FACILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES - NFMT

FACILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES MAKING ALL OF YOUR DREAMS COME TRUE BY CHANGING YOUR METRICS

AGENDA AND GOALS

Where are we?

How we think about measures

Current challenges

Opportunities for change

Inventory current measures against organization goals, note gaps

Use logic models to identify potential new measures

Develop an implementation plan

The goal?

To have profoundly inspiring dialog that changes how we think about facilities performance metrics forever... or to

have an interesting discussion that helps spark some ideas on how we can lead and shape our facility programs to

get the best return on the time and resources

WHERE WE ARE TODAY…

Regarding our facility performance measures, the good news is that we have …

More data with increasing quality and completeness

A common lexicon with more uniformity and transparency

Increasing confidence in using our data to understand and report condition and investment information at the

asset and project levels

Starting dipping our toes into system level tracking such as energy consumption meters

Some challenges are..,.

More data has led to a proliferation of (not necessarily useful) metrics

We haven’t yet found the sweet spot of what data is needed to answer nagging questions. For example,

operating costs, space utilization, and return on investment continue to be elusive

We know more and, hence, make more informed decisions. Right?

Are we better off?

SNAPSHOT OF COMMON MEASURES

Commonly used measures (both federal and private sector) include the

following…

Table adapted from, “The Best Practices in Facility Management: Creating an Environment of Operational Excellence” by Kit Tuveson,

CFM, IFMA Fellow & Chris Hodges, P.E., CFM, LEED-AP, FRICS, IFMA Fellow

Metric Description Standard Metric Description Standard

Facility Condition Index (FCI) <0.05 Stockroom Turns / Year 2 - 3

Deferred Maintenance Backlog Trend Annual Training Hours >40 hrs.

On-the-job Wrench Time >60% Maint. Cost / Replacement Cost 3 - 4%

PM / CM Ratio 70 / 30 Percent Return Work <5%

Unscheduled Maintenance Downtime <2% Mean Time Between Failures Trend

PM Schedule Compliance >95% % Failures Assessed: Root Cause >75%

CM Schedule Compliance >90% Maintenance OT Percentage 5-15%

Unscheduled Man-Hours <10% % WO Covered by Estimates >90%

WO Turn-Around Time Trend On-Site Supervisor Time >65%

Emergency Response Time <15 min.2 Stockroom On-Time Delivery >97%

Stockroom Service Level >97% Material / Part Performance >98%

MANY MEASURES, INCONSISTENT IMPACT

Managers now have volumes of information from

which to make good decisions

But challenges persist…

Lack of sufficient, high-quality data continues

to be a problem

Overwhelming number of metrics, lack of

focus

Metrics are backward looking, few forecast

problems with sufficient lead time to make

course adjustments

Difficultly pinpointing impact of decisions on

portfolio (lag in results, many different factors

contributing)

Condition

Accessibility

Utilization

Energy Consumption

Health and Safety

Security/Risk

Operating Costs

HOW WE COLLECTIVELY THINK ABOUT MEASURES

Our thinking on performance measures has been

influenced by…

Private sector’s need to demonstrate return on

investment and ensure facilities are meeting

strategic needs

Academic approaches to balanced scorecard

Trying to use the data that is increasingly

available through assessments, auto collection

(metering), some qualitative feedback

Changing architectural and user preferences

towards flexible, universal design

Increasing system interoperability

What we often overlook when

creating measures…

• The customer or occupant

• Long-term mission fit

• Portfolio agility and flexibility

• Business or program value

created as a result of

maintaining the portfolio

IS THERE A BETTER WAY?

You likely believe there is a better way to….

• Streamline current metrics

• More precisely address organizational mission,

vision, goals, and objectives

• Work with management team to agree to

discreet set

• Align investment decisions, begin tracking real

impact

• Look for opportunities to combine facilities data

with other organizational data

So if you believe facilities should…

• Support organization’s strategic direction

• Enhance productivity and effectiveness, not

detract from it

• Continually demonstrate a high return on

investment

• Help minimize the organization’s total cost of

ownership by continually seeking ways to

streamline and improve operations

• Support the organization’s pride and ability to

attract and retail high-quality employees

BROAD FACILITY CHALLENGES

To begin to answer the question, “where do we go from here?”,

it’s worthwhile to agree that while our portfolios are incredibly

diverse, there are common set of challenges.

Continued deterioration

Portfolio function mismatch with future organizational needs

Difficultly in procuring skilled labor

Inefficient dispatch and routing

Others?

Based on the challenges identified, what data would be needed

to assess the current state and predict the future outcome?

Armed with this information, how would facilities improve?

