View
219
Download
4
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The San Diego Community College District’s (SDCCD) construction bond program, funded by voter-approved Proposition S, a $685 million bond passed in 2002, and Proposition N, an $870 million bond passed in 2006, is providing for new, state-of-the-art instructional and career training facilities, major renovations, public safety and accessibility enhancements, parking, and campuswide infrastructure projects at City, Mesa and Miramar Colleges, and six Continuing Education campuses.
Citation preview
SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Lean Enterprise Processes In FacilitiesPresented toPresented to
Community College Facilities Coalition
1
November 9, 2010
Lean Processes
Agenda
• Our Challenge
• Lean Custodial Practices– Identify services – Custodial Beat Leveling– Cleaning Standards– Management By Walking Around (MBWA)
• Lean Work Order Processes– Centralized Work Order Center– Service Level Agreement (SLA)– Work Flow Process Mapping– Material/Supply Store
Pl /S h d l– Planner/Schedulers– CMMS
• Electronic Work Order Delivery
2
• Safety/Training Programs
San Diego Community College District (SDCCD)
About the District
• 2nd Largest Community College District in CA2 Largest Community College District in CA
• 6th in Nation
• Centralized M & O
• 4 Regions – 3 main campuses (City, Mesa & Miramar Colleges)
– 6 Continuing Education campuses
3
San Diego Community College District (SDCCD)
About the District
Current Square FootageCurrent Square FootageBuildings = 2,078,008 Gross Square Feet (GSF)Parking = 377,712 Gross Square Feet (GSF)
Current Acres of Landscape = 130.2
Current Utilities ConsumptionCurrent Utilities Consumption Electric = $3,971,950Gas = $480,821Water = $774 070Water = $774,070Total = $5,226,841
4
San Diego Community College District (SDCCD)
About the District
Projected Square FootageAdditi l B ildi GSF 1 601 443Additional Building GSF = 1,601,443Total Building GSF = 3,679,451
Additional Parking GSF = 987,289Additional Parking GSF 987,289Total Parking GSF = 1,365,001
Grand Total GSF = 5,044,452
5
San Diego Community College District (SDCCD)
About the District
Projected Acres of Landscapedd l f dAdditional Acres of Landscape = 19Total Acres of Landscape = 149.2
Projected Utilities ConsumptionProjected Utilities ConsumptionAdditional Utility Costs = $4,542,390Total Annual Costs = $8,790,209
6
Lean Processes
Our Challenge
d• Current economic conditions continue to impact SDCCD
• SDCCD Facilities Services must reduce FY09‐16 forecasted expendituresforecasted expenditures
• While current state revenue is down SDCCDWhile current state revenue is down, SDCCD must plan for future doubling service base without doubling the budget
7
Lean Processes
Potential Cumulative SavingsFY FY 09/10
Custodial FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Ave Salary
C t di l F t H/C 104 113 132 149 162 173 189 191 $ 58 643Custodial Forecast H/C 104 113 132 149 162 173 189 191 $ 58,643
Cust Forecast Salary $ 6,098,855 $ 6,650,098 $ 7,769,004 $ 8,731,333 $ 9,504,832 $ 10,169,255 $ 11,098,158 $ 11,227,172
Custodial Adj HC 77 82 88 100 122 130 140 147 45Custodial Adj HC 77 82 88 100 122 130 140 147 45
Custodial Adj Budget $ 4,497,197 $ 4,782,522 $ 5,187,077 $ 5,878,320 $ 7,150,669 $ 7,622,296 $ 8,208,826 $ 8,597,611
Delta $ 1,601,658 $ 1,867,576 $ 2,581,927 $ 2,853,013 $ 2,354,162 $ 2,546,959 $ 2,889,331 $ 2,629,561 $ 19,324,187
Hold HC Flat untill projection exceeds current HC $ 13,273,027 p j $ , ,
Maintenance
Maint Forecast H/C 45 50 57 64 69 73 79 80 $ 76,457
Maint Forecast Salary $ 3,440,546 $ 3,793,010 $ 4,344,262 $ 4,857,286 $ 5,245,685 $ 5,579,036 $ 6,044,656 $ 6,108,880
Maintenance Adj H/C 29 32 37 41 45 47 51 52 28
