Post on 19-Jan-2016
Toho Water Authority: Looking Back and Moving Forward
Michael Sweeney, Ph.D.Deputy Executive DirectorToho Water Authority
1
AgendaAbout TohoBenchmarking ChallengesCommunication with the Board & Staff Tying Performance to Compensation Continuous Improvement Feedback LoopSummary
2
About Toho Water Authority: A Special Independent District created by the
State of FloridaGoverned by a 6 Member Board of Supervisors by
the member governmentsA Utility Provider of Water, Wastewater, and
Reclaimed Water ServicesA Utility Provider to a Service Population of
approximately 250,000An employer of 290 employees
3
Benchmarking Challenges
Data Collection & ManagementDifferentiating systems and activitiesAccountability to provide complete data
Insufficient data Planned MaintenanceAsset Inventory
Communications to Boards and StaffAnalysisIncentives
4
Communication with Governing Boards:Who They Are and What They (Don’t) Want
Busy PeoplePrivate Sector PerspectiveFinancial Background is PredominantLimited Understanding of the Daily RoutineFocus is mostly on two areas:
The CustomerThe Money
5
They Want Effective Communications - a Balancing Act
6
Our Strategic Plan Covers Five Strategies1. Customer Service2. Water Supply3. Workforce4. Infrastructure5. Financial Health
7
Level of Service – 4FQ14
9
Key Performance Indicators – Governance View
79%
60%
Improved response times sewer collection system failures.
Infrastructure Reliability
Regulatory Compliance
Financial Performance
Workforce Initiatives
1Q14
2Q14
3Q14
67% 67% 75%
77% 82%100%
79% 79% 79%
67% 67% 60%
100%
100%
100%
n/a n/a n/a
Organizational Responsiveness
Customer Service Performance
73%
91%
100%
50%
9
Level of Service – 4FQ14
10
Key Performance Indicators – Governance View
79%
60%
Staff available for phone coverage decreased while average call volume increased.
Infrastructure Reliability
Regulatory Compliance
Financial Performance
Workforce Initiatives
1Q14
2Q14
3Q14
67% 67% 75%
77% 82%100%
79% 79% 79%
67% 67% 60%
100%
100%
100%
n/a n/a n/a
Organizational Responsiveness
Customer Service Performance
73%
91%
100%
50%
10
Level of Service: Provide reliable service to TWA Customers
POTABLE WATER WASTE WATER RECLAIMED WATER
QTR YR QTR YR QTR YR
Provide minimum pressure (at point of service) of 40 psi during average demand
Repair out-of-service fire hydrants within 14 days of notification
Restoration of service • Potable Service Lines – 4 hours• Potable Distribution Lines and Reclaimed
Service – 8 hours• Sewer Service – 8 hrs
Number of breaks per 100 miles (pipe) per year• Potable and Reclaimed Water – 100 breaks• Waste Water – 30 breaks
Unaccounted for water loss 10% or less
Fewer than 11 SSO’s per 100 miles (pipe) per year
Reduce # of SSO’s by 1% over previous year• Wet weather SSO’s• Dry weather SSO’s
Provide service on scheduled days
Infrastructure Reliability - 4FQ14 Quarterly Report
Target met/exceeded - GOOD Target not met – IMPROVEMENT REQ’DLEGEND Low Bound not met – IMPROVEMENT REQ’D
Trend Improving Trending Worse
WORST BEST73%
11
Infrastructure Reliability - 4FQ14 Quarterly Report
Target met/exceeded - GOOD Target not met – IMPROVEMENT REQ’DLEGEND Low Bound not met – IMPROVEMENT REQ’D
Trend Improving Trending Worse
WORST BEST
Level of Service: Provide reliable service to TWA Customers
POTABLE WATER WASTE WATER RECLAIMED WATER
QTR YR QTR YR QTR YR
Provide minimum pressure (at point of service) of 40 psi during average demand
Repair out-of-service fire hydrants within 14 days of notification
Restoration of service • Potable Service Lines – 4 hours• Potable Distribution Lines and Reclaimed
Service – 8 hours• Sewer Service – 8 hrs
Number of breaks per 100 miles (pipe) per year• Potable and Reclaimed Water – 100 breaks• Waste Water – 30 breaks
Unaccounted for water loss 10% or less
Fewer than 11 SSO’s per 100 miles (pipe) per year
Reduce # of SSO’s by 1% over previous year• Wet weather SSO’s• Dry weather SSO’s
Provide service on scheduled days
Hydrant repair averaged 22.6 days for the quarter.
