FY02 ASA Presentation Perform Master and Facilities Planning

1
FY02 ASA Presentation Perform Master and
Facilities Planning

• Presented by
• Stella Serras-Fiotes (leader)
• Clarence Dukes
• Gerald Hines
• Cyrena Simons
• Ronald Wilson
• Office of Research Services
• National Institutes of Health
• 18 November 2002

• Team Members
• Stella Serras-Fiotes (leader)
• Carole Wharton (co-leader)
• Clarence Dukes
• Gerald Hines
• Mehryar Ebrahimi
• Ricardo Herring
• Jennie Kirby
• Melissa Richardson
• Cyrena Simons
• Ronald Wilson
• George Williams

2
Table of Contents

• Main Presentation
• ASA Template..4
• Scope and Range of Facilities Planning
  .5
• Facilities Planning Continuum 6
• Strategic Facilities Planning Process...
  8
• Customer Perspective.. 9
• Block Diagram and Customers ..10
• Customer Segmentation. 11
• Customer Satisfaction ....13
• Internal Business Process Perspective......
  .......19
• Umbrella Deployment Flowchart .................
  ........... 20
• Process Measures... 23
• Learning and Growth Perspective. 26
• Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave,
• Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data..........................
  ................. 27
• Analysis of Readiness Conclusions....
  28
• Financial Perspective.. 30
• Unit Costs.... .31
• Asset Utilization. . .32

3
Appendices

• ASA Template46
• Facilities Planning Continuum.47
• Customer Survey.. 48
• Process Maps 59
• Learning and Growth Graphs.. 71
• Analysis of Readiness Information
  78

4
(No Transcript)
5
Scope and Range of Facilities Planning
6
Facilities Planning Continuum The
Context

• Facilities planning activities fall along a
  continuum
• -Long Range Planning (10-20 year planning
  horizon)
• -Mid-range Planning (5-10 year planning
  horizon)
• -Short-range Planning (1-5 year planning horizon)
• The continuum encompasses two related ASAs
• -Perform Master and Facilities Planning
• -Provide Space Planning to Support IC Programs

7
Facilities Planning Continuum The Context
Discrete Services

• Long Range
• DS 1 Master Plan NIH facilities
• DS 2 Performs Environmental Planning
• DS 3 Coordinate Community and Agency Input
• DS 8 Perform historic preservation review
• DS 9 Plan and design campus infrastructure
• Mid-range
• DS 5 Formulate 5 Year Federal Capital
  Improvement Program
• DS 6 Formulate Annual Building and Space Program
• DS 7 Develop Strategic Facilities Plan
• Short Range
• DS 4 Site coordination

8
Strategic Facilities Planning Process
FARB, NIH Leadership, and NIH Director
NIH StrategicResearch Plan
NIH Master Plan
FPAC
NIH StrategicFacilities Plan
IC Building and Space Plans
NIH Strategic Facilities FundingPlan
NIH Strategic Lease Plan
NIH Space Recommendation Board
B F FundingPlan
IC Capital FundingPlan
9
Customer Perspective
10
Block Diagram and Customers
11
Customer Segmentation Profile

• Primary CustomersN 85
• ICs Heads of institutes, centers
• SDs Scientific directors
• EOs Executive officers
• OD Office of the Director

12
Customer Segmentation Location

• Function
• Intramural
• Extramural
• Support Organizations

• Geographic Location
• Bethesda campus
• Bethesda area off campus
• Outside Bethesda area
• Bayview
• Research Triangle
• Rocky Mountain
• Frederick
• Poolesville

13
Customer Satisfaction The Survey

• 1. Customers were asked to rate satisfaction with
  the planning services along the continuum
• Scale of 1-10, (unsatisfactory to outstanding)
  with respect to
• Quality
• Timeliness
• Responsiveness
• 2. Customers were asked three questions about
  value of service to their mission, its
  effectiveness, and their understanding of the
  process

