FY02 ASA Presentation Environmental Protection Branch - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – FY02 ASA Presentation Environmental Protection Branch PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 772379-YWI5M



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

FY02 ASA Presentation Environmental Protection Branch

Description:

ASA Template Training - National Institutes of Health – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:62
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 97
Provided by: Janic126
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: FY02 ASA Presentation Environmental Protection Branch


1
FY02 ASA Presentation Environmental Protection
Branch
  • Presented by
  • Don Wilson
  • Division of Safety
  • National Institutes of Health
  • 18 November 2002

2
Table of Contents
  • Main Presentation
  • ASA Template ..4
  • Customer Perspective..5-6
  • Customer Segmentation ....7-11
  • Customer Satisfaction...12-19
  • Internal Business Process Perspective
    20
  • Service Group Block Diagram21
  • Conclusions from Discrete Services Deployment
    Flowcharts..22
  • Process Measures.23-38
  • Learning and Growth Perspective.39
  • Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards,
    EEO/ER/ADR Data...40
  • Analysis of Readiness Conclusions
    ..41
  • Financial Perspective..42
  • Unit Cost..43-48
  • Asset Utilization49
  • Conclusions and Recommendations.50
  • Conclusions from FY02 ASA....51-
    52
  • Recommendations53

3
Table of Contents
  • Appendices
  • Page 2-3 of your ASA Template
  • Customer satisfaction graphs
  • Block diagram
  • Process maps
  • Learning and Growth graphs
  • Analysis of Readiness Information

4
(No Transcript)
5
Customer Perspective
6
Customer PerspectiveEPB WMS Services Overview
  • Recycling, solid and medical waste services
    provided under one Performance Based Contract.
    Contract services from Bldg 25 operations center
    with approximately 30 contractor employees.
  • Hazardous waste services provided under Chem/Rad
    Contact. Services provided from Bldg 21 and 26T
    operations center with 23 contractor employees
    on-site.
  • All operations must comply with applicable
    license, permits and regulations.

7
Customer Segmentation
Environmental Protection Branch Waste Management
Section
  • Chemical Waste
  • Recycling
  • Medical/
  • Pathological Waste
  • Solid Waste

8
Customer Segmentation DS1,2,4
  • Customer Segmentation Charts are same for
    Discrete Services 1 (Recycling), 2 (Solid Waste),
    and 4 (Medical Waste).
  • These 3 services are performed by collecting
    waste or recyclables from either loading docks,
    cold boxes,or containers in corridors or at
    outside locations.
  • Segmentation based on assigned Institute square
    footage within on-site buildings.
  • Largest Customers ORS (18), CC (17), NCI
    (10), NLM (8)

9
DS 1, DS 2, DS 4 - Customer Segmentation
NIH Campus Institutes Serviced in Square Footage

Percent of Each Customer to Total Campus Area
4,238,629 ft 2
Total Area in Ft. 2 per Institute

10
Customer Segmentation DS3
  • The Customer Segmentation Chart for DS3, Collect
    and Dispose of Hazardous Waste, was created based
    on a list of customers from the Hazardous Waste
    Customer Database.
  • There are a total of 984 customer groups in the
    database.
  • A customer is not a single person, but a
    laboratory group that works together under the
    same lab chief or PI.
  • Largest Customers NCI (162), NIDDK (102), NIAID
    (100), NHLBI (80)

11
DS 3 Customer Segmentation Collect and Dispose
of Hazardous Materials
24
16
26
31
75
34
47
152
35
50
44
108
50
100
56
80
56
Percent of Each Customer to Total Customer Base
984
Number of Customers per Institute


12
FY02 ORS Customer Scorecard Data for the Annual
Self Assessments Service Group 18 Provide
Waste Management DS3 - Collect and Dispose of
Hazardous Waste 16 October 2002 Summary
Prepared by the Office of Quality Management (OQM)
13
Survey Distribution
  • Number of Surveys Distributed
  • Collect Chemical Wastes from Laboratories
  • and Provide Empty Containers as Needed 30
  • Number of Surveys Returned
  • Collect Chemical Wastes from Laboratories
  • and Provide Empty Containers as Needed
    13
  • Response Rate 43