73%
12
Infrastructure Reliability - 4FQ14 Quarterly Report
Target met/exceeded - GOOD Target not met – IMPROVEMENT REQ’DLEGEND Low Bound not met – IMPROVEMENT REQ’D
Trend Improving Trending Worse
WORST BEST
Level of Service: Provide reliable service to TWA Customers
POTABLE WATER WASTE WATER RECLAIMED WATER
QTR YR QTR YR QTR YR
Provide minimum pressure (at point of service) of 40 psi during average demand
Repair out-of-service fire hydrants within 14 days of notification
Restoration of service • Potable Service Lines – 4 hours• Potable Distribution Lines and Reclaimed
Service – 8 hours• Sewer Service – 8 hrs
Number of breaks per 100 miles (pipe) per year• Potable and Reclaimed Water – 100 breaks• Waste Water – 30 breaks
Unaccounted for water loss 10% or less
Fewer than 11 SSO’s per 100 miles (pipe) per year
Reduce # of SSO’s by 1% over previous year• Wet weather SSO’s• Dry weather SSO’s
Provide service on scheduled days
1.5% of breaks for this quarter were associated with main distribution lines.
73%
13
Infrastructure Reliability - 4FQ14 Quarterly Report
Target met/exceeded - GOOD Target not met – IMPROVEMENT REQ’DLEGEND Low Bound not met – IMPROVEMENT REQ’D
Trend Improving Trending Worse
WORST BEST
Level of Service: Provide reliable service to TWA Customers
POTABLE WATER WASTE WATER RECLAIMED WATER
QTR YR QTR YR QTR YR
Provide minimum pressure (at point of service) of 40 psi during average demand
Repair out-of-service fire hydrants within 14 days of notification
Restoration of service • Potable Service Lines – 4 hours• Potable Distribution Lines and Reclaimed
Service – 8 hours• Sewer Service – 8 hrs
Number of breaks per 100 miles (pipe) per year• Potable and Reclaimed Water – 100 breaks• Waste Water – 30 breaks
Unaccounted for water loss 10% or less
Fewer than 11 SSO’s per 100 miles (pipe) per year.
Reduce # of SSO’s by 1% over previous year• Wet weather SSO’s• Dry weather SSO’s
Provide service on scheduled days
•74% of failures for the quarter occurred in the sewer lateral lines or at the cleanout
73%
14
Infrastructure Reliability - 4FQ14 Quarterly Report
Target met/exceeded - GOOD Target not met – IMPROVEMENT REQ’DLEGEND Low Bound not met – IMPROVEMENT REQ’D
Trend Improving Trending Worse
WORST BEST
Level of Service: Provide reliable service to TWA Customers
POTABLE WATER WASTE WATER RECLAIMED WATER
QTR YR QTR YR QTR YR
Provide minimum pressure (at point of service) of 40 psi during average demand
Repair out-of-service fire hydrants within 14 days of notification
Restoration of service • Potable Service Lines – 4 hours• Potable Distribution Lines and Reclaimed
Service – 8 hours• Sewer Service – 8 hrs
Number of breaks per 100 miles (pipe) per year• Potable and Reclaimed Water – 100 breaks• Waste Water – 30 breaks
Unaccounted for water loss 10% or less
Fewer than 11 SSO’s per 100 miles (pipe) per year
Reduce # of SSO’s by 1% over previous year• Wet weather SSO’s• Dry weather SSO’s
Provide service on scheduled days
58% fewer SSOs in FY2014 than in FY2013
73%
15
FYTD Revenue Summary
Metered Sales95%
Rents1%
Tap Fees1%
Other Revenue3%
Interest Earnings0% Metered Sales $18,353
Rents $152
Tap Fees $234
Other Revenues $579
Interest Earnings $95
Total Operating Revenue $19,413
(In thousands)
16
FYTD Major Expense Comparisons to Prior FY Year
Expense ItemFY15
ActualFY14
Actual$
Variance%
Variance
Personnel 4,739 4,739 338 7.7%
Utilities 1,557 1,557 (20) (1.3%)
Other Maintenance 807 807 80 11.0%
Professional Services 776 776 54 7.5%
Contract Operations & Other
584 584 (283) (32.7%)
Auto Maintenance & Fuel
399 399 92 29.8%
Chemicals 389 389 42 12.2%
Total 9,251 9,251 302 3.3%
(In thousands)
Per-sonnel51%
Utilities17%
Profes-sional
Services8%
Other Main-ten-ance9%
Contract Opera-tions & Other
6%
Chem-icals4%
Auto Maintenance & Fuel4%
Comprises 87% of Total Expenses less PILOT
17
Detail Data:
KPI: Restoration of Service – potable service lines (4 hours) and distribution lines (8 hours)
Since it is not possible to consistently differentiate between service and distribution lines an average of 8 hours is used.
Description: The following information pertains to any service interruptions (line breaks, meter or valve replacements, etc.) that cause customers to experience the complete cessation of water service or water delivered at a pressure lower than 20psi.
Data includes potable water work orders with LEAKING as the problem code and/or work orders with the word WATER and LEAK, BREAK, CUT, or HIT in the description and a SERVICE INTERRUPTION indicated.Data shown uses the recorded service interruption time.
18
Observations / Actions Taken: The target has been consistently achieved for the quarter.
