Priority Processes Owner Mike Gaffney, Planning Mgr...

MacroProcess: Process Owner:

Work System OwnerEd Curry

Work System Enabling LeaderDane Theodore, Director

Priority Processes Owner Mike Gaffney, Planning Mgr.

August 24, 2009

Revision 2

Manage Facilities PlanningProcess Improvements

M. Gaffney

R TE NC EI IP

R TE NC EI IPGOVERNOR’S

STERLING AWARDGOVERNOR’S

STERLING AWARD

00 72 00 72

MANAGEFACILITIES PLANNING

REVISION LOG

PAGE / SECTION # REVISION DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION


M. GaffneyMANAGE

FACILITIES PLANNING

10 5/22/09 Macro PCS Baseline Update

11 5/22/09 FISH PCS Baseline Update

17 8/24/09 EZ DMAIC 20 Checkpoint Review

18 8/24/09 Supplier Input Process Output Customer Diagram

Table of Contents1. Cover Sheet2. Table of Contents3. Internal and External Customers4. Macro Flow Chart5. Key Work Process 1 Flow Chart6. DMAIC Lite Storyboard - Check Points 1-187. Priority Process Selection Matrix Form8. Key-In-Process Measures Determination System Form9. BPS Process Management System10. Macro Process Control Form11. Key Work Process 1 Process Control Form12. Countermeasure Matrix13. Countermeasure Action Plan Matrix14. Action Plan Root Causes 1& 215. Document Tree16. Key Work Process Indicator Data17. EZ DMAIC 20 Checkpoint Review 18. SIPOC Diagram


M. GaffneyMANAGE

FACILITIES PLANNING

PLANNING INTERNAL CUSTOMERSSchool Board

SuperintendentArea SuperintendentsDistrict AdministrationSchool Administration

PLANNING EXTERNAL CUSTOMERSState of Florida

Florida Department of EducationLocal Government Agencies

Parents / GuardiansStudents

Taxpayers


M. GaffneyMANAGE

FACILITIES PLANNING

NEED FACILITYPLANNING

?

?

YES

NODELIVERABLES:D1. FISH CertificationD2. Growth Management ProjectionsD3. 5-Year Facility PlanD4. School Concurrency ApplicationD5. Educational Plant SurveyD6. Student Accommodation PlanD7. Boundary Change Recommendations

INVOLVES STATE &LOCAL GOV’T?

NEED ISMET

MAINTAIN &CERTIFY

BPS FISH DATA

To ensure adequate and appropriate educational facilities to accommodate projected student membership and program offerings

FACILITIES SERVICES / Robert J. Wiebel & Mike Gaffney 12/9/08

STATUTORYREQUIREMENTS?

YES

NO

KWP8

KWP5

KWP4

KWP7

KWP3

KWP6

KWP2

KWP1

WHO

STEP


BPS SCHOOLBOARD

BPS FACILITIESPLANNING

STATE ANDLOCAL

GOVERNMENT

BPSDEPARTMENTS

& SCHOOLS

OBTAIN DISTRICT / FINANCESTUDENT PROJECTIONS

MANAGE IMPACT FEE ACTIVITIES

DEVELOP & PUBLISHEDUCATIONAL

PLANT SURVEY

PERFORM SCHOOL CONCURRENCY ACTIVITIES

DEVELOP & PUBLISH BOUNDARY CHANGES

DEVELOP & PUBLISH5-YEAR FACILITY PLAN

DEVELOP & PUBLISHSTUDENT ACCOMMODATION PLAN

DEVELOP & PUBLISH GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROJECTIONS

MAINTAIN OTHER PLANNING DATA

NEED

DEVELOP &PUBLISH

MAINTAIN &CERTIFY

DEVELOP &PUBLISH

DEVELOP, PUBLISH &

OBTAIN

QUESTION

QUESTION

MANAGE

BOUNDARYCHANGES

DEVELOP &PUBLISH

PERFORM

MANAGED

MANAGEFACILITIES PLANNING D. THEODORE

P1 - Data Accuracy

Q1 - FISH Data Accuracy

Q2 - State and Local Submittals On Time

Q3 - BPS Submittals On Time

Q4 - Facility Design Capacity Utilization (%)

BA

BA

BA

BA

BA

Legend: BA - Board Approval Required for SubmittalsFISH - Florida Inventory of School Houses SAP - School Accommodation Plan SCA - School Concurrency Activities EPS - Educational Plant Survey

P2 - Growth Management Projections Schedule Milestones

P3 - 5-Year Facility Plan Schedule Milestones

P6 - Student Accommodation Plan Schedule Milestones

P7 - Boundary Changes Schedule Milestones

P8 - Educational Plant Survey Schedule Milestones

P9 - Impact Fee Activity Schedule Milestone

P4 - # School Concurrency Applications P5- Application Review Cycle Time

D4

D5

D6

D7

D3

D2

D1

FACILITIES SERVICES / Robert J. Wiebel & Mike Gaffney 12/16/08

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

DELIVERABLE:

D1. FISH DATA ACCURACY CERTIFICATION

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

RECEIVE FISH UPDATEDOCUMENTATION

DOES IT INVOLVE NEWCONSTRUCTION?

IS A FORM 208 REQUIRED?