14
Customer Survey The Responses

• Response Rate 18
• Response Profile Good cross section of
  respondents with respect to
• Location
• Bethesda, Bethesda area, Outside area
• Size very large to very small ICs
• Function mix of intramural, extramural, both

15
Planning Continuum Ratings
16
Planning Continuum Analysis

• High Ratings for Long and Mid-range planning
• Lowest ratings were for the short term
• the point in the continuum at which competition
  among priorities is greatest and most
  disappointments will occur
• As NIH implements plans for Directors Reserve
  and more space is available to meet more
  priorities, these rating should improve

17
Do the facilities planning services in ORS
support your Institutes mission planning efforts?
Customer Survey Responses to Questions
Do you understand how to get your Institutes
needs into the strategic facilities planning
process?
Does the current process work effectively for
your Institute to acquire the space you need?
18
Customer Survey Responses to Questions
19
Evolving Process Measures for Facilities Planning
Continuum Benchmarking

• Peer Group established
• Sponsors for benchmarking study
• American Association of Medical Colleges, NIH,
  Society for College and University Planning
• Participants CDC, Medical Schools from
  UNC-Chapel Hill, Stanford, University of
  Maryland. Others determined by AAMC
• Planning with AAMC, SCUP, CDC underway

• Measures of Success
• Reasonable Timeframe (cycle time)
• Responsiveness to need (customer satisfaction)
• Effectiveness and reasonableness of plan guidance
  (customers and A/Es who work with the plans)
• Relevance to issues (customers)
• Reasonable cost (unit costs)

20
Internal Business Process Perspective
21
Master and Facilities Planning
LEGEND PROCESS A DS1 , PROCESS B DS9,
PROCESS C DS3 PROCESS D
DS5-7 AND PROCESS E DS4
22
Findings/Changes from 7 Flowcharts Covering all
9 Discrete Services

• Team members learned about work of each other
• Service Groups Perform master and facilities
  planning and Provide space planning to support
  IC programs inextricably linked in practice
• Discrete services fall along a continuum. Some
  should be collapsed or relocated to other service
  groups
• DS 8, Perform historic preservation review -- a
  small part of DS 2 Performs environmental
  planning not requiring discrete service
  designation
• DS 4, Site coordination -- a minor, but
  necessary, function more appropriately part of
  campus project delivery
• DS 5-7, developed as a single process should be
  combined
• Ties between the SJD and BSP processes were
  clarified during flowchart development
• Scope and cost verification process with DES will
  be begun earlier for the Building and Space Plan
  development
• Responsibility for environmental planning needs
  clarification

23
The Continuum FPAC ProcessPresentations
Required to Reach Decisions

• Example Approval of NIH Rent Policies

24
Long Range Planning Ideal vs. Interrupted
Schedule
NIH Bethesda Master Plan Update Schedule
Pre
-
and Post
-
9/11
Pre-9/11
Post-9/11
Task 1
-
Executive Summary
Task 2
-
Program
Reqts
Master Plan Activities
Pre
-
9/11
Task 3
-
Existing Conditions
Master Plan
Schedule
Task 4
-
Master Plan Text
Post
-
9/11
Master Plan
Task 5
-
EIS
Schedule
Master Plan
Approval
01
02
02
02
03
03
03
01
02
02
03
01
02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Jul
Jul
Jul
Sep
Jan
Sep
Jan
Nov
Mar
May
Nov
Mar
May
25
Mid-range Planning Development of Building and
Space Plan Ideal vs. Actual Schedule
26
Learning and Growth Perspective
27
Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards,
EEO/ER/ADR Data

• Data Show
• Low turnover
• Low absence rate
• No EEO, other complaints

• Conclusions
• No impact on service delivery from low morale
• Service area a good place to work

• Data Show
• Ranks third highest in number of awards in a
  service area with 13 staff
• Observation shows
• Awards prominently displayed

• Conclusions
• Large number of awards correlates with high
  scores on customer survey
• Awards are viewed as meaningful

28
Analysis of Readiness Conclusions

• Human Resources
• Dedicated staff lacking
• Professional development and skills training to
  keep up
• Backup staff for functional areas one person,
  one task
• Specialized skills, e.g., to develop presentation
  materials

• Corrective Action Steps Begun
• Gap analysis of functional requirements and
  capacity to address them underway to be
  completed by 1/1/03
• Retreat to address staff and organizational
  issues by 3/31/03

• Note in important instances, corporate
  knowledge,
• technologies, records reside with contractors,
  not staff.

