 

FES cross trained in multiple areas, including HR functions and TMS, helping to ensure resiliency of processes. 

The Training Center held a Lean process mapping session and identified areas where process improvement can improve customer service, reduce errors, and improve turnaround time.  

 

Campus Engineering and Operations 

Assisted UWPD, Crisis Communications and Emergency Management with UW’s campus-wide Indoor Alert drill. 

Created shop specific work plans and procedures for Shop23 – Elevator, improving worker safety.  Shop 20 – FOMS and Shop 24 Fire Signal completed all Q3 online training sessions on time,

improving worker safety. 

 

   

Perspective Objective # Measure Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual

Build capacity L2Create a safe and injury-free environment

L2.1 FS-wide incident rate <2 1.9 <2 2.0 <2 1.6 <2 2.2

C2.1 Grounds Resource Utililization >80% 92.2% >185 89.1% >185 87.6%

C2.2Selected Public Spaces at APPA 1 or 2 goal

N/A 53% N/A No data N/A 47.4% >80% 54.3%

P2.1 Water conservation <1028 1149 <1028 1158 <1028 1130 <1017 1156

P2.2 Energy conservation <172.7 189.3 <172.7 191.3 <172.7 190.0 <168.8 188.3

P2.3-1 Carbon Footprint Reduction >12%

P2.4 Waste diversion >67% 64.7% >67% 62.4% >67% 62.0% >67% 61.3%

F1.1 Recharge Center Working Capital 0-10 16, -20 0-10 9, -15 0-10 10,-18 0-10 3, -28

F1.2 Direct Labor to Job Availability =3 1 =3 1 =3 1 =3 1

F1.3 AiM Work Order Actual vs Estimate >50% 26.2% >50% 42.7% >50% 38.8% >50% 27.1

F1.4 Steam Cost <14.78 $ 10.78 <14.78 $ 9.64 <14.78 $ 12.97 <14.78 $15.04

F1.5Resource Conservation Program: RCM ROI

>1 6.53 >1 5.77 >1 10.51 >1 3.27

BREAK (10 minutes)

C1.1 Preventive vs Corrective Maintenance N/A 16.9% >17% 16.9% >20% 20.3% >20% 20.9%

C1.2 FS Repair vs Campus Identified >60% 34% >60% 32% >60% 32% >60% 34%

C1.3 Resilience Planning N/A N/A

P1.1Lean Maturity (formerly Lean Participation)

>80% 49.3% >80% 52.1% >80% 59.7% >80% 61.3%

P1.2 Employee idea implementation >2 0.71 >2 0.72 >2 0.77 >2 0.62

C3.1Expand reach - number of impressions

N/A 42% N/A 45% >60% 33%

C3.2 Response times >90% 75.6% >90% 79.2% >90% 82.8% >90% 84.7%

C3.3 Deadlines Met >90% 88% >90% 88% >90% 90.1% >90% 92.9%

C3.4 Location-based Feedback >80% 71% >80% 72% >80% 71% >80% 77%

C3.5 Completion of Service Survey N/A 84% N/A 95% N/A 87% N/A 89%

Data Not Avail Until Early 2018

Embrace Innovation

P1Engage all staff in continuous improvement

Reduce Cost / Increase Value

F1Deliver cost-effective services

Embrace Innovation

P2Champion environmental stewardship

Enhance the customer / stakeholder experience

C3Be easy to do business with

New Measure (Q3 FY2017)

Provide quality campus spaces and places

New Measure (Q3 FY2017)

Measure in Planning / Development Phase

6/30/17 9/30/17

Enhance the customer / stakeholder experience

C1Deliver a campus ready for business each day

Enhance the customer / stakeholder experience

C2

10.8%

FY2018 BSC - Q1 12/31/16 3/31/17

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Facilities Services Management System, or How We Improve, utilizes a mix of Balanced Scorecard (BSC) and Lean Systems to align staff and processes around achiveing the vision of becoming a world-class organization providing exceptional service, anytime, anywhere. Nearly all strategies utilizing BSC are developed around the alignment of objectives and measures to four themes – customer experience, innovation, internal capacity and financial stewardship. Objectives provide general goals such as “be easy to do business with” while measures directly support those goals with key performance indicators (KPIs). Targets for the KPIs are typically set above benchmarks and increase in difficulty once a target has been met consistently. It is with that, we must note to all attendees of the BSC report out, that failing to meet the target is not necessarily negative, rather it indicates motion towards higher standards of excellence.

The Balanced Scorecard report is summarized by individual measures below.

BUILD CAPACITY ‐ SAFETY 

L2.1 FS‐WIDE INCIDENT RATE Facilities Services aims to continually reduce the injury incident rate for all employees with a goal of becoming better every year (i.e.: to beat the previous record). For Q3 CY2017 there were 20 recordable incidents (a rate of 2.2 per 100 employees) with a target of 2.0 – the target was not met.

 

CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE ‐ SPACES AND PLACES 

C2.1 GROUNDS RESOURCE UTILIZATION Landscape areas around campus are prioritized and evaluated on pre-determined service level targets (high to low levels of maintenance and care). Grounds crew efforts impact APPA levels for these areas. This quarter crews exceeded their targeted goals.

C2.2: DESIGNATED BUILDING SPACES AT APPA LEVEL 1 or 2  Over 80 spaces have been identified as a priority for custodial units to maintain at the highest APPA levels (levels 1 and 2). The last quarter did not reach the 80% target, but was an improvement over the previous quarter.

 

EMBRACE INNOVATION – ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP 

P2.1 WATER CONSERVATION Water Conservation, which aims to reduce water usage across campus, missed its targeted reduction goal. Water usage decreased 1.7% from previous quarter to 1,156,000 gallons per day (rolling 12-mo avg) – which is 14% higher than the target.

P2.2 ENERGY CONSERVATION Energy Conservation, another measure assessing campus sustainability, did not meet its target reduction but showed some improvement. Energy use intensity decreased 0.9% from previous quarter to 188 kBtu/ft2/year.

P2.3 CARBON FOOTPRINT REDUCTION  The carbon footprint measure is only updated once a year after the end of the year (no updates to report this quarter). In 2016 UW almost reached its targeted reduction goals of 11% but was slightly off the mark at 10.76%. The target for 2017 increases to 12% and will be a challenge.

P2.4 DIVERSION RATE  The major indicator of UW’s recycling and composting efforts is the Diversion Rate measure. With a goal of 70% waste diverted from the landfill by 2020. This quarter FS diverted 61% of waste, which was not enough to meet the FY2017 quarterly target of 68%. 

   

FINANCE – REDUCE COST/INCREASE VALUE 

F1.1 RECHARGE CENTER WORKING CAPITAL Working capital in excess of 60 days’ worth may indicate customers are being charged too much for services and is the maximum allowable by UW standards. FS has set a target of less than 10 days working capital to as closely align revenue with overhead as possible. Facilities construction came in at -28 days, indicating revenue loss, while Motor Pool was within the target at 3 days.

F1.2 DIRECT LABOR TO JOB AVAILABILITY By comparing labor hours applied directly to work orders with the total labor hours on site, FS intends to lower the charge rate to customers and increase productivity. Of the three units measured, Campus Operations exceeded the target by 5%, Maintenance was 2% below target, and Construction was 3% below target.

F1.3 AIM WORK ORDER ACTUAL VS ESTIMATE To reduce customer dissatisfaction and misallocation of resources, Facilities has set a goal to improve work order estimates quoted to customers. In Q1 FY2018, 27% of work orders were within the 10% variance - the target of 50% was not met.

F1.4 STEAM COST Facilities Services considers it a success if we can produce steam more efficiently than the local Seattle producer (Enwave). In 2014 Enwave average cost per 1000lbs of steam was $14.78, this last quarter the cost of steam production for UW was $15.04 per 1000lbs – which did not meet the target.

F1.5 RESOURCE CONSERVATION ROI  The Resource Conservation ROI, a measure of the financial soundness of completed energy-conservation projects, exceeded the target of “cost effective” and reported an ROI of $3.27 for every $1 invested.

 

CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE – CAMPUS READINESS 

C1.1 PREVENTIVE VS CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE APPA has benchmarked “comprehensive stewardship” as a 75% preventive to 25% corrective maintenance ratio which has become Facilities Services future goal. This quarter FS reached 21% preventive maintenance, a record level that did not reach the current 25% target.

C1.2 REPAIR: FS VS CAMPUS IDENTIFIED Measure C1.2 was developed to encourage employee identification of issues ahead of customer needs. For Q1 FY2018, the target of 60% was not met. The percentage of FS Employee identified issues increased from 32% to 34% and was likely due to a reduction of students on campus in summer months.

 C1.3 RESILIENCE PLANNING FS aims to increase emergency readiness through a Resilience Planning measure by tracking the status (implemented/up-to-date) of continuity plans throughout FS units. The measure is still in its planning stages.

 

EMBRACE INNOVATION – LEAN TEAMS 

P1.1 LEAN PARTICIPATION As part of the FS Management System, employees are encouraged to participate in continual improvement (daily kaizen). This quarter we achieved a record 65.5% participation in regular (1 or more a week) team huddles, which remains outside the target of 80%.

P1.2 IDEA IMPLEMENTATION The measure of Idea Implementation, an indication of Lean culture, did not meet its target of 2 ideas per person per month. For the 4th quarter in a row, ideas implemented per person remained below 1. This is likely due to the addition of many new participants that may be slow to participate.

CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE – BE EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITH 

C3.1 EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION The measure of effective communication uses a KPI of email open rate statistics for all FS emails - an indicator of message relevance and reader retention. The target of 60% open rate was not met as this quarter’s open rate was only 33% (45% previous qtr).

C3.2 RESPONSE TIMES Facilities Services aims to decrease the amount of time customers spend waiting for acknowledgement of receipt. Response time goals vary by team and urgency, but a target of meeting 90% of those unit level goals was set. This quarter 85% of work orders met their response time goals, the most since the measure launch.

C3.3 DEADLINES MET Deadlines Met compares the target and actual completion times of work orders in maintenance shops. The percent of work orders completed on or before set deadlines increased to 93% for Q1, surpassing the 90% target for the second quarter in a row.

C3.4 LOCATION BASED FEEDBACK Happy-or-Not kiosks record customer satisfaction data at the point of interaction. A target of 80% positive feedback has been set for all results, independent of question asked. Q1 did not include custodial restroom information and therefor was mostly garage cleanliness data. The satisfaction rate was 77%, a record.

C3.5 COMPLETION OF SERVICE SURVEY This measure sets out to improve customer interactions by tying surveys to individual transactions, allowing for a quicker response to customer needs. The measure is still in the process of finding benchmark and target, Q1’s satisfaction rate was 89.1%.

 

BUILD CAPACITY – EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT / RECOGNITION 

L1.1 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT & GROWTH FS has started tracking (this quarter) the number of available positions filled by internal candidates through promotion or transfers. This measures retention, growth, and engagement of employees and reinforces a commitment to invest in current employees.

L3.1 RECOGNIZING, RESPECTING, & LISTENING Employee recognition drives engagement, increases retention, and promotes good leadership. While not every recognition event can be easily recorded, employees that are recognized by team or by name through monthly Lean Huddle surveys have been listed in place of a quantitative measure on slide L3.1.

 

  

OBJECTIVE DEFINITIONS

CHAMPION OWNER

INCIDENT RATES BY QUARTER CY2012-2017 Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Away from target (increase in injury rate)• Qtr Difference: 27% Increase• Year Difference: 9% improvement from Q3 2016

Reasoning?There were 20 recordable cases in FS in Q3 2017. This is two less incidents than occurred in Q3 2016. One (1) department met their target for the quarter, three (3) did not meet their departmental targets, and four departments (4) are continuing at an incident rate of zero (0).

Recommendations: • Reinforce the use of safe work practices, Hazard Review

Checklists/JHA , field checks and verify work plans and permits being completed and followed.