14
Radar ChartFY02 Product/Service Satisfaction
Ratings
ORS Index 8.27
Service Group Index 9.94
10.00
Cost
Cost
7.42
10.00
10.00
7.00
7.00
4.00
4.00
Reliability
Reliability
Quality
Quality
1.00
1.00
10.00
8.48
9.80
8.40
10.00
Timeliness
8.28
Timeliness
Data based on 13 respondents
Data based on 436 respondents
Note The rating scale ranges from 1 - 10 where
1 represents Unsatisfactory and 10 represents
Outstanding. Refer to the Data Analysis and
Graphing training for advice on interpreting
these results.
15
Radar ChartFY02 Customer Service Satisfaction
Ratings
Service Group Index 9.97
ORS Index 8.55
8.60
Availability
10.00
Availability
10.00
10.00
7.00
Responsiveness
Handling of
7.00
Responsiveness
Handling of
Problems
8.51
Problems
4.00
10.00
4.00
8.51
10.00
1.00
1.00
Convenience
Competence
Convenience
Competence
8.58
8.54
9.85
10.00
Data based on 13 respondents
Data based on 436 respondents
Note The rating scale ranges from 1 - 10 where
1 represents Unsatisfactory and 10 represents
Outstanding. Refer to the Data Analysis and
Graphing training for advice on interpreting
these results.
16
Scatter DiagramFY02 Customer Importance and
Satisfaction Ratings A Closer Look
10.00
Competence
Reliability
9.80
Handling of Problems
Responsiveness
Availability
9.60
Convenience
9.40
Timeliness
9.20
9.00
8.80
Quality
8.60
Importance
8.40
8.20
8.00
7.80
Cost
7.60
7.40
SATISFIED,
IMPORTANT
7.20
7.00
7.00
7.20
7.40
7.60
7.80
8.00
8.20
8.40
8.60
8.80
9.00
9.20
9.40
9.60
9.80
10.00
Satisfaction
Data based on 13 respondents
Note A smaller portion of the chart is shown
so that the individual data points can be labeled.
17
Scorecard Comments for - What was done
particularly well?
  • We appreciate the prompt pickup of old full
    containers and the delivery of new empty ones.
  • Handling of problems.
  • They are prompt and courteous.
  • Gentlemen know what assigned task was, performed
    politely and efficiently
  • Promptness is very important. The chemical waste
    was picked up within the 24 hour call.
  • Polite customer service contact by phone. Picked
    up waste the next morning. Very efficient.
  • Response time very good. Very friendly pick up
    people.
  • Always prompt, polite.
  • I am very impressed with the next day service.

18
Scorecard Comments for What needs to be
improved?
  • We have never had a problem.
  • Nothing.

19
Feedback to Scorecard Responders
  • Provide email back to all responders. Email
    thanks them for participating and gives a summary
    of the results of the surveys. The email
    expresses our commitment to providing the highest
    quality of service and continuing to support the
    NIH mission of biomedical research.

20
Internal Business Process Perspective
21
(No Transcript)
22
Conclusions from Discrete Services Deployment
Flowcharts
  • Our Service Group completed 4 deployment
    flowcharts for 4 discrete services
  • The flowcharts show EPB waste services are
    potentially impacted by other parties. Other
    parties include
  • Housekeeping staff that load and operate trash
    compactors
  • MPW generators or CC Housekeeping Staff who
    package MPW for disposal
  • Vehicles parked illegally that prevent emptying
    or pulling of trash dumpsters

23
Performance Measures
  • DS1 Collection and Processing of Recyclable
    Materials
  • Time between customer collection request and
    delivery of service (PBSC Measure)
  • Contract Performance Standard Receive service
    request calls for recycling collection from
    Project Officer or customers by phone or
    electronic means, document electronically and
    respond within 24 hours.
  • AQL 100 of all service request calls serviced
    within 24 hours
  • Results AQL measured for 40 weeks. Met AQL in
    39 of 40 weeks 97.5 Compliance