29
Analysis of Readiness Conclusions

• Unmet Support Needs
• Technology up to date office suite linked state
  of the art space, data management
• Space to interact with clients lay out, display,
  and store drawings, house large pieces of
  equipment
• Equipment for scanning, reproduction of drawings

• Corrective Action Steps Planned
• Alternatives Service groups will explore
  alternatives for data management systems means
  to provide connectivity by 6/1/03
• Retreat to address issues of support capacity by
  3/31/03

30
Financial Perspective
31
Unit Cost Measures

• Plan Use the benchmarking process to establish
  reasonable costs for planning processes along the
  continuum.
• Proposed units of measure include
• Cost of long range (master) plan for simple,
  moderate, or complex site
• Cost of long range (master) plan per unit of
  predicted GSF
• Cost per mid range plan through each cycle

32
Asset Utilization Measures

• Plan
• Use benchmarking process to establish reasonable
  lengths of time for activities along the
  continuum.
• Use benchmarks for basis of future asset
  utilization calculations.

33
Conclusions and Recommendations
34
Findings and Conclusions Customer Perspective

• Low response rate to survey
• Based on survey, customers rate services high
• Customer understanding of process improved over
  2000 directors retreat discussions
• Satisfaction with short range planning can be
  improved

35
Recommendations Customer Perspective

• To improve response rates, conduct surveys in
  subsequent ASA cycles earlier than
  August/September
• Service Groups continue with customer education
  about facilities planning processes
• Creating adequate Directors reserve will
  alleviate negative responses to short range
  facilities planning services

36
Findings and Conclusions Internal Business
Perspective

• Service Groups Perform master planning and
  Provide space and their respective discrete
  services inextricably linked along a continuum
• For external review agencies, discrete service 8,
  historic preservation review is part of DS 2,
  environmental planning review
• Responsibility for discrete service 9, plan and
  design campus infrastructure has been clarified
• Responsibility for segments of DS 2,
  environmental planning is not clear
• DS 4, Site coordination is a part of project
  delivery not facilities planning
• DS 5-7 are part of the same process

37
Recommendations Internal Business Perspective

• Combine the Service Groups perform master and
  facilities planning and provide space planning
  to support IC programs
• Collapse discrete services for the two groups
  into three units Long range, mid-range, and
  short range planning
• Appropriate managers clarify responsibilities for
  environmental review process
• Include DES representation for infrastructure
  planning in master planning process
• Clarify responsibilities for acquisition of
  leased space

38
Findings and Conclusions Learning and Growth
Perspective

• Service Groups a good place to work
• Staff needs technical skills and professional
  development
• Office lacks space, state of the art equipment
  and technologies
• No back up for staff heavy reliance on
  contractors

39
Recommendations Learning and Growth Perspective

• OFP undertake analysis of gap between office
  responsibilities and staff capacity
• OFP plan a retreat to evaluate gap analysis and
  develop strategic plan to address gaps
• OFP consider alternatives for stabilizing and
  improving technologies, databases
• OFP undertake benchmarking with selected set of
  peers

40
Findings and Conclusions Financial Perspective

• None to date
• Will use results from benchmarking project to
  establish measures

41
Recommendations Financial Perspective

• Use benchmarking project to establish and measure
  the financial perspective

42
All Perspectives

• Conclusions and Findings
• Continuum worked well for 2 Service Groups
• as framework for customer segmentation and survey
• for examining business processes
• for considerations of staff capacity and
  technological support
• for consideration of financial measures using
  benchmarking as tool