• Proper and consistent use of PPE. • OARS reports should be reviewed and lessons learned implemented

within each department, and FS wide when applicable.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Safety as the first topic at all meetings.• CEO development of JHAs• BSD Slips, Trips, and Falls Focus• Evaluate how to obtain ergonomist services.• Compliance with required training.• Accident Reports Reviewed by senior leaders, monthly.• Monthly operational meeting to discuss safety with FS Senior Leaders

What can we expect in the future?• FS can achieve a quarterly rate below 2.0 for Q4, and below 7.9 for

2017. STEVE CHARVAT TRACEY MOSIER

QUADRANT: BUILD CAPACITYOBJECTIVE L2: EMBRACE A SAFE AND INJURY-FREE WORKPLACEL2.1 FS-WIDE INCIDENT RATE

Measure Intent: Incident rate is the best proxy indicator for safety, and can reflect if our safety improvement efforts are successful.

Measure Formula: Incident rate = the number of recordable incidents X hours worked YTD by 100 FTE*/ actual hours worked by all FTE. * Q1=50,000, Q2= 100,000, Q3=150,000, Q4= 200,000.

3.4

1.2

2.8

2.0

4.0

1.9

3.1

2.5 2.4

1.6 1.7 1.8

2.92.6

2.12.4

1.9 1.91.6

2.2

2.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Qtrly Incident Rate Target

Good

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

4.0

2.8 2.7

1.9

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.9

2.9

0.5

1.8

0.00.2

0.0 0.00.0

0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5

CEO FMC FABS BSD ES TS FES/EM AVP

OSHA Cumulative (Q3) Incident Rates by Dept

Incident Rate Target

OBJECTIVE L2: EMBRACE A SAFE AND INJURY-FREE WORKPLACEL2.1 FS-WIDE INCIDENT RATE

Incident Rate by Department CY2017

Good

BLS DATA for WA State 2015 Incident Rate

All industries 4.5

Construction 5.0

Heavy & CE construction 5.6

Specialty trade contractors 6.1

Passenger transportation 11.5

Warehousing and storage 11.9

Waste management 5.0

Utilities 5.1

Repair and maintenance 6.6

Commentary:

Upper Left: Chart displays cumulative yearly incident rates. Targets are based on best previous year of all recorded years.

Lower Left: Chart displays cumulative incident rates for CY2017 separated by department. Targets are based on departments previous best year incident rates.

Upper Right: Table of incident rates by department for the most recent quarter. Red indicates missing the target. Targets are based on the quarterly average of the previous best calendar year’s incident rates.

Lower Right: Industry data for reference. Industry rates are for entire calendar years.

6.5 6.1 7.6 5.0

7.1 5.7 -

10.1

7.6 7.5 5.9

5.9

-

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

OSHA Cumulative (Q3) Incident Rates

Good

Dept Incidents this Qtr Incident Rate Target Rate

ES 0 0.00 0.00

AVP 0 0.00 0.00

TS 0 0.00 0.19

FES/EM 0 0.00 0.00

FABS 3 2.68 0.45

CEO 4 4.03 0.85

BSD 5 1.86 1.84

FMC 8 2.76 2.95

FS Wide 20 2.21 1.97

CHAMPION OWNER

381

134

199

424

192 197

241216

345

130

177

391

158177

222

174

90.6%97.0%

88.9%92.2%

82.3%

89.8% 92.1%

80.6%

70%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Q3 Q4 Q1

FY2017 FY2018

Points Available Points Received Percent Target

Q4 (89.1%)

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE APPA SERVICE LEVEL EVALUATION Movement:• Target Met? Yes• Toward or Away: Within target (met)• Qtr Difference: -1.5 points (87.6 average vs 89.1 past qtr)• Year Difference: N/A

Reasoning:Summer month weather activated more of the outdoor spaces, which increased the amount of litter across campus. Plant growth activity still high and a surge in manual watering required due to multiple mainline irrigation breaks. In addition, short 3 gardeners due to temporary hiring freeze and 150+ hours of Leave Without Pay, reduced our ability to provide the requisite service level hours in each of the zones.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Winter renovation projects of overgrown landscapes;• Safety/security landscape renewals funded projects;• Biosolid soil mix specs for current CPD projects (weed control);• 3-year landscape maintenance service agreement integrated into

project costs for the grow-in period (Population Health).

Recommendations:Staff analysis of problematic areas across all of the maintenance zones to identify landscapes that can be modified to reduce the frequency of care that is required. Hire for vacant positions.

What can we expect in the future:• Unfunded water quality and storm management mandates are being

integrated into the landscapes of all new projects. We will need to strategically realign our staffing efforts to stay in compliance, further diminishing our campus landscape aesthetic quality.

• Although rated scores are above the target, they do not align with the preferred conditions in the field. We will re-evaluate the scoring process to consider weighing the evaluation criteria differently.GENE WOODARD HOWARD NAKASE

QUADRANT: ENHANCE CUSTOMER / STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCEOBJECTIVE C2: PROVIDE QUALITY CAMPUS SPACES AND PLACESC2.1 GROUNDS RESOURCE UTILIZATION

Measure Intent: Evaluating the different maintenance service levels of landscape areas on campus will help identify and prioritize the areas to focus our resource efforts, as well as assert a level of accountability within our operations.

Measure Formula: Percentage of points possible for rated campus maintenance zones. Zones are evaluated based on APPA Maintenance Levels 2-5, with possible scores of 10, 10, 9, and 4 respectively.

Goo

d

Q1 (87.6%)

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

OBJECTIVE C2: PROVIDE QUALITY CAMPUS SPACES AND PLACESC2.1 GROUNDS RESOURCE UTILIZATION

SqFt Maintained Per Hour Strategic Alignment

1. Reduce Maintenance Levels

2. Reduce Maintenance task/Frequency

3. Change Landscapes

4. Design Process improvements

5. Hire Additional Staff

Advantages of New Streetscape Construction

81

43

106

59

8668

89122

100.0% 97.7% 95.3% 94.9% 91.9% 89.7%77.5%

68.9%70%

0

50

100

150

200

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

5 7 2 3 8 4 6 1 Num

ber

of P

oint

s Av

aila

ble

/ Po

ssib

le

perc

ent o

f Poi

nts

Zone (sorted by % of points)

Possible Points by Zone For Q1 FY2018

Points Available Points Received Percent Target

612

660

512

200

89.7% 87.7% 88.9%95.5%

70%

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2 3 4 5

Num

ber

of P

oint

s Av

aila

ble

/ Pos

sibl

e

perc

ent o

f Poi

nts

APPA Score

Percent Possible by APPA Score

Points Available Points Received Percent Target

CHAMPION OWNER

251

323 341379 352

317

39.0%

50.2%53.0%

58.9%54.7%

49.3%

80%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

4/1/2017 5/1/2017 6/1/2017 7/1/2017 8/1/2017 9/1/2017

Total Areas Areas Meeting Target Percent Meeting Target Target %

54.3%Q1 FY18

PERCENT OF SELECTED AREAS MEETING APPA TARGETS Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Q1 average was closer than Q4 FY2017• Qtr Difference: Average was 6.9 points higher (54.3 vs 47.4)• Year Difference: N/A

Reasoning?• The low APPA score was greatly affected by staffing and absenteeism

throughout all the seven work areas. • With sixteen current open positions, the current square footage per

custodian is roughly 50k per custodian, and the necessity to cover open runs greatly effects the quality of service that is expected by our customers.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• A very successful hiring job fair was conducted in October, there are

approximately 11 applicants going through reference and background checks.

• MiniMax adoption in every building (ongoing)• Reallocation and prioritization of staff to APPA buildings.• Utilizing Project Crew Team to APPA buildings.

Recommendations: • Continue the onboarding efforts presently take place.• Continue assessing and prioritizing designated spaces.

What can we expect in the future?• APPA targets should improve with future MiniMax efforts being made

with recycling, specifically in the Health Science Buildings. • Significant hours should be reallocated to iconic locations over trash

collection in offices.

GENE WOODARD VICTOR CARDONA

QUADRANT: ENHANCE CUSTOMER / STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCEOBJECTIVE C2: PROVIDE QUALITY CAMPUS SPACES AND PLACESC2.2: DESIGNATED BUILDING SPACES AT APPA LEVEL 1 OR 2

Measure Intent: To increase and/or maintain cleaning levels by prioritizing and tracking high-profile/usage public spaces.

Measure Formula: The percent of selected building spaces at APPA rating 1 or 2.81 selected buildings were based on traffic and profile, with selected hallways, classrooms, entryways, and restrooms.

Goo

d

47.4%Q4 FY17

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

OBJECTIVE C2: PROVIDE QUALITY CAMPUS SPACES AND PLACESC2.2: DESIGNATED BUILDING SPACES AT APPA LEVEL 1 OR 2

Comments:Area E, Bank of America, Paccar, Denny etc) had the highest percentage of spaces meeting desired APPA levels.

The chart shows a trend of higher APPA percentage with less spaces per area. Areas A and B have the largest number of spaces to inspect. Adjustments will be made after assessing the current spaces.

The 5 APPA Levels Defined 1 – Orderly Spotlessness (eat off the floor) 2 – Orderly Tidiness (fingerprints/low dust)3 – Casual Inattention (looks good at distance)4 – Moderate Dinginess (obvious dirt buildup)5 – Unkempt Neglect (cobwebs abound)

126

153

183

288

255

426

525

126 133

159184

157 148 141

100.0%

86.9% 86.9%

63.9%61.6%

34.7%

26.9%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

E D G C F A B

Num

ber

of A

reas

Perc

ent M

eetin

g AP

PA T

arge

t

FY2018 Q1 Areas Meeting APPA Level 2 or Higher

Total Areas Areas Meeting Target Percent Meeting Target

CHAMPION OWNER

ROLLING 12-MONTH AVERAGE WATER CONSUMPTION Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Farther than previous qtr (away)• Qtr Difference: 1.7% worse• Year Difference: 3.5% worse (415M gal vs 411M gal)

Reasoning?Recent increases due to failures of some steam water heater and cooling tower equipment, Drumheller Fountain cleaning, cooling tower cleanings, warm summertime temperatures, largest-ever shutdown of CCW Central Cooling Water system to install new piping, CPD construction activities, and occupancy of new capital projects after completion near end of biennium.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Tube bundles replaced in More, SCC, VDG, ATG. Searching for tube

bundle leaks in T-Wing East and near Portage Bay• Drumheller Fountain biennial cleaning in May 2017 • H-Wing cooling tower tube bundle leaking, needs replacement• New CCW pipe installed toward Life Sciences Bldg, April 2017

Recommendations:Replace H-Wing cooling tower. Identify and replace old assets before failure to avoid waste. Implement measures found by Resource Conservation Team, including replacement of single-pass city-water cooled equipment and lowering humidity setpoints.

What can we expect in the future?Long term, completion and occupancy of new LSB, CSEII, Burke, Fluke, UWMC Exp Ph 2, North Campus Housing, Population Health buildings will add to usage.

JOHN CHAPMAN JOE COOK

QUADRANT: EMBRACE INNOVATIONOBJECTIVE P2: CHAMPION ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIPP2.1 WATER CONSERVATION

Measure Intent: Water conservation is one of the best indicators of our impact as a champion of environmental stewardship.

Measure Formula: Central campus annual water consumption. Data from 7 main meters – excludes buildings served by SPU and re-used rainwater.

10621115

1054 10451008

962 981

1074 1080 1111 1118 11101149 1158 1130 1156

1017

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

FY2009FY2010FY2011FY2012FY2013FY2014FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Aver

age

Usag

e Ga

llons

Per

Day

(100

0's)

Water Use, kGPD Target kGPD

Good

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

OBJECTIVE P2: CHAMPION ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIPP2.1 WATER CONSERVATION

Commentary• For central campus only, water+sewer costs of

~$9.1M during year ending September 2017 are an increase of ~$520k over prior year. Higher cost due increased usage plus 1.5% higher water rate and 4.8% higher sewer rate vs prior year. Water+Sewer Cost = $0.0247/gallon = $18.46/CCF

• SPU 2018-2023 strategic plan proposes 5.5% average annual rate increases

• Rate increases and campus growth may push UW water/sewer costs up $3.8M by FY2022

• For 12-M ending September 2017 versus prior year, Central Plant cooling tower makeup down 14.3% to 31.9M gal (excluding WCUP), steam makeup up 42% to 26.0M gal (17% of total feedwater vs 11.4% in year prior), overall CP water usage up 8.1% to 65.8M gal

• Largest-ever shutdown of CCW system to add new pipes toward Life Sciences Bldg in March 2017.