Average Hrs
# of work orders
Oct-13 14.94 192Nov-13 6.19 92Dec-13 2.75 127Jan-14 2.41 113Feb-14 0.61 97Mar-14 0.53 89Apr-14 0.58 119May-14 0.80 108Jun-14 0.71 113Jul-14 0.61 135Aug-14 0.77 120Sep-14 0.58 122
Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-140
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0
50
100
150
200
250Average Hours to Restore Service
Average Hrs KPI Target # of work orders
Hours
# o
f w
ork
ord
ers
Sample Detail
Detail Data:
KPI: Restore Reclaim Service within 8 hours
Description: The following information pertains to any service interruptions that cause customers to experience an interruption in reclaim service .
The type of work orders included below are reclaim work orders with LEAKING as the problem code and/or work orders with the word RECLAIM and LEAK, BREAK, CUT, or HIT in the description and a SERVICE INTERRUPTION indicated.
Data shown uses the recorded service interruption time.
19
Observations / Actions Taken: The target has been consistently achieved for the quarter.
Last KPI
Average Hours
# of work orders
Oct-13 1.12 11Nov-13 4.83 12Dec-13 39.25 8Jan-14 30.29 12Feb-14 0.37 10Mar-14 0.25 4Apr-14 1.50 3May-14 0.71 6Jun-14 0.55 5Jul-14 0.44 8Aug-14 0.63 2Sep-14 0.45 5
Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-140
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Average Hrs to Restore Reclaim Service
Average Hours KPI Target # of work orders
Hours
# o
f w
ork
ord
ers
Sample Detail, cont’d.
Detail Data:
KPI: Fewer than 100 Potable Water breaks per year per 100 miles of pipe. Graph below is monthly data so the target shown in graph is 1/12 of the annual target (8.33 breaks per month).
Description: Mirroring a quality measure included in AWWA’s QualServe Benchmarking Program, this metric normalizes the # of water distribution system breaks by the miles of distribution pipe. Specifically, this indicator accumulates the # of water system breaks in a year, divides this by the number of miles of distribution pipe and divides this result by 100. This report includes leaks and breaks from pipe or any equipment connected in the distribution system (valves, hydrants, meters, etc).
20
Observations / Actions Taken: There were 28% more breaks this quarter than last quarter. 7.8% of the breaks for this quarter were caused by contractors.
Additional analysis is necessary to identify common and avoidable causes for service line leaks and breaks. Las
t KPI
Total break / leak Count
Total # of wtr breaks/leaks
per 100 miles
Oct-13 171 14.57Nov-13 75 6.39Dec-13 109 9.28Jan-14 97 8.26Feb-14 88 7.50Mar-14 98 8.35Apr-14 110 9.37May-14 136 11.58Jun-14 122 10.39Jul-14 165 14.05Aug-14 160 13.63Sep-14 146 12.44
Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-140
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16# of Water Breaks per 100 miles of pipe
Total # of wtr breaks/leaks per 100 miles Target
# of
bre
aks /
100
mile
s
Sample Detail, cont’d.
Internal Staff CommunicationsMonthly reports are provided and reviewedReviewed in staff meetingsIncreasing used in determining gain sharing
bonusesDriving training and data requests in CMMS,
GIS, etc.
21
Non-Compliance
letters to DFEP, EPA or
other regulatory
agency.
Resident or business backup reports.
TWA’s Root Cause
Analysis (RCA)
Process
Incident Handling Process
• Non compliance letters are sent to Florida DEP for notice of outages (planned or not), incidents or excursions
• Use TWA’s Root Cause Analysis Process
• A Review will be based on a quarterly report that summarizes the incidents looking for common trends or problems.
• Oversight intended to recognize successful efforts AND identify areas requiring additional analysis.
Continuous Improvement Feedback Loop
22
Non-Compliance
letters to DFEP, EPA or
other regulatory
agency.
Resident or business backup reports.
TWA’s Root Cause
Analysis (RCA)
Process
Generate Quarterly Summary Report for Continuous
Improvement Committee
(CIC)
CIC Quarterly Review of Incidents
CIC Identify Incidents Requiring Additional Analysis
Incident Handling Process
Continuing Improvement Oversight Process
Feedback Loop, cont’d.
23
TWA’s Compensation “Package”1. Merit pay increase as determined by annual
performance evaluation2. Quarterly and Annual Gainsharing3. Skill-Based Compensation Program4. Innovative Rewards Program
24
An Effective Performance System
Based upon job analysis/employee input
Focused on job competencies and behaviors
Aligned with TWA’s vision and strategic (line of sight)
Results of appraisal reviewed with employees and clearly documented
Employees allowed to give feedback/appeal
Adequately prepare and train Supervisors and Managers in use of instruments
Guidance provided for poor performers
Consistent across/among employees
“Buy-in" is equally important to the performance management process.
25
Tying Performance to Compensation Consistent with organizational structure and
culture Complimentary to the organization’s goals
and objectives Perceived as fair by employees Flexible to meet changing needs Effectively and efficiently administered
26
Summary and Lessons LearnedAgree on the KPIs
High level measures for the policy levelMore detail for the tactical/operations levelIncorporate FBC metricsAvoid KPI overload – too many/too much detail
Incentivize and do so fairlyUse the information to continuously improve
performance and accountability
27
28