• Recommendation Combine Service Groups and use the
  continuum as basis for analysis in future ASA
  processes

43
Recommended Changes to Discrete Services

• Long Range Discrete Services
• 1 Master plan NIH facilities
• 2 Performs Environmental Planning
• 3 Coordinate Community Agency Input
• 8 Perform historic preservation review
• 9 Plan and design campus infrastructure
• Mid-range Discrete Services
• 5 Formulate 5 Yr FCIP
• 6 Formulate Annual BSP
• 7 Develop Strategic Facilities Plan
• Short Range Discrete Services
• 4 Site coordination
• From Provide Space Planning
• Develop Facilities Options
• Manage SJD Process

• Long Range Discrete Services
• 1 Master plan NIH facilities
• 2 Performs Environmental Planning (includes
  Perform historic preservation review and plan
  campus infrastructure )
• 3 Coordinate Community and Agency Input
• Mid-range Discrete Services
• 4 Develop Strategic Facilities Plans (includes
  Formulate 5 Yr FCIP and Formulate Annual BSP)
• Short Range Discrete Services
• Move Site coordination to DES
• 5 Manage NIH Directors
• Reserve (from SG Provide Space Planning)
• 6 Manage SJD process (from SG Provide Space
  Planning DS 1 2)

44
Improvements Underway

• Streamlining from FY 01 facilities planning
  (including FPAC), environmental planning,
  community and agency input ongoing
• Relationship between DES and OFP for
  infrastructure planning and design clarified
• DES will be brought in earlier in BF process in
  FY 05 budget cycle
• Ongoing discussions with NSF, CDC, medical
  schools and universities on benchmarking for
  master and facilities planning
• Gap analysis of OPF capacity
• Planning for staff retreat

45
Appendices
46
ASA Template 2002
47
Facilities Planning Continuum

• Long Range, Master Planning
• 10-20 years, Facilities Planning Advisory
  Committee (FPAC), Master Plans, Off Campus
  Strategic Facilities Plan
• Overall planning framework for IC projections,
  updated every 5 years
• Medium Range, Acquisition Planning
• 5-10 years, FPAC, Buildings and Space Plan
  (BSP), Strategic Facilities Plan (SFP)
• Conceptual plan for major construction and lease
  actions, updated annually
• Short Range, Requests for Space
• 1-3 or 5 years, Space Recommendation Board (SRB),
  Space Justification Document (SJD)
• Requests for space in facilities already
  conceptually approved and in acquisition,
  submitted as needed

48
CustomerSurveyPage 1
49
CustomerSurveyPage 1
50
Survey RespondentsFY02 Respondents by IC
51
Long Range Planning Ratings

• Master plans, infrastructure environmental
  planning, historic preservation reviews,
  community input and agency reviews

10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
Mean Rating
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Quality
Timeliness
Responsiveness
8.13
8.00
8.56
Mean Rating
Category
Data based on 12 respondents
52
Mid Range Planning Ratings

• Annual Building and Space Plan, Strategic
  Facilities Plan, 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan
  (FCIP)

10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
Mean Rating
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Quality
Timeliness
Responsiveness
8.38
8.38
8.22
Mean Rating
Category
Data based on 12 respondents
53
Short Range Planning Ratings

• Space Justification Document (SJD) Process,
  Manage Directors Reserve, Develop Facilities
  Options

10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
Mean Rating
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Quality
Timeliness
Responsiveness
7.91
7.18
7.75
Mean Rating
Category
Data based on 12 respondents
54
Survey Respondents (cont.)FY02 Respondents by
Location
55
Survey Respondents (cont.)FY02 Respondents by
Customer Mission
56
Do the facilities planning services in ORS
support your Institutes mission planning efforts?
57
Do you understand how to get your Institutes
needs into the strategic facilities planning
process?
58
Does the current process work effectively for
your Institute to acquire the space you need?
59
Master and Facilities Planning
LEGEND PROCESS A DS1 , PROCESS B DS9,
PROCESS C DS3 PROCESS D
DS5-7 AND PROCESS E DS4
60
A Perform Environmental Planning and Historic
Review, page 1
RED TEXT CLARIFICATION NEEDED
61
A Perform Environmental Planning and Historic
Review, page 2
RED TEXT CLARIFICATION NEEDED
62
A Perform Environmental Planning and Historic
Review, page 3