• Most bldg cooling towers cleaned Feb/Mar 2017

• H-Wing cooling tower tube bundle leaking, needs replacement.

• CPD projects using some additional water for fire flow tests, pipe pressure testing and flushing, dust control

• CPD exploring feasibility of sustainability measures at Population Health, which would increase code-required maintenance for systems including rainwater/graywater harvesting filters, UV, cistern, pumps

$8,898,754 $12,711,452

$-

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

FY20

08FY

2009

FY20

10FY

2011

FY20

12FY

2013

FY20

14FY

2015

FY20

16FY

2017

FY20

18FY

2019

FY20

20FY

2021

FY20

22

Cent

ral C

ampu

s W

ater

/Sew

er C

ost,

$

Rate hikes plus campus growth may drive up future water/sewer costs

Estimated Water+Sewer by New Construction

Future Water+Sewer w/ Rate Increase

Water+Sewer

Fishery Sciences water heater over-temping. On campus, every 1 gallon per minute (gpm) of hot water leaking nonstop costs $1,420 per month ($1,080/mo. for water/sewer; $340/mo. for steam)

0

100

200

300

400

500

Cool

ing

Degr

ee D

ays -

Rolli

ng 1

2M

Cooling Degree Days at 136% of 10-Year

Average

Sep Dec Mar Jun

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Heat

ing

Degr

ee D

ays -

Rolli

ng 1

2M

Heating Degree Days near 10-Year Average

Sep Dec Mar Jun

CHAMPION OWNER

ANNUAL ENERGY USE INTENSITY (SITE) FOR PREVIOUS 12-MO PERIOD Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Closer than previous qtr (toward)• Qtr Difference: 0.9% improvement• Year Difference: 0.6% better

Reasoning?Many factors contribute. EUI rate improves when efficient office or housing buildings come online (Denny, UWPD in 2016) but gets offset when new energy-intensive buildings are occupied (ARCF - June 2017, Nano - July 2017). Several leaking heat exchangers have been, or will be, replaced.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Leaking tube bundles fixed in VDG, More, SCC, ATG. Trying to find

source of leaking tube bundle at T-Wing East and near Portage Bay • CPD projects completed with efficiency measures (ARCF, Nano)

Recommendations:Identify and replace old assets before failure. Populate master asset profiles and broadcast to shops so they can easily find equipment locations. Proceed with ideas found by Resource Conservation Team, including variable frequency drive installs, Building Automation System upgrades, leaking steam valve replacements, controls adjustments such as temperature and static pressure resets; repairs to economizers, steam traps, insulation, etc.

What can we expect in the future?Savings from energy conservation projects may be offset by new energy-intensive buildings Nano-Engineering, ARCF, UWMC Phase 2, Life Sciences Building.

JOHN CHAPMAN JOE COOK

QUADRANT: EMBRACE INNOVATIONOBJECTIVE P2: CHAMPION ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIPP2.2 ENERGY CONSERVATION

Measure Intent: Energy conservation is one of the best indicators of our impact as a champion of environmental stewardship.

Measure Formula: Central campus annual electricity used (in kBtu) per GSF + annual fuel used (in kBtu) per GSF (adjusted for heating degree days). Excludes non-central campus energy usage. Excludes on-site renewable energy usage.

188.3

168.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

EUI,

kBtu

/ft2 /

year

Total Energy Usage Average of Target Energy Usage

Good

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

OBJECTIVE P2: CHAMPION ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIPP2.2 ENERGY CONSERVATION

Commentary:• For central campus only, energy costs of ~$27.9M during year

ending September 2017 are an increase of ~$1.8M compared to the prior year. Electricity rate increased 6.7% to $0.071/kWh while gas rate decreased 3.3% to $0.42/therm over previous year.

• SCL 2017-2022 strategic plan proposes 4.3% average annual rate hike

• Rate increases and campus growth may push utility costs up $5.8M by FY2022

• For 12-months ending September 2017 versus year prior, Central Plant chiller usage down 27.4% to 18,379,080 ton-hours (note WCUP online now); steam usage down 4.9% to 1,240,698 klbs; turbine generator electricity down 46% to 12,906,703 kWh (repairs in FY18q1); diesel generator electricity up 10.2% to 125,390 kWh; compressed air down 1.6% to 932,558 kCF

• Compared to previous period, electricity EUI up 1.5% and fuel EUI down 2.0%. Some fuel decrease due to turbine generator offline for maintenance. Some electricity decrease due to new efficient HFS dorms added to Central Plant electricity.

• Compared to 10-year averages, this 12-M period’s heating degree days slightly below normal at 4400 (vs 4421 average) and cooling degree days are 36% above normal at 323 (vs 241 average).

• For this measure, data includes buildings supplied by electricity from East and West Receiving Stations (~15.7M ft2 incl parking garages) and UW Central Plant steam (~12.8M ft2), and excludes buildings supplied directly by public utilities SCL (electricity) and PSE (natural gas). EUI (Site) includes energy consumed on the campus-level as metered by public utilities at Receiving Stations (electricity) and Central Plant (natural gas and fuel oil). Excludes on-site renewable energy usage.

• UW Energy Dashboard: http://dashboard.mckinstry.com/uw/

$27,173,797.42

$33,010,166.11

$- $5

$10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35

Ener

gy C

ost,

$Mill

ions

Rate hikes and campus growth may drive up costs

Electricity Future Electricity w/ Rate IncreaseEstimated Electricity by New Construction FuelFuture Fuel w/ Rate Increase Estimated Fuel by New Construction

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

Q1

FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

MM

Btu

Actual Energy Use, Non-Normalized

Electricity Fuel

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Q4 Q1

FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

EUI,

kBtu

/ft2

/yea

r

Normalized EUI by Energy Source

Electricity (excluding turbine)

Fuel (including turbine energy)

CHAMPION OWNER

0.00

%

0.71

%

2.51

%

0.38

%

7.20

%

8.72

%

5.07

%

7.91

%

4.69

%

8.83

%

9.03

%

10.7

6%

#N/A

#N/A

#N/A

#N/A1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

15%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Perc

ent M

gCO

2e R

educ

tion

from

200

5 Ba

selin

e

MgCO2e % Change Target

PERCENT MGCO2E REDUCTION FROM 2005 BASELINE YEAR Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Toward• Year Difference: 1.8 point improvement

Reasoning?Despite the historical trend towards reduced MgCO2e emissions, this is not expected to continue due to the: 1) construction of additional facilities at the Seattle/Bothell/Tacoma campuses, 2) acquisition of offsite UW facilities (Northwest Hospital), 3) inclusion of ICA athletics and study abroad travel, 4) planned 2018 readjustment to the UW baseline, and 5) general update to the MgCO2e emissions estimating methodology.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Convert Seattle Campus heating systems to hot water (on hold)• Facility Services Resource Conservation Program Initiatives • Fleet Services Fuel Conversion (E85 & Electric)

Recommendations:FS should continue to implement carbon and energy-saving projects throughout the Seattle campus. Exploration of the viability and associated cost of purchasing carbon offsets or allowances should continue.

What can we expect in the future?The UW will not meet its carbon footprint reduction goal without implementing energy-saving initiatives or purchasing offsets. Developing and implementing energy-saving initiatives prior to 2020 will reduce or eliminate the need to purchase carbon credits. Note: A project has been started to update the UW “facility” baseline emissions estimate, and to account for changes to the GHG protocol which now includes regional electricity-related emissions. JOHN CHAPMAN DAVID OGRODNIK

QUADRANT: EMBRACE INNOVATIONOBJECTIVE P2: CHAMPION ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIPP2.3 CARBON FOOTPRINT REDUCTION

Measure Intent: To reduce UW’s carbon emissions by 15% by the year 2020 from the 2005 baseline year.

Measure Formula: Percent difference in annual metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent (MgCO2e) emissions relative to baseline calendar year 2005 emissions.

Goo

d

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

OBJECTIVE P2: CHAMPION ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIPP2.3 CARBON FOOTPRINT REDUCTION

Comments:

• Scope 1 includes “direct” emissions from UW equipment and facilities (natural gas heating, vehicle fleets, landfill). Scope 2 includes “energy import” emissions from non-UW facilities that generate the steam and electricity purchased by UW-owned facilities. Scope 3 emissions originate from sources not classified as Scope 1 or 2. UW has decided to included commuting, professional travel and off-campus medical facilities in Scope 3.

• Increased 2016 Power Plant %MgCO2e emissions (relative to 2015) is associated with the increased operation of 1) lower efficiency steam boilers, and 2) steam turbines used to generate electricity.

• Calendar year 2015 and 2016 (SeaTac Airport Station) heating degree day values (⁰F) are 3855 and 3827, respectively. This suggests that weather had a relatively minor influence on 2016 Power Plant and Seattle building MgCO2e emissions relative to 2015.

• Reduced 2016 Seattle Campus commuting MgCO2e emissions (relative to the 201) is associated with the startup of the UW Link light rail station (changing commuter habits).

• Decreasing landfill MgCO2e emissions is expected to continue with increasing landfill age.

• Decreasing Seattle vehicle MgCO2e emissions is associated with increasing alternate fuel consumption.

• Tacoma, Bothell, Seattle building and professional travel MgCO2e emissions remain relatively stable.

Goo

d

-

50

100

150

200

250

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

MgC

O2e

Out

put i

n Th

ousa

nds

Total Scope 1-3 MgCO2e Emissions from 2005

Fleet

Tacoma (Scope 1-3)

Bothel (Scope 1-3)

Landfill

Seattle Buildings Other

Off-Campus Medical

Professional Travel

Seattle Commuting

Power Plant

Target by Weight

CHAMPION OWNER

58.9

%59

.3%

56.4

%57

.2%

60.9

%60

.8%

60.4

%59

.3%

62.9

%63

.4%

67.1

%66

.4%

61.5

%62

.1%

64%

61.7

%65

.4%

64.7

%62

.4%

62.0

%61

.3%

68%

62.9%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Diversion Rate Target Rolling 12-Month Diversion Rate

QUARTERLY DIVERSION RATE Movement:• Target Met? No, the goal of 68% was not met.• Toward or Away: Away• Qtr Difference: 2.2 point decline• Year Difference: 0.2 point decrease

Reasoning?A few recycling streams decreased this quarter: mixed construction and demolition waste, metal, concrete, and scrap metal all decreased this quarter by 180 tons.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Improved bulky material collection (FMC, corp yard)• University waste characterization study in high generation areas• Improved food waste collection from UWMC and HFS• 100% academic/facilities implementation of the MiniMax Program

Recommendations:In order to stay on track to meet our goal of 70% waste diversion by 2020, we will invest in a waste characterization study to be more strategic in our diversion efforts. Continue collaboration with campus partners on targeted education programs, new buildings, and investment in infrastructural improvement and education.

What can we expect in the future?Given the results of the Cedar Grove route audit we completed in FY2016 and the impact it had on our food waste weights, we do not anticipate being able to reach our fiscal year 2018 goal of 68% waste diversion.

JOHN CHAPMAN LIZ GIGNILLIAT

QUADRANT: EMBRACE INNOVATIONOBJECTIVE P2: CHAMPION ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIPP2.4 DIVERSION RATE

Measure Intent: Diversion rate is the key outcome indicator of success at promoting recycling and composting on the UW campus.

Measure Formula: The percentage of campus waste that is being diverted from landfill, accumulated through fiscal year.