24
Performance Measures
  • DS 1 - Compliance with 24 hour Recycling Pick Up
    Requests 40 week measurement

25
Performance Measures
  • DS1 Collection and Processing of Recyclable
    Materials
  • Timeliness and effectiveness of recyclable
    collections (PBSC Measure)
  • Contract Performance Standard Timely and
    efficient collection of recyclable materials from
    interior and exterior containers and liners
    replaced as required in the SOW
  • AQL No more than 10 of a representative sample
    of all containers in use greater than 50 full as
    measured within 4 hours of scheduled service.
  • Results AQL measured for 40 weeks. Met AQL in
    40 of 40 weeks 100 Compliance

26
Performance Measures
  • DS 1 - Compliance with Timeliness and
    Effectiveness of Emptying Recycling Containers
    Campus Wide 40 week measurement

27
Performance Measures
  • DS2 Collection and Disposal of Solid Waste
  • Timely and effective emptying of exterior trash
    dumpsters to prevent overfilling and loading dock
    backups (PBSC Measure)
  • Contract Performance Standard Empty containers
    on schedules that allows continuous loading from
    the dock.
  • AQL No more than 10 of containers full and
    unable to receive additional trash on main campus
    during core hours.
  • Results AQL measured for 40 weeks. Met AQL in
    40 of 40 weeks 100 Compliance

28
Performance Measures
  • DS 2 - Compliance with Timeliness and
    Effectiveness of Emptying Dumpsters to Prevent
    Overfilling 40 week measurement

29
Performance Measures
  • DS2 Collection and Disposal of Solid Waste
  • Effectiveness of waste reduction efforts
    accomplished through the recycling program
  • The effectiveness was determined by taking the
    amounts recycled divided by amounts of solid
    waste plus amounts recycled. This provides a
    percentage of solid waste reduction achieved
    through recycling.
  • Results Achieve an average recycling rate of
    25 for FY2002

30
Performance Measures
  • DS 2 Effectiveness of Waste Reduction FY 02 In
    Tonnage and Percentile

31
Performance Measures
  • DS3 Collection and Disposal of Hazardous Waste
  • Effectiveness of hazardous waste regulatory
    compliance as measured by regulatory violations
  • The effectiveness was determined by evaluating
    the results of all regulatory inspections
    performed during FY02. One 2-day regulatory
    inspection was performed by the Maryland
    Department of the Environment.
  • Results No regulatory violations were
    discovered as a result of this inspection 100
    compliance

32
Performance Measures
  • DS 3 Effectiveness of Hazardous Waste
    Regulatory Compliance FY 02

33
Performance Measures
  • DS3 Collection and Disposal of Hazardous Waste
  • Time between customer collection request and
    delivery of service
  • The effectiveness was determined by using the ORS
    Customer Scorecard. We added an extra question
    on the Scorecard to measure whether the customers
    felt that contract requirement for providing
    waste collection services within 24 hours of
    request was being met.
  • Results Of the 12 responders that answered the
    question, all 12 gave a perfect score of 10
    100 compliance

34
DS 3 - Hazardous Waste Survey Survey of Customer
Satisfaction with 24 hour Request for Pick Up
Requirement
35
Performance Measures
  • DS3 Collection and Disposal of Hazardous Waste
  • Effectiveness of using recycling options as
    compared to destruction or disposal
  • The effectiveness was determined by calculating
    the total weight of hazardous waste recovered for
    reuse divided by the the total weight disposed
    plus weight recovered for reuse. This provides a
    percentage of hazardous waste that was
    effectively recovered for reuse.
  • Results Achieve an average recycling rate of 18
    for FY2002. This is a very good recycling rate
    due to the light weight of many recyclable waste
    streams.