RED TEXT CLARIFICATION NEEDED
63
A Perform Environmental Planning and Historic
Review, page 4
RED TEXT CLARIFICATION NEEDED
64
A Perform Environmental Planning and Historic
Review, page 5
RED TEXT CLARIFICATION NEEDED
65
B Ensure integrity of campus utility
infrastructure, page 1
66
B Ensure integrity of campus utility
infrastructure, page 2
67
C Community and Agency Planning Coordination
68
D Strategic Facilities Planning, Buildings
Space Planning, FCIP Development, page 1
69
D Strategic Facilities Planning, Buildings
Space Planning, FCIP Development, page 2
70
E Site Coordination
71
Service Group Turnover Rate (Oct 2001 - June
2002)
Turnover Rate
Service Group Number
72
Average Hours of Sick Leave Used (Oct 2001 - June
2002)
Average Hours
Service Group Number
73
Average Number of Awards Received (Oct 2001 -
June 2002)
Average number
Service Group Number
74
Average Number of EEO Complaints (Oct 2001 -
June 2002)
Average Number
Service Group Number
75
Average Number of ER Cases (Oct 2001 - June 2002)
Average Number
Service Group Number
76
Average Number of ADR Cases (Oct 2001 - June
2002)
Average Number
Service Group Number
77
Learning and Growth Data Table
0 EEO complaints, 0 ER and ADR cases
1 employee turnover
About 1.5 awards per employee
About 3 days sick leave per employee
78
Analysis of Readiness

• The Master and Facilities Planning and Space
  Planning to Support IC Programs Service Groups
  considered infrastructure changes needed to
  improve its operational capacity. It focused on
  the Office of Facilities Planning (OFP), the
  office with lead responsibility for these ASAs.
  The discussion on readiness focused on OPFs
  human resources and support capacity. Findings
  include
• Human Resources
• Two OFP staff projected to retire in next three
  years. The administrative officer leaves in
  December 2002 a space management specialist is
  planning to retire in three years. Each has
  responsibility for functions that must be
  continued. Two staff are being trained to assume
  some of the duties of the administrative officer
  it may be possible to contract for another duty.
• The group identified duties for the support staff
  and skills required for all staff by functional
  area.
•  

79
Analysis of Readiness, cont.

• Human Resources, cont.
• Space Coordinators
• Basic skills Written and oral communications,
  interpersonal communications,data management,
  Microsoft Office Suite, GIS, reading proficiency
  of CAD proficiency
• Specialized knowledge/experience
• Planning Understanding of scientific programs
  Understanding of scientific processes Basic
  building and space matters Government
  acquisition process
• Project management training/experience
• Planners
• Basic Skills Same as space coordinators plus
• Specialized knowledge/experience
• Ability to present orally and in writing to
  senior level audiences Judgment, maturity
  ability to discriminate among types and levels of
  issues Grasp of policy implications of
  management decisions Grasp of interrelationships
  among institutes Ability to see connections
  among seemingly disparate policies and issues
  Understanding of the need to require standards 

80
Analysis of Readiness, cont.

• Non Personnel Needs
• State of the art IT software and support,
  including GIS software
• Microsoft Office Suite installation
• Visual information specialist
• General Constraints
• Not enough staff in other offices to receive
  handoffs
• Lack of backup coverage within office
• A plan for addressing office issues
• Lack of space and the right kinds of space for
  planning
• Lack of flow and continuity
•  
• Recommendations
• In depth gap analysis of current responsibilities
  compared to capacity
• Planning retreat for OFP to address constraints
  and gaps