APPROACH TO EVALUATING, THEN ADVANCING MEASURES

Inventory current measures and gaps

Use logic models to identify new

Develop implementation

plan

MISSION, VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES HIERARCHY

Mission

Vision

Goals

Objectives

Organization purpose and

function

Desired future state

Specific activities, the

“how” (should be tangible

and time-bound)

Broad direction

A PROGRAMMATIC EXAMPLE FROM THE NATIONAL PARK

SERVICE

Mission

Vision

Goals

Objectives

Provide stewardship of

facilities through life-cycle

asset management

Be global leaders in efficient

and effective life-cycle asset

management

Objective 1.1: Work collaboratively across

NPS to quantify, document, and gain

commitment to funding long-term

operations, maintenance, and

recapitalization costs

Goal 1: Financial

Sustainability

INVENTORY CURRENT MEASURES

Mission Vision Goals Objectives Measures Owner Data

elements

Comment

1.

2.

1.1

1.2

•

•

2.1

2.2

•

•

3.

4.

3.1

3.2

•

•

4.1

4.2

•

•

FACILITIES DIVISION WITHIN A LARGE UNIVERSITY

Mission Vision Goals Objectives Measures Owner Data

elements

Comment

To support

the mission

of the

university

by

providing

and

maintaining

a safe and

sustainable

learning

environmen

t

Be

recognized

by the

campus

community

for

excellence

in service

and to

support the

learning

environment

1. Maintain,

repair and

renovate

university

structures

2. Provide

construction

services

including

building

design, and

cost estimates

•

•

•

•

3. Provide

uninterrupted

electrical and

utility services

4. Establish a

progressive

safety & risk

management

program to

prevent

workplace

injuries

•

•

•

•

MAKING THE MOST OF THE MEASURES INVENTORY

Populate the tracker with input from a variety of sources

Schedule time with key program leads to share the findings

Use spreadsheet with the filter function to ease sorting

Capture comments and caveats within the same spreadsheet

Note duplicate or overlapping measures

Flag similar measures that appear from multiple owners or sources, as this may indicate some

organizational priority or importance

MEASUREMENT TYPES

Commonly used measures include: input, process,

output, and outcome

Output measures might include hours on preventive

maintenance work orders, highway miles

constructed, and project funds spent

Associated outcome measures then might include

reduction in breakdown maintenance, improved

traffic flow, and improved asset condition

Measures can also be leading or lagging

Leading measures are future-looking and can help

predict or foreshadow a key output or outcome (e.g.,

future condition based on available funding or

deterioration rates, planned training hours)

Lagging measures are historically-oriented and refer

to past events, outputs, or outcomes (e.g., O&M

spending, staff turn-over, safety incidents)

Types of performance measures include…

Resource/Workload

Output

Efficiency

Productivity

Service Quality and Effectiveness

Cost Effectiveness

Customer Satisfaction

Resource

To measure various types of resources supporting

a program

Ex. Number of teachers, number of computer

work stations

Workload

Represent resource requirements of work backlog

Ex. Number of production hours to complete job in

queue

Output

Represent direct products of purposeful

application of inputs

Ex. Number of job trainings conducted, hrs.

work performed

Productivity

Measure rate of production per some specific unit

of resource

Ex. # of flight segments handled per air traffic

controller per hour

Efficiency

Look specifically at outputs to the dollar

cost/resources consumed

Ex. Cost per crime investigated or per diem (cost

per day)

Service Quality

Looks at value provided against some SOP or

preconception

Ex. Controller errors per # flights or quality

assurance scores

Effectiveness

Degree to which program is achieving intended

result

Ex. # of mid-air collisions or initial admissions

needing re-admission

Cost-Effectiveness

Relate cost to outcome measures

Ex. Cost per client placed in suitable employment

Customer Satisfaction

Related to service quality but provide an unique

perspective

Ex. Number of complaints, customer satisfaction

index

Poister, Theodore. (2003) Measuring Performance in Public and NonProfit Organizations. Jossey-Bass, Chapters 2 and 3

MORE DETAIL ON MEASUREMENT TYPES…

USE LOGIC MODELS

Logic models– based on organization’s mission, vision, goals, and objectives– will help you sort through

what’s good, what’s not worth the effort, and where the gaps might be

Why use logic models?

Provide focus on objective outcome

Help to identify data and process needed

Communicate priorities and strategies

Measure what is strategically important, rather than simply what is easily measured

Establish accountability for program goals

Often we actually help organizations focus on measuring intermediate outcomes when end outcomes

are not directly achievable (e.g., incremental condition improvement resulting from project investment

compared to asset functioning for full 50 year life-cycle)

LOGIC MODEL COMPONENT: DATA

Data Process Output Objective Outcome

Data Definition Examples

Describes information generated and available

(budget, condition, material cost, etc.)