Goo

d

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

$163

,544

$188

,178

$127

,602

$156

,767

$150

,889

$157

,510

$151

,435

$153

,100

$169

,736

$186

,631

$182

,415

$209

,605

$116

,827

$122

,027

$115

,060

$106

,169

$123

,309

$110

,298

$101

,814

$104

,933

$74,

917

1,575

1,821

1,517

1,707

1,700

1,980

1,796

1,880

1,784

2,127

2,139

2,374

1,651

1,980

1,8571,818

1,968

2,058

1,893

2,015

1,732

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Waste Diversion Cost Avoidance

Waste Diversion Cost Avoidance Diverted Tons

OBJECTIVE P2: CHAMPION ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIPP2.4 DIVERSION RATE

Diverting Waste Reduces Costs

Every quarter we track the disposal cost savings of our diversion efforts. In Q1 we diverted 1,732 tons of material. If we sent that material to the landfill we would have spent over $251,000 on disposal costs. We spent over 176,000 on recycling this quarter, creating a cost avoidance of nearly $75,000.

Fluctuating net avoided disposal costs this quarter were driven by several things:• Revised weight estimate lowered our food

waste tonnage.• Decrease in disposal of materials with lower

disposal rates, increase in disposal of materials with higher disposal rates:

• Metal earns $60/ton• Cardboard/Paper earns $45/ton• Comingled Recycling costs $0/ton• Resold/Reused/Donated costs $0/ton• Wood & Landscape waste costs $46/ton• Food waste costs $63/ton• C&D mixed waste costs $93/ton• Garbage costs $145/ton• Styrofoam costs $320/ton• Appliances cost $350/ton• Electronics cost $480/ton• Spent lighting cost $1,000/ton• eMedia costs $1,300/ton

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

OBJECTIVE P2: CHAMPION ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIPP2.4 DIVERSION RATE

Commentary:

UW’s waste diversion story is still impressive despite not reaching our waste diversion goal!

First, the composition of our recycling and food waste streams is changing and the weight of those waste streams is a lot lighter than years past (thanks in large part to lighter recyclable and compostable food packaging).

Second, overall landfill waste generated per FTE on the UW Campus is on the decline while waste diversion per FTE is much higher.

At the end of FY2016 the average person at UW diverted 233 lbs of waste and only landfilled 142 lbs over the course of the year.

Because it will be harder and harder to achieve our overall waste diversion goal, tracking how much waste is generated per FTE will become more and more important and more accurate way to tell the UW’s waste diversion story.

The MiniMax program increases waste awareness while increasing access to recycling and composting containers across campus. The more buildings converted to MiniMax waste infrastructure standards, the less material will go to the landfill.

183

170 169162 160

148142

120

140

160

180

200

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

Poun

ds p

er p

erso

n (F

TE) Pounds Landfilled Per Person (FTE-year)

Landfilled/FTE

6,726

6,417

6,547

6,621

7,360 8,569

7,351

7,935

5,183

4,901

4,934

4,790

4,802

4,504

4,406

4,541

56% 57% 57% 58%61%

66%63% 64%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

Perc

ent D

iver

ted

Tons

of M

ater

ial

Diverted Landfilled Diversion Rate

CHAMPION OWNER

2129

15

7

-5 -4-20

-15 -18

-28

14

13

10 4

7 13 16

9 10 3

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep

2015 2016 2017

Day

s of

Wor

king

Cap

ital

Quarter

Target Min Facilities construction Motor Pool Target Max

RECHARGE CENTER – DAYS OF WORKING CAPITAL Movement:• Target Met? Construction = No, Motor Pool = Yes• Toward or Away: FC moved away, MP remained in target.• Qtr Difference: 10 days further away from target for FC, MP still

within target. • Year Difference: 24 days further away for FC. From outside target to

within for MP

Reasoning?For construction, skilled trades FTE (58) was less then required FTE (64) to generate revenue and productivity was at 76% which was lower than required 79%. Further causes listed on supplementary slide. Fleet Services was hit by a higher consulting fee associated with implementation of the software and unexpected expensive bus repairs.

Recommendations: • Aggressively pursue client projects, improve client relationships.• Focus minor capital dollars towards construction, using as filler work.• Bring on new Superintendent staff, restructure roles, assign key

clients, define routing of work.• Backfill open positions quickly, reduce the number of HLD’s.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Visual management, PM workflow improvements, direct-to-job for

leads, supply chain management, and daily productivity reports.• Monitor and perform daily corrections using new productivity reports• PM team continue to meet weekly using lean practices to develop

ideas and improve processes

What can we expect in the future?• Historically, the 4th quarter (October – December) was a very slow

quarter because of holidays and vacation. Expect that Facilities Construction will continue the negative trend.JIM ANGELOSANTE LORI NATSUME

QUADRANT: REDUCE COST / INCREASE VALUEOBJECTIVE F1: DELIVER COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICESF1.1 RECHARGE CENTER WORKING CAPITAL

Measure Intent: A working capital of more than 60 days may indicate overcharging of customers and is the maximum allowable by UW. FS has set a goal of 10 days to as closely align revenue with overhead as possible.

Measure Formula: Days of Working Capital = Budget Balance/Daily Expenditure

Good

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

OBJECTIVE F1: DELIVER COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICESF1.1 RECHARGE CENTER WORKING CAPITAL

Fleet:• Fleet Services had a positive balance

as of $37k as of Sep 30th, 2017 which equates to positive 3 days working capital – within the target range.

• Positive 10 days working capital was carryforward from previous biennium,

Construction:• Construction had a negative balance of 530k

as of Sep 30th, 2017 which equates to negative 28 days working capital. Well outside the target range.

• Negative 22 days working capital was carryforward from previous biennium.

Construction Contributors:• Reduction in client funded project work• Delayed approval of minor capital budget.• Inefficient project management processes

resulting in delayed client approvals• Reduction in project management staffing • Reduced FTE count resulting in earning

potential• The actual skilled trades FTE (58) was less then

required FTE (64) to generate revenue. • Productivity was at 76% which was lower than

required 79%.

597

698

370

167

-117 -103

-473

-343

-409

-530

167 180139

61104

187220

122 142

37

$(600)

$(400)

$(200)

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep

2015 2016 2017

Wor

king

Cap

ital (

in T

hous

ands

)

Working Capital ($ Thousands) by Rolling Biennium Quarter

FS Construction Motor Pool

CHAMPION OWNER

70%

68% 77

%

68%

71% 78

%

76%

79%

Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep

2016 2017

Facilities Construction

PERCENT HOURS APPLIED DIRECTLY TO WORK Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Away from target• Qtr Difference: none, 2/3 still not at target• Year Difference: FM was at target, is no longer.

Reasoning:Lower construction productivity rate was likely due to: Vacant positions, Leads out on FMLA, HLD’s resulting in lower productivity numbers; Slow development of work and handling time for projects; Slow down of shop direct work, resulting in lack of filler work.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Facilities Construction reorganization• Monitoring and Reviewing daily labor hours • Visual board for managed projects• Client outreach to generate business

Recommendations:• Increase productivity with good planning and scheduling • Improve project manager efficiency to push projects forward quickly

and decrease wait time before and during work order execution• Cut back on overhead cost to improve budget balance

What can we expect in the future?• October – February were slow months for construction and it is

expected that the productivity would be lower then the target 79%.

JIM ANGELOSANTE LORI NATSUME

QUADRANT: REDUCE COST / INCREASE VALUEOBJECTIVE F1: DELIVER COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICESF1.2 DIRECT LABOR TO JOB AVAILABILITY

Measure Intent: To deliver cost–effective services to clients. Higher direct labor to job availability could result a lower charge rate.

Measure Formula: Direct labor to job availability % (excluding Supervisors) = hours applied directly to work orders/total hours on site/100

Goo

d

89%

90%

91%

92%

92%

91%

92%

87%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep

2016 2017

Campus Operations

86%

85%

86%

84%

82%

84%

85%

87%

Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep

2016 2017

Facilities Maintenance

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

OBJECTIVE F1: DELIVER COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICESF1.2 DIRECT LABOR TO JOB AVAILABILITY

$290

$101

$(328)

$(203)

$(290)

$20

$(370)

$130*

$(67)

$(121)

80% 82%

73%

70%68%

77%

68%

71%

78%

76%

79%

$(500)

$(400)

$(300)

$(200)

$(100)

$-

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

58%

61%

64%

67%

70%

73%

76%

79%

82%

85%

88%

91%

94%

97%

100%

Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep

2015 2016 2017

Qua

rter

ly B

alan

ce in

$$

(Tho

usan

ds)

Prod

uctiv

ity R

ate

PERCENT CONSTRUCTION HOURS APPLIED DIRECTLY TO WORK

Quarter Balance Construction Productivity Target

* Note: Overhead lean cost in the amount of $408K was transferred out in February 2017, the balance would have been -$278K.

CHAMPION OWNER

37.5

%

23.8

%

0.0%

25.0

%

0.0%

37.5

%

37.5

%

100.

0%

18.2

%

50.0

%

24.3

%

24.7

%

20.1

%

25.5

%

31.3

%

29.2

%

25.7

%

42.3

%

39.7

%

26.0

%

50.0%

25.0% 24.6%19.5%

25.5%30.7% 29.5%

26.2%

42.7%38.8%

27.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep

2015 2016 2017

Fixed Cost Time & Material Target Total

% OF WORK ORDERS WITH +/- 10% VARIANCE Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Away• Qtr Difference: 11.7 points further away• Year Difference: 2.4 points further away

Reasoning; The variance of -10/+10% with a 90% confidence is considered to be acceptable. This measure also works as a customer satisfaction and process improvement KPI. The discrepancies between estimated and completed have several reasons: Primarily – work orders not being updated and contingencies not being used.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Identify resources to update work orders prior to entering "closed"

status• Work order review and client outreach• Analyze WO's that were closed over budget by more that 10% -

customer communication/awareness.

Recommendations:• Edit work orders to reflect cost changes throughout the course of the

project. • Provide staff training in estimating and evaluate cost effectiveness

to have an estimator on staff. • Review and determine protocol to determine and account for

contingencies in a way that does not reflect in AiM estimate.

What can we expect in the future?• Continued increase toward the goal of 50% as procedures and

protocol for work order accuracies are improved.

JIM ANGELOSANTE RICH DIERCK

QUADRANT: REDUCE COST / INCREASE VALUEOBJECTIVE F1: DELIVER COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICESF1.3 AIM WORK ORDER ACTUAL VS ESTIMATE

Measure Intent: To improve work estimates and planning to more closely match the actual result. Inaccurate estimates can result client dissatisfaction and misallocation of resources.

Measure Formula: # work order variance within -10/+10% divided by total number of work orders. Only applies to work orders closed in the quarter that are over $1000 and excludes Maintenance Corrective work orders.

Goo

d

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

OBJECTIVE F1: DELIVER COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICESF1.3 AIM WORK ORDER ACTUAL VS ESTIMATE

AiM Work Order Actual and Estimate Variance by Quarter

Commentary:We continue to see trends of construction projects being completed within the 10% variance or beyond the 10% variance but below the estimate.