36
DS 3 - Effectiveness of Utilizing Recycling
Options as Compared to Destruction or Disposal
37
Performance Measures
  • DS4 Collection and Disposal of Medical
    Pathological Waste
  • Time between MPW boxes placed in storage areas by
    customer and removed by Contractor (PBSC Measure)
  • Contract Performance Standard Timely and
    efficient collection of MPW containers from
    building interiors and loading docks
  • AQL 90 of all MPW containers collected on-site
    within 3 hours of being set-out by generator.
  • Results AQL measured for 40 weeks. Met AQL in
    40 of 40 weeks 100 Compliance

38
Performance Measures
  • DS 4 Timeliness and Effectiveness of Pick Ups
    of MPW Boxes within 3 hours of Being Placed Out
    by Client

40 Weeks
40 Weeks
Jan 02
Apr 02
Feb 02
Dec 02
Mar 02
May 02
June 02
Jul 02
Aug 02
Sep 02
39
FY02 Learning and Growth (LG) Data for the
Annual Self Assessments Service Group 18
Provide Waste Management 26 September
2002 Summary Prepared by the Office of Quality
Management
40
Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave,
Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data
  • No significant conclusions can be drawn from the
    data

41
Analysis of Readiness Conclusions
  • One employee to staff proposed Twinbrook
    Research Complex, scheduled to open 2004.
  • Additional human resources for service demands
    created by completion and occupancy of new CRC ,
    Twinbrook Research Campus, and new NRC Building.

42
Financial Perspective
43
UNIT COST MEASURED BY COST OF METRIC TON PER YEAR
44
UNIT COST MEASURED BY COST OF METRIC TON PER YEAR
45
UNIT COST MEASURED BY COST OF METRIC TON PER YEAR
46
UNIT COST MEASURED BY COST OF METRIC TON PER YEAR
47
UNIT COST MEASURED BY COST OF METRIC TON PER YEAR
48
Unit Cost Measure Conclusions
  • EPB provides top quality waste services to the
    NIH without significant costs increases from year
    to year

49
Asset Utilization Measures
  • EPB staff are assigned to manage the recycling
    services and hazardous, medical, and solid waste
    services.
  • High amount of direct staff involvement required
    due to complex technical and regulatory nature of
    work. Work writing permits, reviewing
    regulatory shipping documents, new building plans
    impacting our services, and Contractor prepared
    regulatory reports.
  • Because the staff does not perform repetitive
    quantifiable tasks, an asset utilization measure
    of EPB human resources was not practical.

50
Conclusions and Recommendations
51
Conclusions from FY02 ASA
  • Major findings from the FY02 ASA
  • ORS Scorecard showed customer satisfaction at an
    extremely high level

52
Conclusions from FY02 ASA
  • Other Comments Concerning ASA Process
  • WMS expended approximately 480 total man-hours
  • Too much specialized training required
  • ASA demands reduced staff ability to provide
    services at highest level
  • ASA process needs streamlining to allow
    standardized inputs from Service Groups after
    which final report is self-generated

53
Recommendations
  • Award a new 5 year Chemical and Radioactive Waste
    Contract in FY03 with performance based elements.
  • Work to improve performance in areas identified
    by process maps
  • Implement customer recommendations from scorecard
    where possible

54
Appendices
55
(No Transcript)
56
(No Transcript)
57
FY02 ORS Customer Scorecard Data for the Annual
Self Assessments Service Group 18 Provide
Waste Management DS3 - Collect and Dispose of
Hazardous Waste 16 October 2002 Summary
Prepared by the Office of Quality Management (OQM)
58
Survey Distribution
  • Number of Surveys Distributed
  • Collect Chemical Wastes from Laboratories
  • and Provide Empty Containers as Needed 30
  • Number of Surveys Returned
  • Collect Chemical Wastes from Laboratories
  • and Provide Empty Containers as Needed
    13
  • Response Rate 43