Other types describe demand or request for services

from a program

Can often help identify program gaps

Budget to plow snow

Size of portfolio

Number of facilities staff

available

LOGIC MODEL COMPONENT: PROCESS


Process Definition Examples

Business practices or activities that impact the facilities

Can help in diagnosing inefficiencies and identifying

needed process improvements

Usually a big part of Lean Six Sigma, Earned Value

Management, and related measurement efforts

Cost per assessment

Number of work orders

completed/day

Amount of travel time/day

LOGIC MODEL COMPONENT: OUTPUT


Output Definition Examples

Describes products and services that are produced by

processes and activities

Typical output measures gauge quantity of products or

services delivered to customers

Often get a bad rap because this type of measure

proliferates – i.e., it is always easier to count widgets then

it is to assess impact of those widgets

Number of assessments

completed

Percent buildings with

asbestos

Number of remediation

projects completed

LOGIC MODEL COMPONENT: OBJECTIVE OUTCOME


Objective Outcome Definition Examples

Communicate value activity or program delivers to its

stakeholders

Reflect achievement of program’s long-term performance

goal

Note outcome measures are often divided into

intermediate (e.g., annual energy cost reduction) and end

outcomes (e.g., reduction in portfolio’s green house gas

emissions)

Customer satisfaction

Extended facility useful life

Reduced deterioration rate

ALL TYPES OF MEASURES CAN ADD VALUE

Each type of measure is valuable in different situations

Together, a refined set can be used as a “portfolio” to help gauge progress, efficiency, and impact


NOW WHAT?

Once you’ve stepped through the logic models, you’ll have a potential new set of metrics plus some that will be phased out

A good check on the proposed measure set is to evaluate against a tool like the Balanced Scorecard (developed by Kaplan/Norton in a series of Harvard Business Review articles)

Purpose is to integrate measures derived from strategy

Balanced can be viewed along three dimensions – financial/non-financial, leading/lagging, output/outcome

FINANCIAL

To succeed financially,

how should we appear

to shareholders?

LEARNING &

GROWTH

To achieve vision, how

will we sustain an ability

to change and improve?

CUSTOMER

To achieve our vision,

how should we appear

to our customers?

BUSINESS PROCESS

To satisfy shareholders

and customers, what

business processes

must we excel at?

VISION

AND

STRATEGY

DEVELOP AN PERFORMANCE PLAN

With a new measure set, the data collection and

business practices will (or likely will) change

Develop a phased approach to integrating priority

metrics over time

Refine dashboards to include new metrics

Develop a communication plan to share the

changes and drivers with stakeholders

Set expectations on when key stakeholder groups

might begin seeing reports

Identify applicable benchmarks

An effective performance plan:

Includes a master list of performance

measures that comprehensively addresses

all program objectives

Incorporates stakeholder expectations and

includes a comprehensive data dictionary to

support the development of dashboards that

summarize the measures, the data source,

the frequency of measure, and the review

process, and

Consolidates reporting into a streamlined

format for tracking and monitoring

performance.

EXAMPLES FROM OTHER INDUSTRIES…

Considering other industry metrics can be informative. Here are a couple examples…

Universities: Three metrics are key-- quantity of space, suitability of space, and quality of space

Health care: “We live, breathe and die by our customer satisfaction scores,” said one health care facility

executive. “It’s one more thing you can use as a barometer to demonstrate that the physical environment has an

impact on patients and staff. We need to work harder at providing measured outcomes of what the real estate is

intended to deliver.”

Public education and healthcare: Exam room/classroom usage time. Downtime offered to other departments to

share for anything in use less than 50% of the time

Many organizations leverage other data sources– specifically cited the DOE‘s available data for Energy Star

buildings

REFERENCES

Gary R. Bettger, Professor at University of Delaware course in Performance Management, Fall 2012

“Performance Measurement in Facility Management The Environment Management Maturity Model BEM3,” by Thomas Madritsch and Matthias Ebinger, Journal of Economics, Business, and ICT, Volume 2, 2011

“The Best Practices in Facility Management: Creating an Environment of Operational Excellence,” by Kit Tuveson, CFM, IFMA Fellow & Chris Hodges, P.E., CFM, LEED-AP, FRICS, IFMA Fellow

“Facility Executives Discuss Data Management, Performance Metrics, and Communication Strategies That Can Help Strengthen Key Relationships,” by Ed Sullivan, Facilities Management, May 2005

“Key Performance Indicators for Federal Facilities Portfolios”, Cable Davis (2010), Federal Facilities Council Technical Report #147, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC8

“Key Performance Indicators for Strategic Healthcare Facilities Maintenance”, Shoet (2006), Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 132, No. 4, pp. 345-352

Documents

FACILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES - NFMT