Date Work Order Type# of Work

Order <10%

% of WO with -

10/+10% Variance Estimate Actual

Over/ (Under) Estimate

Jun-15 Total 284 71 25% $ 2,625,092 $ 2,479,940 $ (145,152)Sep-15 Total 410 101 25% $ 4,371,884 $ 4,125,245 $ (246,639)Dec-15 Total 205 40 20% $ 1,724,376 $ 1,718,109 $ (6,267)Mar-16 Total 345 88 26% $ 3,395,290 $ 3,135,333 $ (259,957)Jun-16 Total 257 79 31% $ 2,408,953 $ 2,386,056 $ (22,898)Sep-16 TM (construction) 171 50 29% $ 1,279,896 $ 1,171,290 $ (108,606)Sep-16 TM (Maintenance) 41 12 29% $ 535,747 $ 606,166 $ 70,419 Sep-16 FC (Construction) 8 3 38% $ 77,932 $ 74,381 $ (3,551)Sep-16 FC (Maintenance) - - -Sep-16 Total 220 65 30% $ 1,893,576 $ 1,851,838 $ (41,738)Dec-16 TM (construction) 169 44 26% $ 1,557,286 $ 1,197,337 $ (359,949)Dec-16 TM (Maintenance) 10 2 20% $ 367,638 $ 704,418 $ 336,780 Dec-16 FC (Construction) 8 3 38% $ 132,604 $ 119,044 $ (13,560)Dec-16 FC (Maintenance) - - -Dec-16 Total 187 49 26% $ 2,057,529 $ 2,020,799 $ (36,730)Mar-17 TM (construction) 130 50 38% $ 1,652,981 $ 1,447,220 $ (205,761)Mar-17 TM (Maintenance) 12 10 83% $ 477,624 $ 441,145 $ (36,479)Mar-17 FC (Construction) 1 1 100% $ 6,390 $ 6,253 $ (137)Mar-17 FC (Maintenance) 0 0 $ - $ - $ -Mar-17 Total 143 61 43% $ 2,136,995 $ 1,894,617 $ (242,378)Jun-17 TM (construction) 219 88 40% $ 1,678,415 $ 1,515,318 $ (163,097)Jun-17 TM (Maintenance) 10 3 30% $ 257,418 $ 277,520 $ 20,102 Jun-17 FC (Construction) 11 2 18% $ 155,683 $ 116,818 $ (38,866)Jun-17 FC (Maintenance) -Jun-17 Total 240 93 39% $ 2,091,516 $ 1,909,655 $ (181,861)Sep-17 TM (construction) 244 65 27% $ 1,895,173 $ 1,666,449 $ (228,724)Sep-17 TM (Maintenance) 21 4 19% $ 580,138 $ 476,028 $ (104,110)Sep-17 FC (Construction) 12 6 50% $ 119,326 $ 99,880 $ (19,445)Sep-17 FC (Maintenance) $ - $ - $ -Sep-17 Total 277 75 27% $ 2,594,637 $ 2,242,358 $ (352,280)

CHAMPION OWNER

AVERAGE STEAM COST PER 1000LBS Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Away• Qtr Difference: $2.07 more expensive• Year Difference: $3.42 more expensive

Reasoning?UW Power Plant generated about 1.275 M units (1000lbs per unit) steam in FY17 to heat 157 buildings with approximately 13M GSF. For the quarter ending 9/30/2017, the average steam cost for per 1000 lbswas increased from $12.97 to $15.04. The average steam production was 68,892 units (1000lbs per unit) which was decreased by 32% compared with last quarter, thus increased the steam cost.

In addition to the fuel price reduction, minimized number of boilers running, keep up preventive maintenance schedule (less breakdown) and keep staff to a minimum level (increase productivity). T he higher steam cost in the summer months was due to a low demand in steam with same level of staffing cost.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• None

Recommendations: Benchmarking the fuel cost of steam generation, in dollars per 1,000 pounds ($/1,000 lb) of steam, is an effective way to assess the efficiency of the steam system. Also taking advantage of the lower fuel price to co-generate more electricity would save the overall energy cost.

What can we expect in the future?Expect the steam cost to be lower than the national average. When fuel price goes down, the steam cost would go down as well.

JIM ANGELOSANTE MARK KIRSCHENBAUM

QUADRANT: REDUCE COST / INCREASE VALUEOBJECTIVE F1: DELIVER COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICESF1.4 STEAM COST

Measure Intent: To reduce the cost of steam production through continuous improvement efforts.

Measure Formula: $/1000 lbs. =Total operating and Capital cost/Total Steam Produced/1000

Good

16.0

1

11.2

3

11.9

7

13.8

5 18.6

1

11.4

9

11.6

4 15.3

4

16.0

0

9.22 9.89

10.6

7

11.6

2

10.7

8

9.64 12

.97

15.0

4

14.78

11.77

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

UW Steam Cost Seattle Steam 12-mo Rolling Average

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Distribution $0.56 $0.43 $0.13 $0.37 $0.43 $0.21 $0.11 $0.14 $0.23 $0.16 $0.20 $0.27 $0.29 $0.21 $0.24 $0.46 $0.45

Water/Sewer $1.03 $0.20 $0.15 $0.49 $1.52 $0.40 $0.30 $0.75 $1.44 $0.40 $0.40 $0.65 $1.12 $0.56 $0.29 $0.71 $1.30

Operations $2.70 $1.20 $1.24 $2.08 $4.05 $0.42 $1.06 $3.39 $2.08 $0.98 $1.72 $1.99 $1.35 $1.75 $1.28 $2.43 $2.75

Payroll $3.77 $1.86 $1.97 $3.01 $4.66 $2.68 $1.91 $3.17 $4.30 $2.14 $2.27 $2.92 $3.45 $2.73 $2.31 $3.75 $4.95

Fuel $7.96 $7.55 $8.48 $7.90 $7.96 $7.79 $8.26 $7.89 $7.95 $5.54 $5.30 $4.84 $5.40 $5.53 $5.51 $5.61 $5.59

Total $16.01 $11.23 $11.97 $13.85 $18.61 $11.49 $11.64 $15.34 $16.00 $9.22 $9.89 $10.67 $11.62 $10.78 $9.64 $12.97 $15.04

Steam Production 191552 396988 371242 239529 173552 321440 328512 264376 193840 401759 373488 288888 237378 349296 420031 264694 206677

050000100000150000200000250000300000350000400000450000

$- $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00

$10.00 $12.00 $14.00 $16.00 $18.00 $20.00

Aver

age

Mon

thly

Cos

t

Steam Cost Breakdown

OBJECTIVE F1: DELIVER COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICESF1.4 STEAM COST

Commentary: Steam production is much lower during the warm summer months than during the winter months. Subsequently the "cost" of payroll, operations and water/sewer is a much larger component of the steam cost than during the winter months. (below chart)

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

0

20

40

60

80

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Average Temperature vs Steam Costs

Steam Production (1000lbs) Seattle High Seattle Low Avg Cost

CHAMPION OWNER

2.77

2.05

2.31

1.14

1.40

2.41

3.69

2.15

11.2

8

6.53

5.77

10.5

1

3.27

3.63

1.00

2

4

6

8

10

12

Retu

rn O

n In

vest

men

t

RESOURCE CONSERVATION RETURN ON INVESTMENT Movement:• Target Met? Yes• Toward or Away: Target met and exceeded• Qtr Difference: Less ROI but still in target.• Year Difference: Less ROI but still in target.

Reasoning? Charting resource conservation investments as they are completed show the effect of fact based decision making (IE: project prioritization based on ROI) based on comprehensive planning data (IE: campus wide energy audits completed in FY16 Q2) combined with great support from FMC & CEO resources in timely cost effective execution of the work.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• FMC LED Lighting Team completed two projects that received

$48,098 in rebates this quarter!• RCP funded critical project at Mary Gates Hall using rebate reserves...

backstopping delayed state allocation to meet critical capital need.

Recommendations:Expand conservation program processes to minor capital, building based maintenance and preventative maintenance programs. Thorough building audits and comprehensive planning provide necessary data for “optimized business case” decision making that combined with cost effective and timely work execution lead to reductions in deferred maintenance backlog, O&M efficiencies, higher customer satisfaction and longer facility life.

What can we expect in the future?17-19 projects are prioritized based on ROI and carbon avoidance. Cumulative ROI of 17-19 funded projects are estimated to return $8.22 per $1 invested. While individual project ROI’s will vary the cumulative ROI of projects completed is forecast to continue rise at an average rate of $0.25 per quarter over the next biennium. JIM ANGELOSANTE NORM MENTER

QUADRANT: REDUCE COST / INCREASE VALUEOBJECTIVE F1: DELIVER COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICESF1.5 RESOURCE CONSERVATION PROGRAM: RCM ROI

Measure Intent: Insure completed RCM’s are cost effective by targeting more cost effective projects and making sure lifetime utility cost avoided is greater than the net capital investment.

Measure Formula: ROI = LUCA / NCILUCA = Lifetime Utility Cost Avoided NCI = Net Capital Investment NCI = Funded Labor + Material Cost – Rebates & Grants Secured

Goo

d

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

OBJECTIVE F1: DELIVER COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICESF1.5 RESOURCE CONSERVATION PROGRAM: RCM ROI

Completed Resource Conservation Measure - Return on Investment Details

Commentary• The LED lighting project completed in FY18 Q1 is noteworthy for a number of reasons:

• This project has high student visibility (no pun intended) and improves player safety by improved light distribution (less shadows) and higher light output consistency over time.

• This projects uses in-house FMC shops labor thus avoiding contractor overhead and profit costs while simultaneously enhancing FMC’s bottom-line by funding work from utility rebate reserves.

• This project not only reduces future utility cost $12,942/annually but also eliminates maintenance costs by eliminating maintenance intensive, high cost ballasts in the fixtures. LED lights consume 277 Volt power : no transformer/ballast required.

• The table above provides the relevant details that inform calculation of the measure.

• Cumulative Statistics for FY15-FY18 shown above illustrate the compounded impact of the program on key FS performance Indicators: champion environmental stewardship and deliver cost effective services.

• Program “all time” statistics since program inception, FY15 Q1:

• $4.5M gross/$1.9M net capital investment in 26 completed projects• $2.7M in rebates and grants secured • $6.8M in utility cost avoided over the life of the improvements• 5,739 MgCO2e avoided annually (5.1% of 2005 UW baseline

emissions)• Cumulative ROI: $3.63 saved for $1 net investment.

RCP Project FY 16.1 FY 16.2 FY 16.3 FY 16.4 FY 17.1 FY 17.2 FY 17.3 FY 17.4 FY 18.1 CUMULATIVEUtility Cost Avoided -Annual $502 $12,359 $10,652 $4,417 $44,886 $29,510 $33,376 $127,293 $12,942 $498,695 Utility Cost Avoided -Life $1,506 $160,667 $106,520 $57,421 $673,283 $442,650 $500,640 $1,909,395 $155,298 $6,789,997 Gross Investment $1,074 $66,609 $71,856 $26,666 $198,940 $143,606 $136,724 $776,557 $98,939 $4,547,358 Rebates/Grants $0 $0 $42,986 $0 $139,258 $75,823 $49,903 $594,805 $51,408 $2,677,677 Net Capital Investment $1,074 $66,609 $28,870 $26,666 $59,682 $67,783 $86,821 $181,752 $47,531 $1,869,681 Return on Investment 1.40 2.41 3.69 2.15 11.28 6.53 5.77 10.51 3.27 3.63 Carbon Avoided(MgCo2e/Yr) 1 85 5 2 1,929 218 1,086 578 6 5,739 Completed projects 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 26Name: Completed projects: Clark Hall retro

Commissioning Initiative

partnering w/ Shop 69

Shop 17-Insulation

Projects MHSC Wings, I, RR, B,

D, F

LED Lighting Retrofits: Shop

15 and 41-Electrical IMA Sports Courts

Shop 17-Insulation

Projects MHSC Wings, DEF,K,

C,G,H,H-addition

Shop 17-Steam Valve

Replacement Projects MHSC:

J Wing & T Wing

Raitt Hall DDC Replacement

Project

Gowen Hall Coil

Replacement Project

MHSC T Wing DDC Project,

W. Gates Hall RetroCx Project

IMA Large Gyms, LED

Lighting Retrofit Project

Cumulative statistics for FY15-

FY18

Cumulative ROI 2.14 2.15 2.18 2.18 2.55 2.72 2.88 3.64 3.63

CHAMPION OWNER

18.4

%

16.9

%

18.9

%

18.4

%

18.4

%

16.9

%

18.9

%

18.4

%

17.6

%

16.9

%

16.9

%

20.3

%

20.9

%

17%20%

25%

75%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015 2016 2017 2018

PM:CM Hour Ratio Original Projection New Target APPA Lvl 2

PM TO CM RATIO (ACTUAL WORK HOURS) Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Towards• Qtr Difference: 0.6% increase• Year Difference: 3.3% increase

Reasoning?Increase occurred in both CEO (22.3% to 23.2%) and FMC (19.5% to 19.9%)Organization changes and delay in filling PM Manager role led to flatter growth this quarter but did not backslide which is a positive.FMC Preventive Maintenance Manager on board mid-September

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• FS Goal for FY18 to reach 50% PM:CM ratio• SW Zone piloting Building Based Maintenance (BBM) program

Recommendations:• Incorporate PM accomplishment into natural work group huddles to

identify crew- and shop- based gaps and generate ideas• Identify PM work accomplished by contract (i.e Elevator Maintenance)

and capture this effort as part of our PM ratio• Define methods to collect data for non - AiM units.