59
Survey RespondentsFY02 Respondents by IC
8
7
6
6
5
Number of Respondents
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NEI
CIT
NCI
CC
OD
ORS
NIA
CSR
NINR
NLM
NIBIB
NIAID
NIDCR
CBER
NIMH
NIDCD
NHLBI
NIDA
NCRR
JEFIC
NIEHS
NIDDK
NINDS
Other
NHGRI
NIGMS
NICHHD
NIAMS
NCMHD
NIAAA
NCCAM
NIH IC
Data based on 13 respondents
Note One respondent did not answer question.
60
Survey Respondents (cont.)FY02 Respondents by
Location
61
Radar ChartFY02 Product/Service Satisfaction
Ratings
Note The rating scale ranges from 1 - 10 where
1 represents Unsatisfactory and 10 represents
Outstanding. Refer to the Data Analysis and
Graphing training for advice on interpreting
these results.
62
Radar ChartFY02 Customer Service Satisfaction
Ratings
Note The rating scale ranges from 1 - 10 where
1 represents Unsatisfactory and 10 represents
Outstanding. Refer to the Data Analysis and
Graphing training for advice on interpreting
these results.
63
Scatter DiagramFY02 Customer Importance and
Satisfaction Ratings
Note The Importance rating scale ranges from 1
- 10 where 1 represents Unimportant and 10
represents Important. The Satisfaction rating
scale ranges from 1 - 10 where 1 represents
Unsatisfactory and 10 represents Outstanding.
64
Scatter DiagramFY02 Customer Importance and
Satisfaction Ratings A Closer Look
Note A smaller portion of the chart is shown
so that the individual data points can be labeled.
65
Scorecard CommentsWhat was done particularly
well?
  • We appreciate the prompt pickup of old full
    containers and the delivery of new empty ones.
  • Handling of problems.
  • They are prompt and courteous.
  • Gentlemen know what assigned task was, performed
    politely and efficiently
  • Promptness is very important. The chemical waste
    was picked up within the 24 hour call.
  • Polite customer service contact by phone. Picked
    up waste the next morning. Very efficient.
  • Response time very good. Very friendly pick up
    people.
  • Always prompt, polite.
  • I am very impressed with the next day service.

66
What needs to be improved?
  • We have never had a problem.
  • Nothing.

67
Other Comments
  • Task assignment from EPB needs refinement. 1.
    Chemical waste tags need to be redesigned to
    include DATE you delivered containers and
    instructions that containers must be removed
    within 60 days. 2. You should notify all users by
    WRITTEN MAIL or E-MAIL of this new 60 day rule.
  • Very good.
  • There should be some kind of a clear window on
    the red cans so the investigator will know when
    it is full.
  • This is a wonderful service.

68
Customer Scorecard Summary
  • Conclusions based on graphs and comments
  • Our customers rate the quality of this service
    very highly
  • This service excels in all measured areas
  • Potential actions based on what you have learned
    from the data
  • Revise the Chemical Waste Tag as suggested
  • Provide NIH wide email notification concerning
    removal of containers within 60 days

69
Summarizing Your Customer Scorecard Data (cont.)
  • Does the customer satisfaction data, when
    compared to data in other perspectives, show
    potential relationships?
  • Answer None that could be observed
  • From reviewing your data, what could be done to
    improve your customers satisfaction?
  • Answer Very little based on the data. We will
    consider customer suggestions concerning the
    Chemical Waste Tag and the collection containers.

70
Feedback to Scorecard Responders
  • Will provide email back to all responders. Email
    will thank them for participating and give a
    summary of the results of the surveys. The email
    will express our commitment to providing the
    highest quality of service and continuing to
    support the NIH mission of biomedical research.