Maint Adj Salary $ 2,236,355 $ 2,465,457 $ 2,823,770 $ 3,157,236 $ 3,409,695 $ 3,626,373 $ 3,929,027 $ 3,970,772
Delta $ 1,204,191 $ 1,327,554 $ 1,520,492 $ 1,700,050 $ 1,835,990 $ 1,952,663 $ 2,115,630 $ 2,138,108 $ 13,794,676
8$25,863,512 Opportunity Hold HC Flat untill projection exceeds current HC $ 12,590,485
Lean Processes
Benchmarking and Goals
Custodial • Beginning cleanable sf ‐ 13,900 per custodian• Increase to 25,000 sf
Maintenance• Beginning cost per sf ‐ $3.93Beginning cost per sf $3.93• Reduce to $2.25 sf
9
Lean Processes
Custodial Practices
• Identify our core mission
• Identify how we were spending time
• Load Levelingg
• Increase cleaning square footage
• Beat books• Beat books
• Cleaning Standards
• MBWA
• Pride Program
10
g
Lean Processes
Assessment of Services
• Findings– Opening doors
– Stock room duties
– Personal assistants
– Event set upsp
– Temperature checks
– MoversMovers
– Cleaning
11
Lean Processes
Opportunities for Improvementpp p
• Get back to Core missionGet back to Core mission • Board of Trustees and Chancellor buy in
– Developed an door opening policyDeveloped an door opening policy– Developed an out of scope work list– Directing work requests through the call centerDirecting work requests through the call center– Plan and schedule work
12
Lean Custodial Practices
Custodial Load Level – Finding the Balance
• Identify the type of space use and the finishes used within the space to identify the base cleaning factor for
13
p y gthat space type
Lean Custodial Practices
Assign Cleaning Time Based on Space
14
Calculate the time to clean based on the assignable square footage and the base cleaning factor
Lean Custodial Practices
Summarize Head Count Requirements
• With all buildings added, the total required HC for Level 2 Cleaning at San Diego Mesa College is 26
The space is then summed from room up to building and then up to campus.– This leads to a qualitative method to determine the proper HC requirements
– Enables the supervisor to develop project teams to tackle larger projects that
15
Enables the supervisor to develop project teams to tackle larger projects that require more man power and are outside the daily cleaning requirements
Lean Custodial Practices
SDCCD Cleaning Standards
• SDCCD defined the acceptable level of cleaning for district as a Level 2. At the start of the project they were consistently at a level 3 – 4.
16
p j y y
• This underlined the need to improve the level of service
Lean Custodial Practices
SDCCD Cleaning Standards – Level 1 & 2
17
Lean Custodial Practices
Implementation of Pride Program
Began by implementing Management by Walking
A d (MBWA) t t k b ildi Th i di tAround (MBWA) to track building scores. The indicator
of success for this phase was simply number or
percentage of MBWA inspections completed over time.
18
Lean Custodial Practices
Tracking and Trending Discrepancies
19
Buildings are inspected and discrepancies are tracked by work week
Lean Custodial Practices
Management By Walking Around (MBWA)
First Goal of the
Pride Program was
to inspect all
buildings consistently
20
Lean Custodial Practices
Transitioning from MBWA to Pride Program
• Once the team has been trained on doing inspections, and they are occurring regularly it was time to move toand they are occurring regularly, it was time to move to the Pride Program– Designed to build a sense of Pride with those who have
hi f h f iownership for the space or function
• Began entering the data of discrepancies into a d b b k h l d ldatabase to begin tracking the actual data vs. simply whether the inspection has occurred.
• Track and trend the types of discrepancies and the total overall score.
21
Lean Custodial Practices
Converting the Data to Building Scores
• Score is created by taking the number of discrepancies and subtracting from 100.