What can we expect in the future?• Q2 is historically a lower performance quarter for this measure

possibly due to holidays and leave schedules leaving less available workhours for accomplishment of work; expect bounce back in Q3

• FMC is methodically capturing asset information and planning to schedule 10 buildings for BBM starting in January 2018

• Capturing non-shop PM work may balance some of the seasonal lull as these pilot programs gain traction, but significant improvement is necessary to reach 50% goalDAMON FETTERS RYAN GUTZWILER

QUADRANT: ENHANCE CUSTOMER / STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCEOBJECTIVE: C1 DELIVER A CAMPUS READY FOR BUSINESS EACH DAYC1.1 PREVENTIVE VS CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE

Measure Intent: To minimize unplanned outages and system failures. A 75:25 ratio of Preventive to Corrective Maintenance is considered APPA Level 2, Comprehensive Stewardship.

Measure Formula: Ratio (%) of actual work hours of planned vs corrective maintenance retrieved from AiM work orders.

Goo

d

CHAMPION OWNER

35.9% 36.4% 37.1% 38.1%35.1% 33.8%

31.5% 32.0%33.8%

50%

6,039

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

FY2016 Q1 FY2016 Q2 FY2016 Q3 FY2016 Q4 FY2017 Q1 FY2017 Q2 FY2017 Q3 FY2017 Q4 FY2018 Q1

Tota

l Num

ber

of W

ork

Ord

ers

Perc

ent o

f Iss

ues

Iden

tifie

d by

FS

%FS Generated Target FS Work Order Count

PERCENT OF ISSUES (WORK ORDERS) IDENTIFIED BY FS STAFF Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: moving toward the target• Qtr Difference: 1.8 point gain• Year Difference: 2.3 point loss

Reasoning?The baseline data now reflects the elimination of preventative work orders from previous quarters. Student reporting has been completely eliminated from the data as of the Q4 2017 report out to give us true reporting from FS employees.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Employee Training• Improved website/submission features.• Customer care team.

Recommendations: Continued staff education and awareness training and customer outreach through the Customer Care Team.

What can we expect in the future?The 50% target will remain a stretch. The availability of the Customer Care team, many more administrators and building coordinators have a direct link to placing work orders long after the custodial staff have left for the day. In the future there should be more perspective on whether there are substantial seasonal fluctuations.

DAMON FETTERS CHRISTINE LUCIER

QUADRANT: ENHANCE CUSTOMER / STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCEOBJECTIVE C1: DELIVER A CAMPUS READY FOR BUSINESS EACH DAYC1.2 REPAIR: FS VS CAMPUS IDENTIFIED

Measure Intent: To create a culture of FS staff awareness of their surroundings and to identify and repair issues before the customers complain.

Measure Formula: Percentage of corrective work orders submitted by FS staff vs those submitted by customers through complaints, FS Works, or AiM.

Goo

d

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

OBJECTIVE C1: DELIVER A CAMPUS READY FOR BUSINESS EACH DAYC1.2 REPAIR: FS VS CAMPUS IDENTIFIED

Above: There was an organizational change in Q1 FY2018 moving Engineering Services over to SPCI that will likely result in an increase for SPCI and a decrease for CEO in reported issues.

Right: The combined Student Submissions and Housing Services account for 68% of the top 10’s total submissions – both operate on campus well outside of the average FS Employee’s hours.

FY2016Q1

FY2016Q2

FY2016Q3

FY2016Q4

FY2017Q1

FY2017Q2

FY2017Q3

FY2017Q4

FY2018Q1

CEO 2506 2552 2548 2354 2165 1980 2189 2019 2031

FMC 1719 2009 1684 1810 1380 1713 1424 1397 1511

BSD 358 425 568 530 634 638 719 552 606

TS 173 147 218 175 65 263 246 208 248

FABS 72 69 61 66 188 70 65 77 68

SPCI/ES 16 19 20 18 25 29 58 82 96

FES 9 13 7 8 7 13 14 15 7

UWEM 1 1 3 2 2

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Wor

k O

rder

s

FS Department Contributions by Quarter

8704 9155 86788068 8258

921110243

9267 8960

6394 6570 6594 6364 5936 60836892

5756 6039

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

FY2016 Q1FY2016 Q2FY2016 Q3FY2016 Q4FY2017 Q1FY2017 Q2FY2017 Q3FY2017 Q4FY2018 Q1

Wor

k O

rder

s

Work Order Numbers by Qtr

Client Requested FS Generated

126154176183184199

248258

16611672

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

ACAD STUDENT AFFAIRSPRINCIPAL ACCTS

COMPARATIVE MEDICINEINTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLET

COMPUTER SCIENCE & ENGDEAN BUSINESS

LIBRARYUNIV FOOD SERVICES

STUDENT SUBMISSIONSHOUSING SERVICES

Work Orders

Top 10 External Requestors for FY2018 Q1

CHAMPION OWNER

Goo

d

Activity Due By % Complete Notes

Previewed Continuity Efforts

11/30/2016 100%Presented continuity concepts and requirements at monthly FS Manager/Supervisor Meeting

Continuity Position Recruitement

2/28/17 100%

Recruitment/hiring for key vacancy delayed by Central HR mandate to conduct Class & Comp Study. Lack of qualified candidates further delayed hiring process. Hire complete 9/17

Staff Resilience Planning Position

9/25/2017 100%Position was vacated in Sept. 2016. Replacement hired after lengthy process and began in role Sept 25, 2017

Assign measure owner duties

9/30/2017 100% Ownership assigned to BARC Manager

Develop measure, add sources

11/10/2017 25%New owner identifying key measurables for the position and goals; to validate with measure

Present Draft Measures to FS Directors

11/17/17 0%

Complete FS Baseline Measures

12/31/17 0% Next report to reflect measure

MEASURE NOT YET READY / WORK IN PROGRESS Movement:• Target Met? N/A• Toward or Away: N/A• Qtr Difference: N/A• Year Difference: N/A

Reasoning?Inadequate staff.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• New Business, Academic and Research Continuity Manager has been

hired and assigned as measure owner• Metrics for measure being developed, and will be reflected in the

next report

Recommendations: N/A

What can we expect in the future? N/A

STEVE CHARVAT MEGAN LEVY

QUADRANT: ENHANCE CUSTOMER / STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCEOBJECTIVE C1: DELIVER A CAMPUS READY FOR BUSINESS EACH DAYC1.3 RESILIENCE PLANNING (NOT READY)

Measure Intent: Evaluate Facilities Services’ readiness to support daily business operations by promoting preparation for space, personnel and processes.

Measure Formula: Measure not yet defined

CHAMPION OWNER

25.7

%

24.6

%

29.6

%

33.2

%

35.0

%

36.9

%

42.0

%

44.7

%

45.8

%

46.4

%

47.3

%

49.3

%

52.1

% 59.7

% 65.5

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Perc

ent E

mpl

oyee

s H

uddl

ing

Participation Rate Huddle Target

PERCENT EMPLOYEES PARTICIPATING IN LEAN HUDDLES Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Toward the target• Qtr Difference: 5.8 point improvement• Year Difference: 18.2 point improvement

Reasoning?More employees were added to huddles over the last quarter and reporting of huddle participation is improving.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Leader standard work• Team maturity tracking• New teams forming in natural work areas

Recommendations: Continue launching teams and have leadership encourage daily huddles through leader standard work. Work with ‘The Lean Team’ to build a process around measuring team maturity.

What can we expect in the future?As more teams are added the participation rate should continue to rise. The measure will at some point move to a qualitative measure of team success (“Team Maturity”) where teams will be regularly assessed on the Four Key Systems.

DAMON FETTERS KEVIN KRAMER

QUADRANT: EMBRACE INNOVATIONOBJECTIVE P1: ENGAGE ALL EMPLOYEES IN CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENTP1.1 LEAN PARTICIPATION

Measure Intent: Regular participation in Lean Huddles demonstrates a culture of continuous improvement. This measure sets to encourage participation throughout the FS organization.

Measure Formula: The number of huddle participants reported on the Idea Count Survey divided by Employee Headcounts (FTE) multiplied by 100 (percentage).

Goo

d

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

OBJECTIVE P1: ENGAGE ALL EMPLOYEES IN CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENTP1.1 LEAN PARTICIPATION

56% 58% 57% 55% 57%

- 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

FY2017 FY2018

BSD Participation Rate

Qtr Huddle Avg Participation Rate

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

- 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

FY2017 FY2018

FES Participation Rate

Qtr Huddle Avg

Participation Rate

8% 9%21%

41%

57%

- 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

FY2017 FY2018

FMC Participation Rate

Qtr Huddle Avg Participation Rate

77% 76%85% 87% 85%

-

20

40

60

80

100

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

FY2017 FY2018

TS Participation Rate

Qtr Huddle Avg

Participation Rate

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

- 1 1 2 2 3 3 4

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

FY2017 FY2018

UWEM Participation Rate

Qtr Huddle Avg

Participation Rate

100% 100%

77%

100%81%

- 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

FY2017 FY2018

SPICES Participation Rate

Qtr Huddle Avg

Participation Rate

65% 67% 62%70%

52%

-

20

40

60

80

100

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

FY2017 FY2018

CEO Participation Rate

Qtr Huddle Avg

Participation Rate

91% 92%82% 84%

98%

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

FY2017 FY2018

FABS Participation Rate

Qtr Huddle Avg

Participation Rate

CHAMPION OWNER

0.45 0.49

0.72

0.69

0.52 0.

61 0.71

0.95

0.83

0.76

1.07 1.09 1.

15

1.06

0.71

0.72 0.76

0.59

2.0

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Ideas Imp Per Person (IIPP) IIPP Target Ideas Implemented (#)

NUMBER OF IDEAS IMPLEMENTED PER HUDDLE PARTICIPANT Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Away from the target• Qtr Difference: 18% decline from previous qtr• Year Difference: -42% decline from previous year

Reasoning?As employees are introduced to lean huddles their idea implementation may not take off immediately. Summer months are also notorious for increased vacation time and added work while students are out – which may have reduced time and ability to implement ideas for many teams. This trend can be seen with previous Q1’s.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Leader standard work• Leadership development intensives (LDI’s)

Recommendations: • Continue launching teams and have leadership encourage daily

huddles through leader standard work. • Work with ‘The Lean Team’ to build a process around measuring

team maturity and create actions that build engagement. • Break up larger teams (8+ people) to allow everyone to contribute. • Increase frequency of huddles for teams not meeting more than

once a week.

What can we expect in the future?As more teams are added the participation rate should continue to rise. The measure will at some point move to a qualitative measure of team success (“Team Maturity”) where teams will be regularly assessed on the Four Key Systems.

DAMON FETTERS KEVIN KRAMER

QUADRANT: EMBRACE INNOVATIONOBJECTIVE P1: ENGAGE ALL EMPLOYEES IN CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENTP1.1 IDEA IMPLEMENTATION

Measure Intent: The rate of implementation of employee ideas is an indicator of employee engagement and of a management system that values and encourages employee engagement.

Measure Formula: Total ideas implemented divided by the number of huddle participants (and FTE’s). Huddle participants are as documented in each idea count survey.

Goo

d

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

SPICES - - - - 0.0 0.6 2.1 4.5 5.1 3.6 2.2 1.9 2.2 2.6 3.7 3.6 3.1 2.0

UWEM 2.3 2.2 1.2 0.6 0.7 1.2 2.2 2.7 2.3 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.6 1.9 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.6

FES 1.5 1.8 2.6 2.6 1.5 1.0 0.8 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0

TS 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 1.8 1.2 1.1 1.1

FABS 0.2 0.2 0.7 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0

FMC 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.4

BSD 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5

CEO 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

Ideas Per Huddle Participant by Department

OBJECTIVE P1: ENGAGE ALL EMPLOYEES IN CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENTP1.1 IDEA IMPLEMENTATION

Left: The 12-mo rolling average of ideas implemented per huddle participant, broken out by department.