71
(No Transcript)
72
Process Flow Charts
73
(No Transcript)
74
(No Transcript)
75
(No Transcript)
76
(No Transcript)
77
(No Transcript)
78
(No Transcript)
79
(No Transcript)
80
(No Transcript)
81
FY02 Learning and Growth (LG) Data for the
Annual Self Assessments Service Group 18
Provide Waste Management 26 September
2002 Summary Prepared by the Office of Quality
Management
82
Service Group Turnover Rate (Oct 2001 - June
2002)
Turnover Rate
Service Group Number
83
Average Hours of Sick Leave Used (Oct 2001 - June
2002)
Average Hours
Service Group Number
84
Average Number of Awards Received (Oct 2001 -
June 2002)
Average number
Service Group Number
85
Average Number of EEO Complaints (Oct 2001 -
June 2002)
Average Number
Service Group Number
86
Average Number of ER Cases (Oct 2001 - June 2002)
Average Number
Service Group Number
87
Average Number of ADR Cases (Oct 2001 - June
2002)
Average Number
Service Group Number
88
Learning and Growth Data Table
No EEO complaints or ER/ADR cases
About 1 award for every 2 employees
About 1 week sick leave per employee
10 employee turnover
89
Summary of Service Group 18Learning and Growth
Data
  • Ten percent employee turnover
  • About 1 week sick leave used per employee
  • About one award for every 2 employees
  • No EEO, ER, or ADR issues

90
Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave,
Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data
  • No significant conclusions can be drawn from the
    data

91
Answers to Readiness Questions
  • 1. What are the right mix of skills and abilities
    needed to carry out the mission of this service
    group?
  • Recycling Understanding of industry equipment,
    operations and work practices, basic PC skills,
    contract management skills, communication skills,
    a full understanding of applicable regulations
    and required reports, good people skills and
    customer service skills
  • Solid Waste Understanding of industry equipment
    operations and work practices, basic PC skills,
    contract management skills, communication skills,
    a full understanding of applicable regulations
    and required reports, good people skills and
    customer service skills

92
Answers to Readiness Questions (Cont.)
  • Hazardous Waste Understanding of hazardous
    waste regulations and their application at the
    NIH, ability to interpret new regulations and
    permit conditions knowledge of the industry
    (transportation, treatment, and disposal), good
    college science background in chemistry, biology,
    and physics, good PC skills for data tracking and
    document preparation, contract management skills,
    communication skills, good people skills and
    customer service skills
  • Medical Waste Understanding of industry
    operations and work practices, college background
    in biology and general sciences, understanding of
    state and DOT medical waste regulations, basic PC
    skills, contract management skills, communication
    skills, good people skills and customer service
    skills

93
Answers to Readiness Questions (Cont.)
  • 2. Will the service group have sufficient
    numbers of people, with the right skills and
    abilities to carry out its mission in the next
    three years?
  • In 2004, an additional EPB staff member will be
    required to manage proposed Twinbrook Research
    Complex Waste Facility.
  • Additional staff resources also required
    2004-2006 to support increased service demands
    created by occupancy phases of following new
    buildings CRC, NRC and Twinbrook Research
    Complex.

94
Answers to Readiness Questions (Cont.)
  • 3. What are going to be the training needs of the
    employees and contractors employed in this
    service group in the next two to three years?
  • Will continue our existing training track
    including regulatory and industry specific
    training, customer relations and leadership
    skills training, on-site training required by
    permits, and IT training related to data tracking
    and contract management. A stronger emphasis
    will be placed on IT training related to data
    management and on leadership/management skills.

95
Answers to Readiness Questions (Cont.)
  • 4. What will be the right tools or materials
    (e.g., information, software applications,
    hardware, specialized equipment) needed to carry
    out the mission of this service group in the next
    three years?
  • Industrial waste handling equipment, hazardous
    waste analytical equipment, replacement
    computers, hazardous waste tracking software, and
    data tracking software. On-site staging area for
    dumpsters with suspected hazardous material
    contamination.

96
Answers to Readiness Questions (Cont.)
  • 5. Does the service group have the right quantity
    of tools or materials needed to carry out its
    mission in the next three years?
  • Mainly need to continue existing hazardous waste
    tracking software enhancements for more detailed
    data tracking.
  • 6. What are the anticipated implications of not
    obtaining the right mix of skills and abilities,
    or tools and materials (e.g., service disruption,
    inefficiencies, increased turnover of key
    personnel) in meeting service or mission
    expectations?
  • Greater difficulties in tracking and retrieving
    critical hazardous waste data and reduced work
    efficiency by contractor staff.
About PowerShow.com