• The score is then normalized based on building sized with 20 000 ASF assumed as normal
22
sized with 20,000 ASF assumed as normal
Lean Custodial Practices
Trend by Discrepancy: Campus Example
23
Each week, the top discrepancies are identified
Lean Custodial PracticesDiscrepancy Trend Over Time: Campus Example
esDiscrep
anci
24
Work Week
Lean Custodial Practices
Use of Data to Improve Performance
The data collected from this tool/process is used to:Drive for Continuous Improvement– Drive for Continuous Improvement
– Chart performance goals for a campus, department or individual
• Campus Trend• Trend by Discrepancy (i.e., burned out lights)• Trend by Area Owner
– Implement a recognition program• “Pride Award” based on best scoring building• Most Improvedp
– Performance Management• Improve area by 10%• Lowest performing area owner
25
Lowest performing area owner
Lean Work Order Processes
Maintenance Assessment
• Identify how we were spending time
• Examine prioritiesExamine priorities
• Scrutinize processes
Sh ld d i i hi• Should we redesign or improve this process
• What tools do we need to do this
26
Lean Work Order Processes
Maintenance Process Findings
• We were a reactive organization
• No formal method of prioritizationNo formal method of prioritization
• Inefficient, unpredictable processes
T h i d hi ld i f h i i• Too much windshield time for technicians
• We needed a more robust computerized maintenance management system
27
Lean Work Order Processes
Maintenance Process Improvement
• Develop a method prioritization
k fl• Design new work flow processes
• Create a centralized work distribution center
• Standardize triage and follow up procedures to support processes and reduce windshield timepp p
• Purchase a more robust computerized maintenance management systemmaintenance management system
• Start an MRO store
28
Lean Work Order Processes
Work Prioritization
• SDCCD ‐ in its quest to be “service oriented” ‐SDCCD in its quest to be service oriented had no formal work prioritization processes– This led to 85%+ of work being reactiveThis led to 85%+ of work being reactive
– Open WO grew to in excess of 1,600
• A prioritization matrix was developed to• A prioritization matrix was developed to establish a service level agreement within the DistrictDistrict– Approved by Chancellor's Cabinet and Management Services Council
29
Services Council
Lean Work Order Processes
Priority Matrix: Service Level Agreement
30
Lean Work Order ProcessesService Level Agreement: Priority Level 1 Example
31
Lean Work Order Processes
Call Center / Work Distribution Center/
• Centralized
• Standardized
• Customer Service
• Comments
32
Lean Work Order Processes
Lean Process Flows: Prioritize Work
33
Lean Work Order Processes
Lean Process Flows: Triage
34
Lean Work Order Processes
Work Flow
Assign Receive WO Verify Details Turn WO into
Priority 1‐3 Work – Maintenance Supervisor
Priority 4 & 5 Work – Maintenance Planner / Scheduler
Receive Request Scope Job Assign Resources
Receive WO from Tech
Verify Details of WO Scheduling /
Planning
Request Received Scope Job Plan JobSchedule in “Look Ahead Schedule”
Receive WO Back
Update Job Plan
Receive Planned Schedule
Assign WO to Techs
Provide Work Direction
Receive WO from Tech
Verify Details of WO
Turn WO into Scheduling / Planning
Priority 4 & 5 Work – Maintenance Supervisor
Planning
• Planning / Scheduling is focused on future work• All ongoing work is under the direct control of the maintenance supervisor
35
• All ongoing work is under the direct control of the maintenance supervisor
Lean Work Order Processes
Without Planning / Scheduling
Activity %Cleanup and putting away tools 5Idle Time 9Material delays 5Passdown meetings (start / end of shift, feeding work to technicians) 5Starting late / quitting early 4Too many technicians per job / task 7Traveling and Transportation 16Unclear work direction 16Sub Total of non‐productive time 67
Productive time = 100‐67 or 33%Thi t l t t 2 7 h i 8 h hift
36
This translates to 2.7 hrs in an 8 hr shift
Lean Work Order Processes
Lean Process Flows: Planning / Scheduling
37
Lean Work Order Processes
Productive Maintenance Time
Average reactive organizationsAverage reactive organizations have a wrench time of
only 20% while proactive organizations approachorganizations approach Maintain 60% or higher. 1g
38
Lean Work Order Processes
Productive Maintenance Time
The Case for Planner / Schedulers
50%
60%
s 50%
60%
s
Preventative
40%
• Three techs without planning • 3 x 30% = 90%
oduc
tive
Hour
s
Preventative
40%
• Three techs without planning • 3 x 30% = 90%
oduc
tive
Hour
s
Reactive30% • One planner with two technicians
• 1 x 0% + 2 x 50% = 100%• 50% / 30% = 1.67 ( 67% Improvement )
• 45 techs x 1.67 = 75 technicians
Pro
Reactive30% • One planner with two technicians
• 1 x 0% + 2 x 50% = 100%• 50% / 30% = 1.67 ( 67% Improvement )
• 45 techs x 1.67 = 75 technicians
Pro
• In today's economy, how are you going to get 67% more resources for maintenance?