Below: Comparing performance by month. No significant conclusions can be made when comparing year-over-year except that Q1 months have typically outperformed themselves each year.

-

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Year-Over-Year Comparison

FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

CHAMPION OWNER

OPEN RATE OF EMAIL CAMPAIGNS (BY CY) Movement:• Target Met? No, the 60% target was not met• Toward or Away: Significantly further away• Qtr Difference: -12 points (2nd largest change on record)• Year Difference: +2 point difference

Reasoning?As we learn more about email campaign best practices we can adapt to understand best timing and formatting to more successfully reach our audience – be it internal or external to FS. The drop in the open rate can be attributed to this quarter being a slow outreach month with less campaign style emails. A lot of faculty and staff are also away from campus and although they receive their emails might not read them. On return they could also delete them.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• N/A

Recommendations: Future iterations of this measure can include website visits, which may tell the story of how effective our communications are (directing users to a simple source of information).

What can we expect in the future?As we continue to measure number of impressions we will gain a better understanding of our audience and create best practices around those lessons learned. In turn open rate (and possibly web visits) will increase over time.

DAMON FETTERS ARI KASAPYAN

QUADRANT: ENHANCE CUSTOMER / STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCEOBJECTIVE C3: BE EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITHC3.1 EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

Measure Intent: To improve relationships, knowledge, conversation and ease of access to information with customer base.

Measure Formula: Measures total number of FS impressions (a compilation of Web visits, Blog impressions, Facebook Likes, Email opens, Social Media impressions, Event contacts) against goals set by each unit

Goo

d24%

36% 35%38%

43% 44% 43%

52%

29%

40%36%

41%

35%31%

34%

42%45%

33%

26.3%

60%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Succ

essf

ul E

mai

l Del

iver

ies

(thou

sand

s)

Ope

n Ra

te

Successful Deliveries Open Rate Gov't Benchmark Target

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

OBJECTIVE C3: BE EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITHC3.1 EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

Above: This metric gives greater insight into who FS Communication sends emails to, along with the average number we send each quarter and how many open (read) them.

Above:

This metric can help us evaluate how well our link placements and email compositions invite readers to interact with the message.

Key audience groups: Parking permit holders, U-PASS members, Opt-in customers, MRAM, Campus administrators, Building coordinators, BOR- Finance Audit and Facilities, Key clients, Focus group attendees, UW event planners list, ICA, South Campus Transportation Committee, Emergency Management list, Neighborhood stakeholders (U Village, U District Chamber, etc)

Not currently included: Surplus internal customers, Surplus external customers

1,375 892 857

332 209 197 196 150 133 130 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

- 500

1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000

Average List Size and Open Rate for Top 10 Email Lists (FY2018 Q1)

Successful Deliveries (avg) Open Rate

31%

41% 40%45% 46% 47%

66% 64%

53% 55%51%

54%

46%

39%43% 43% 44%

32%

15%

3%7% 4%

12%7% 9% 11% 12% 15%

11% 10% 12%6% 7%

9%14%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Click Rate (link) vs Open Rate (viewed contents)*Only emails with at least 1 click

Average of Open Rate Average of Click Rate

CHAMPION OWNER

81.6

%

75.6

%

79.2

%

82.8

%

84.7

%

90.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

FY2017 FY2018

Response Times Target

OVERALL PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSE TIMES MET Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Toward• Qtr Difference: 1.9 point improvement• Year Difference: 3.1 point improvement

Reasoning?This is the first full year of pulling real data for this new measure. We saw our highest percentage of response times met than any other quarter. There were approximately 600 less work orders than previous quarter.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Timecard notes on Work Order completion• Establish QR Team (in progress)• Implement daily huddles in FS Shops (in progress)

Recommendations:• Review AiM to ensure duplicate work orders are not created• Focus on data quality in our AiM work order system.• Shop Supervisors/Leads to review response time reports with

team to see if there are ways to improve.• Changing the shop phase from open to active does not measure the

response time• Implement training to the shops not meeting the expectation to

ensure our on-going measures are accurate

What can we expect in the future?We saw our highest percentage of response times met than any other quarter. This quarter's data includes students and faculty moving in as well as a few outages which resulted is a high volume of requests over a short period of time. We expect future data to be equal to this quarters with but with a higher percentage met.DAMON FETTERS TYLER QUANDT

QUADRANT: ENHANCE CUSTOMER / STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCEOBJECTIVE C3: BE EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITHC3.2 RESPONSE TIMES

Measure Intent: The intent is to measure Facilities Services overall effectiveness to communicate with our customers and to ensure our response times to our customer’s needs are being met.

Measure Formula: Response times met divided by total response times. Times (goals) and priorities are set by individual units depending on the type of work.

Goo

d

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATI

ON FY2017 FY2018

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

Row LabelsTotal WO's % pass

Total WO's % pass

Total WO's % pass

Total WO's % pass Total WO's % pass

CEO 1,270 88.5% 1,702 86.2% 1,773 81.7% 1,604 88.7% 1,522 87.8%Shop 20 - FOMS 59 93.2% 71 83.1% 54 74.1% 50 92.0% 54 100.0%Shop 23 - Elevator 180 70.6% 224 80.4% 243 82.3% 230 93.5% 280 90.4%Shop 25 - UW Tower 207 91.3% 140 95.0% 135 88.9% 217 91.2% 217 94.5%Shop 69 - HVAC 688 92.6% 1,016 85.5% 1,059 80.8% 917 86.3% 854 84.9%Shop 24 - Fire Alarm 136 85.3% 251 90.0% 282 82.6% 190 90.5% 117 84.6%

FMC 6,276 80.2% 8,469 73.5% 7,472 78.5% 7,010 81.5% 6,505 84.0%Shop 10 - Grounds 285 55.1% 363 62.0% 292 67.5% 345 64.3% 337 54.9%Shop 14 - Central Zone 742 96.9% 928 85.7% 890 79.0% 869 88.6% 901 96.3%Shop 15 - NE Zone 774 78.7% 1,083 68.0% 1,269 69.2% 1,011 78.5% 930 84.6%Shop 16 - SW Zone 979 82.9% 2,101 59.5% 1,530 76.8% 1,193 84.7% 1,093 88.4%Shop 17 - Health Science 1,525 86.4% 1,864 87.0% 1,561 84.0% 1,541 82.7% 1,546 86.9%Shop 18 - Grounds 151 91.4% 246 94.3% 191 92.1% 409 87.0% 129 76.0%Shop 34 - SW Lock 608 88.7% 721 85.0% 548 83.9% 608 90.5% 644 85.9%Shop 35 - Health Science 460 85.9% 332 87.0% 424 87.7% 416 88.0% 504 84.1%Shop 41 - NE Zone 539 40.8% 532 45.3% 234 65.4% 361 50.1% 242 45.5%Shop 53 - Construction 15 73.3% 36 75.0% 29 72.4% 20 60.0% 21 66.7%Shop 54 - Construction 69 52.2% 109 67.9% 134 67.9% 62 72.6% 61 59.0%Shop 55 - Construction 68 54.4% 72 72.2% 212 87.3% 116 78.4% 55 83.6%Shop 56 - Construction 44 72.7% 66 78.8% 35 82.9% 34 58.8% 37 70.3%Shop 58 - Construction 17 52.9% 16 87.5% 123 95.9% 25 80.0% 5 80.0%

Grand Total 7,546 81.6% 10,171 75.6% 9,245 79.2% 8,614 82.8% 8,027 84.7%

OBJECTIVE C3: BE EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITHC3.2 RESPONSE TIMES

CommentaryIndividual contributions from all groups roll up into the departments and ultimately influence the success of Facilities Services as a whole.

Left: Breakdown of all contributing units to the response time measure.

FY2017 Q4 Response Time Breakdown by Unit & Priority

CHAMPION OWNER

86.8

%

87.3

%

87.8

%

87.9

%

90.1

%

92.9

%

90.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Deadlines Met Target

OVERALL PERCENTAGE OF DEADLINES MET Movement:• Target Met? Yes• Toward or Away: Toward• Qtr Difference: 2.8 point improvement• Year Difference: 5.6 point improvement

Reasoning?The steady improvement in work completion processes and implementation of the “FS Front Porch" are improving completion timeframes of work orders. Also a byproduct of Workday, which required daily entries and approval of timesheets, has tightened up the work completion of WO’s.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Timecard notes on Work Order completion• Establish QR Team (in progress)• Implement daily huddles in FMC (in progress)

Recommendations: • Inform shops on how deadlines are met.• Review work orders that did not meet deadlines to see if there are

ways to improve.• Ensure coding for material purchases is correct.• Implement training to the shops not meeting the expectation to

ensure our on-going measures are accurate

What can we expect in the future?Trends show an increase in work order requests during the next quarter. With more attention on work order details and reporting, we anticipate our deadlines met percentage will continue to increase.

DAMON FETTERS RICH DIERCK

QUADRANT: ENHANCE CUSTOMER / STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCEOBJECTIVE C3: BE EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITHC3.3 DEADLINES MET

Measure Intent: The intent is to measure Facilities Services overall effectiveness to communicate with our customers and to ensure our deadlines are being met.

Measure Formula: Deadlines met divided by total work orders. Times (goals) and priorities are set by individual units depending on the type of work.

Goo

d

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

OBJECTIVE C3: BE EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITHC3.3 DEADLINES MET

Commentary:Individual contributions from all groups roll up into the departments and ultimately influence the success of Facilities Services as a whole.

Left: Breakdown of all contributing units to the deadlines met measure.

Construction Shops Typically perform lower; due to the lesser amount of corrective work orders for them small changes have a much greater impact to the percentage scores. WO's are mainly in the "Routine" category as well which have a longer timeframe for due dates.

FY2017 Deadlines Met Breakdown by UnitFY2017 FY2018

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

Dept > ShopTotal WO's % Pass

Total WO's % Pass

Total WO's % Pass

Total WO's % Pass

Total WO's % Pass

CEO 1,215 86.6% 1,625 85.5% 1,570 84.2% 1,558 88.2% 1,336 88.8%Shop 20 - FOMS 56 96.4% 68 94.1% 48 95.8% 55 100.0% 55 100.0%Shop 23 - Elevator 170 76.5% 225 80.0% 202 86.6% 227 91.2% 247 90.7%Shop 23 - Fire Alarm 137 91.2% 230 98.3% 232 90.5% 223 89.7% 129 95.3%Shop 25 - UW Tower 199 95.5% 148 98.6% 123 99.2% 200 96.5% 209 99.0%Shop 69 - HVAC 653 84.7% 954 81.1% 965 79.7% 853 84.3% 696 83.0%

FMC 5,940 87.5% 7,285 88.3% 6,604 88.8% 6,712 90.5% 5,946 93.9%Shop 10 - Grounds 271 76.8% 316 81.6% 250 79.6% 290 83.1% 283 82.7%Shop 14 - Central Zone 736 94.6% 762 93.0% 750 85.9% 928 89.1% 841 97.9%Shop 15 - NE Zone 764 84.7% 906 85.9% 1,009 83.2% 1,024 84.7% 750 92.9%Shop 16 - SW Zone 893 91.5% 1,629 87.2% 1,432 88.8% 1,228 94.2% 1,021 95.5%Shop 17 - Health Science 1,537 89.7% 1,749 93.8% 1,533 92.5% 1,548 93.5% 1,495 95.3%Shop 18 - Grounds 125 93.6% 238 88.7% 181 92.3% 184 85.3% 139 90.6%Shop 34 - SW Lock 610 92.1% 731 95.5% 549 92.9% 549 96.4% 618 97.2%Shop 35 - Health Science 279 88.9% 162 89.5% 218 90.8% 366 89.1% 364 94.5%Shop 41 - NE Zone 483 69.2% 586 69.6% 248 89.9% 287 88.2% 249 75.1%Shop 53 - Construction 15 86.7% 24 83.3% 31 77.4% 15 93.3% 18 100.0%Shop 54 - Construction 58 75.9% 50 70.0% 110 86.4% 72 83.3% 46 84.8%Shop 55 - Construction 59 72.9% 56 76.8% 169 94.1% 133 87.2% 80 92.5%Shop 56 - Construction 48 64.6% 56 92.9% 37 86.5% 29 79.3% 35 88.6%Shop 58 - Construction 62 93.5% 20 85.0% 87 98.9% 59 96.6% 7 100.0%

Grand Total 7,155 87.3% 8,910 87.8% 8,174 87.9% 8,270 90.1% 7,282 92.9%

CHAMPION OWNER

69.6%

58.9%

67.1%70.5% 71.9% 71.1%

77.2%

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Perc

ent P

ositi

ve (g

reen

)

V Pos Pos Neg V Neg % Positive Target

PERCENT OF POSITIVE FEEDBACK (ALL KIOSKS) Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Toward• Qtr Difference: 6.1 point increase• Year Difference: 10.1 point improvement

Reasoning?For Q1 FY2018, custodial machines were taken offline for the summer months as students were not occupying measured spaces in a similar fashion. This resulted in all Q1 data coming from garages, which typically have higher scores than restrooms.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Additional placements for HON machines (shuttles)• Customer Care Team supplemental feedback process established.• Direct customer surveying via email link (for garages).