% Wrench Time
• In today's economy, how are you going to get 67% more resources for maintenance?
% Wrench Time
39
Copyright © 2009, Step Function – FMC, L.L.C.11/3/2010
Lean Work Order Processes
Megamation (CMMS)g ( )
• Web based
• Work request entry by customers and Facilities
• Useful dashboard/work order console
• Auto generated due date for priorities 1‐4Auto generated due date for priorities 1 4
• Key performance indicator reports
• Time keeping
• Unlimited training
40
• Unlimited training
Lean Work Order Processes
Megamation (CMMS)g ( )
41
Lean Work Order Processes
Megamation (CMMS)g ( )
42
Lean Work Order Processes
Megamation (CMMS)g ( )
43
Lean Work Order Processes
Work Order Metrics
Process implemented in conjunction with a new CMMS system
– Open WO and Work Order Aging dropped dramatically• Open WO from 1,600+ to ~500
WO A i 70 d t j t d 20
44
• WO Aging 70+ days to just under 20
Lean Work Order Processes
Work Order Metrics
Average Days Open
6972 74 75 74
Average Days OpenAverage Days Open
45
54
62
69
38
32
16
23
1411 11 10 11 13 15
10 911 11 10 11 10 96
45
Lean Work Order Processes
Reduce Windshield Time
•5 technicians x 1 hour windshield time daily x 45 weeks=1125 hoursx 45 weeks 1125 hours
•3 months per region3 months per region•Reduced access to supply house•Painters successPainters success
46
Lean Work Order Processes
MRO Stores
•45 technicians x 1 hour windshield time daily•45 technicians x 1 hour windshield time daily x 45 weeks = 2045 hours
•Build of materials •Kit materials•Kit materials•Truck stock•Drop ship•Drop ship•P/O
47
Lean Work Order Processes
Electronic Work Order Delivery
Objective
Electronic Work Order Delivery
ObjectiveTo enable maintenance employees to receive work orders, and log time on task, by use of held cellularorders, and log time on task, by use of held cellular device.
Common Types of Operating Platforms• Laptop• Laptop• Cellular
48
Lean Work Order Processes
Electronic Work Order DeliveryElectronic Work Order Delivery
Integration To Maintenance Management Software• Browser • Designing a form that would interface with our maintenance softwaremaintenance software
T ti d I l t tiTesting and Implementation• Pilot test groupCh i• Champions
• Roll out to all users• Two key components for success
49
• Two key components for success
Lean ProcessesHand Held With Screen
• Log on
Hand Held With Screen
• Work Count• Work Count
50
Lean Work Order Processes
Hand Held With Screen
Open Work Order
51
Lean ProcessesHand Held With Screen
Time start Time stop
52
Lean Work Order Processes
Electronic Work Order DeliveryElectronic Work Order Delivery
BENEFITS• Less paper and printing• “Real time” logging of time on taskReal time logging of time on task• Can be assigned to multiple employees• Less driving time• Less driving time• Less data entry from paper to computer for staff,
allowing more time for other tasks• Fewer lost or misplaced work orders
53
Lean ProcessesSafety/Training
• Commitment To Our Employees• Universal Reporting Form• Universal Reporting Form• Safety Topics By DepartmentE l H T i d• Employee Hours Trained
• Vendor Training Fairs • Accidents and Near Misses
54
Lean Processes
Safety/Training
55
Lean Processes
Safety/Trainingy/ g
56
Lean Processes
Safety/Training
57
SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
D b C i D B t
Questions?Deb Canning Don BetzRegional Facilities Officer Acting Director Facilities ServicesSan Diego Community College District San Diego Community College DistrictMesa College [email protected] @[email protected] (619) 388‐6422(619) 388‐2814
Charlie Williams David Umstot PECharlie Williams David Umstot, PEBusiness Process Supervisor Vice Chancellor, Facilities ManagementSan Diego Community College District San Diego Community College District [email protected] [email protected]( ) ( )(619)388‐6422 (619) 388‐6456
58