Recommendations: The data identify specific locations and times of day that pose challenges for meeting customer expectations. Investigation into what conditions and events may result in that challenge can reveal how and where to target additional efforts.

What can we expect in the future?Transportation services has begun soliciting feedback via email and has suspended the use of Happy-or-Not kiosks starting in Q2 FY2018.

DAMON FETTERS ARI KASAPYAN

QUADRANT: ENHANCE CUSTOMER / STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCEOBJECTIVE C3: BE EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITHC3.4 LOCATION-BASED FEEDBACK

Measure Intent: To gather customer satisfaction data at the point of interaction (service areas) with the intent of adjusting priorities based on feedback and volume.

Measure Formula: Percentage of customers rating service areas positively (positive ratings divided by total ratings, multiplied by 100). Secondary metrics by area available as supplementary information.

Goo

d

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

OBJECTIVE C3: BE EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITHC3.4 LOCATION-BASED FEEDBACK

Users were asked to rate on a scale of 4:• Please rate the cleanliness of this garage today.• Please rate the cleanliness of this restroom today.

The scale used:

Above Left: event-based surveys that are typically only placed over a short period of time (hours) and typically represent meetings with customers or employees. Surplus store customers provided feedback on both service and staff professionalism and regarded both to be very satisfactory.

Above Right: Results for garage cleanliness over the last 3 quarters –satisfaction has been on a steady increase.

94.1% 92.7%81.8%

89.5%

76.5%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Q4 Q4 Q4 Q1 Q4

FY2017 FY2017 FY2017 FY2018 FY2017

I am satisfiedwith the serviceI received at the

Surplus storetoday.

Were the UWSurplus staff

courteous andprofessional

with you today?

Please rate the value of today'smeeting.

Do you feel your

experience with FS is

improving?

Perc

ent P

ositi

ve (g

reen

)

Results by Question (smaller surveys)

V Pos Pos Neg V Neg % Positive Target

74.4%

75.3%

77.1%

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

71%

72%

73%

74%

75%

76%

77%

78%

79%

80%

81%

Q3 Q4 Q1

FY2017 FY2018

Please rate the cleanliness of our garage

Perc

ent P

ositi

ve (g

reen

)

Results by Question (Garage Cleanliness)

V Pos Pos Neg V Neg % Positive Target

CHAMPION OWNER

77.5%70.7% 70.4%

83.8%

17.8%

16.1% 18.7%

16.2%2.0%

6.0% 3.4%

2.6% 7.2% 7.4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

16-17 Q2 16-17 Q3 16-17 Q4 17-18 Q1

Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

CUSTOMER RATINGS OF OVERALL SERVICE DELIVERY Movement:• Target Met: No target set• Toward or Away: NA• Qtr Difference: 2.3% increase of Very Satisfied + Satisfied over last

quarter, Dissatisfied decreased by 2.6%

Reasoning?Q4 results were attributed to the UCAR box changes. It is not surprising that the rate of dissatisfaction decreased and satisfaction increased once behaviors were adjusted. Our general satisfaction rates are trending towards stabilization.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Customer service training (now available – contact mjb33@uw.edu)• Enhanced customer service training as part of onboarding.

Recommendations: • This measure has been recommended to be moved to the future

operational dashboard

What can we expect in the future?• Continued evolution of a trend line and stabilization• Adjustment to a monthly review process• Identification of service and experience trends.

DAMON FETTERS JENNIFER CONNORS

QUADRANT: ENHANCE CUSTOMER / STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCEOBJECTIVE: C3.5 COMPLETION OF SERVICEC3: BE EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITH

Measure Intent: To measure the frequency of meeting customer expectations and overall service delivery feedback.

Measure Formula: The number of times customers identified that their expectations were met vs not met divided by the number of responses.

Goo

d

86.8

%95.3

%

89.1

%

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

OBJECTIVE C3.5 COMPLETION OF SERVICE C3 BE EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITH

Customer Participation by Unit

Unit Responses Percent of TotalUcar 3485 86.0%TS Events 37 0.9%Surplus 63 1.6%Recycling 30 0.7%Operations 64 1.6%Moving 24 0.6%Maintenance 226 5.6%Fleet 11 0.3%Custodial 53 1.3%Construction 57 1.4%Grand Total 4050

Customer Participation by Question

Question Response Count

Understanding my Needs 546

Effective Service 543

Response Time Frame 541

Courteous Staff 527

Attention to Detail 533

Completion Time Frame 541

Discussion:Overall our response rate was down across all units and questions, while our combined satisfaction rate results were up in almost every area when compared to last quarter.

73.9%

74.7%

80.8%

71.9%

71.3%

76.6%

16.5%

16.1%

13.3%

20.0%

18.4%

15.4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Time frame in which work was completed

Attention to detail/thoroughness of work

Courteous, professional staff

Time frame in which staff responded to yourrequest

Providing effective service/status information

Understanding my needs and requirements

Rate Your Experience With Us.

Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

CHAMPION OWNER

POSITIONS FILLED WITH INTERNAL CANDIDATES Movement:• Target Met? Yes• Toward or Away: Toward• Qtr Difference: 10 point gain• Rolling Difference: 2 point loss

Reasoning:Three of five opportunities to promote were awarded internally. While the number of opportunities was small, our internal applicants were more than likely to be considered the top viable candidate.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Training Center process mapping & improvement• Stepping Stones for Success• Individual Development Plans• Facilities Services Practical Leader Series• Leadership Development Intensive• Trades Training & Apprenticeship• Onboarding initiative

Recommendations: Expanding the number of opportunities by adding a new development track with a trades training & apprenticeship program. Increased trainings at the Training Center, focusing on the skills that entry level team members need to make the jump to the next level. Leveraging individual development plans to in order to put the employee in the driver seat of their professional development. The completed Training Center process mapping has shed light on areas of opportunity to support this measure, including improving the visibility of training status to all stakeholders, and the importance of instilling a culture of learning during onboarding.

What can we expect in the future?Steady and consistent increases are expected with this metric in place. PATTI COLAIZZO PAGE RUSSELL

QUADRANT: BUILD CAPACITYOBJECTIVE L1: HIRE TRAIN, AND DEVELOP FOR EXCELLENCEL1.1 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT & GROWTH

Measure Intent: To improve employee engagement, job satisfaction, and retention through improved training and development.

Measure Formula: The percentage of eligible positions filled with an internal candidate during that quarter.

Goo

d

56%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Job

Opp

ortu

nitie

s

Perc

ent I

nter

nally

Fill

ed

Total Opportunities Internal Promotions % Internally Filled

Moving 12-mo Avg Target Internal Fill

CHAMPION OWNER

Movement:• Target Met? Yes/no• Toward or Away: Toward/Away from the target• Qtr Difference: 10% decline• Year Difference: 25% improvement

Reasoning?Multiple things did not occur.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Teams are huddling• Launches are launching• Bees are buzzing

Recommendations:

What can we expect in the future?• Trends show a slower than expected climb towards the target, u

further action is taken the measure will take at least 4 years u target is met.

QUADRANT: BUILD CAPACITYOBJECTIVE L3: RECOGNIZE AND CELEBRATE …/… CONTRIBUTIONSL3.1 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION

Measure Intent: Measure Formula: G

ood

Elvi and Letekidan (BSD Art Building) were recognized for their teamwork and efforts.

Lemlem Tesfamariam and Latonya Thompson (BSD B/D Wing) received kudos from client for their great work on a daily basis.

Bagley Hall Team (BSD) has been working hard to re-engage, participate in daily kaizen, and create process improvements for their customers.

Shawn B. (BSD Carpet Cleaning) for making his best efforts to schedule as many carpets to be cleaned over the quarter summer.

Mat (BSD Emergency Response Team) was recognized for responding to several emergencies in one night.

Wilford (BSD Foster School Team) has been going above and beyond with his run and also helping his co-workers.

Francis Garcia, Weini Ghebray, and Swing Shift Team for maintaining Johnson Hall, checking after open runs, and avoiding all customer complaints despite the busy schedule in the classrooms and auditoriums.

Thank you, Pedro (BSD - Kane Hall / Libraries Team) for identifying safety concerns about transients.

The Physics Astronomy Team was recognized for idea generation efforts and zero customer complaints.

Shirley Hammond (BSD Physics Astronomy) was recognized by a customer for her hard work, warm smile, and "infectious happiness" and another time for returning a lost wallet.

George Ceratto for responding to a flooded bathroom issue when the regular custodian could not be found.

Jonathan Atherton and Thongnee Foosaeng (BSD Project Crew) did great work with detailing and cleaning restrooms and floors.

Recycling Operations/Admin Team (BSD) for catching safety hazards, prompt customer service, and attention to detail.

BSD - Swing Shift Project Team recognizes Rudy for 37 years of service (Retiring) and Fernando for his team leadership.

Chong Kim (BSD - T-Wing) was recognized by a customer for always being cheerful and helpful.

Justin White and Neil Allen Vernon II (BSD Window Washers) received recognition for providing service above and beyond the call of duty.

The dental clinics in D wing thanked BSD Area B leadership for continued partnering and consideration/check ins.

William Garl (BSD) for outstanding work and professionalism.

Hannibal (CEO – Elevator Shop) for helping out with an entrapment while he was on campus at another elevator callout.

John Salvesen (CEO – Elevator Shop) for assisting in the Dorm move in.

FABS - Utility Rebate Team congratulates to Erik Krownbell on 10 years of service (or 15 but who's counting) at the UW!

Dan Stover (FES) was recognized for his outstanding customer service, quick response, and help with the training center event.

FES Payroll Team have done a great job transitioning over to Workday and helping FS customers!

The FES Team thanks Chris Pennington for initiating and coordinating the Whole U Wellness Kick Off Campaign."

Page Russell was recognized for making an outstanding apprenticeship presentation to Jeff Scott.

Mathew Phelps for his participation in Shop 17I discussions and bringing ideas to the group.

Shop 17E for a timely response and for doing an excellent job of fulfilling lighting needs.

Shop 18 Glaziers Gerry Gelderman and Ken Clark received a very nice kudos letter for their recommendations and work at Paccar Hall from Patty Ching.

Uma and Daniel (FMC NE Zone Management Team) have done a fantastic job with the new SharePoint site and also updating the Emergency Evacuation Protocol.

Shop 15 Carpenters completed a 5S for a new carpentry shop, increasing space from 40 SF to 400 SF.

Todd Winkler, Carpentry Lead, was given kudos for repair of the Sign Shop’s door.

Shop 15 Metal Trades (FMC) for exceeding initial expectations for Idea generation, continued huddles, and for their collaborative work with Shop 10 to help move a rack for Materials Management.

Shop 41 Night Maintenance thanks Jim Rossi for leading efforts of the LED Retrofit project startup and Kao Saetern for working through excessive backlog of work orders and closing out work order in record time.

UWEM team members continue to receive emails from UW Community members thanking them for a recent outreach or training activity.

Recognitions Submitted to The Monthly Idea Count Survey