OBTAIN FORM 208(FROM PM/ARCHITECT)

FIELD VERIFY

UPDATE FISH DATABASE

PERFORM STATEFISH DATA BASE

VALIDATION

IS FORM 208ACCURATE?

NEED TO MANAGEANNUAL FISHDATA BASE

CERTIFICATION

VALIDATEDATA

IS UPDATE DOCUMENTATION

VALID?

IS IT TIME TO DOANNUAL DATA BASE

CERTIFICATION?

DEVELOP BOARD ITEM

PERFORMBOARD APPROVAL

IS IT TIME FOR THE STATE VALIDATION

OF FISH DATA BASE?

DOES THE FISHDATA BASE NEED TO BE UPDATED?

UPDATE FISHDATA BASE

NEED ISMET

WP1

WHO

STEP

Process Owner:Key WorkProcess (1):

BPS SCHOOLBOARD

BPS FACILITIESPLANNING

STATE ANDLOCAL

GOVERNMENT

BPSDEPARTMENTS

& SCHOOLS

NEED

QUESTION

QUESTION

VERIFY

OBTAIN

RECEIVE

QUESTION

QUESTION

PERFORM

PERFORM

UPDATE

DEVELOP

MANAGED

UPDATE

QUESTION

QUESTION

MANAGE ANNUAL FISH DATA BASECERTIFICATION D. THEODORE

Abbreviations:FISH = Facility Inventory of School Houses

MACRO Q1 - FISH DATA ACCURACY

ATTACHMENT A

Facilities Planning DMAIC Lite 5/22/09 Page 1

INSTRUCTIONS: Please return your completed DMAIC Storyboard, along with your Process Control System (both flow chart and indicator information) and your completed Action Plan (see “Improve” checkpoint #10), via email to [email protected] and copy Steve Muzzy on all emails. Thank you, Bob Seemer, President & COO, Electronic Training Solutions, Inc. Priority Process Name: Manage Facilities Planning

Work System / Leader: Dane Theodore

DMAIC “Lite” Storyboard – Facilities Planning

DEFINE

1. Describe how the linkage between the process Q measures and the District’s KPIs (or strategic objective measures) was established and confirmed. In order to meet strategic objectives associated with the District’s goal of “Safe and Healthy Learning and Work Environment” (Goal 2), certain legislative and District imposed mandates or targets must remain in focus. Planning for facilities requires that the District adhere to a multitude of statutes and comply with Florida Department of Education (DOE) requirements. Additionally, coordination and agreement with Local Governments, in some cases dictated by legislation, is critical to insuring adequate and appropriate facilities are available. With these objectives in mind, processes have been mapped, and key measures established with which to gauge performance:

Q1 – FISH Data Accuracy

Q2 – State and Local Government Submittals on time

Q3 – Brevard Public Schools Submittals on time

Q4 – Facility Design Capacity Utilization

2. Explain which process Q measure(s) will be improved. In order to identify the Q measure that should be focused on for improvement efforts, a Facilities Planning Priority Process Selection Matrix and a Key In-Process Measures Determination Form were created (see Pages 7 and 8). The Selection Matrix reveals the “Maintaining and Certifying BPS FISH Data” is the place to start. Likewise, the fact that “Brevard Public School (BPS) FISH* Data Accuracy” is a measure within each Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4. Without question, it is this process that should be looked at for improvement before others.

* FISH – Florida Inventory of School Houses

3. Develop a theme statement which will focus your process improvement efforts. The theme statement must be consistent with the measure in checkpoint #2, above.

Increase FISH data accuracy from 72% to minimum 95% accuracy.

ATTACHMENT A



MEASURE

4. List up to five (5) potential problem areas in this process and the associated P measure(s) for each. Delta between field survey data and FISH data greater than 5%

(a) P1 – Data Accuracy

Changes to actual spaces (physical or usage) by parties outside of Planning staff


Methodology utilized to measure spaces


Timeliness of new or revised data for input to FISH


Revisions to FISH Standards by the Florida Department of Education (FDOE)


5. Select the most significant problem or opportunity and develop a problem statement which answers the questions: What? When? Gap between actual and targeted values?

(Hint: You may want to refer to the six sigma DMAIC course material, checkpoint #9 of the “Measure” step, as you develop your problem statement.) Problem: Delta between field survey data and FISH data greater than 5%

Problem Statement: 1013.31(1)(b)1 Florida Statutes requires the Net Square Footage and the Student Stations reported in FISH to be ninety-five (95) percent accurate. However, during "validation" and "validation audit" efforts in 2006 and 2007 respectively, the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) surveys pointed out a 10.2% and 28% variance between the square footage data contained in FISH versus the surveyed data.

ATTACHMENT A



ANALYZE

6. List up to five (5) potential causes of the selected problem from checkpoint #5 in the “Measure” step. Existing spaces not included/incorrectly entered in FISH


Methodology used to measure spaces

Multiple FISH users entering data

Sampling size (set of classrooms vs. entire campus)

7. List the root causes and describe the approach used to select them from among the others.

Root Causes Approach Used To Select Root Cause

A. Information regarding change not communicated to Planning

Cause and Effect Analysis

B. Data Gatherers not familiar with FISH User’s Manual

Cause and Effect Analysis

ATTACHMENT A



IMPROVE

8. List the countermeasure(s) you considered for implementation for each selected root cause from the “Analyze” step.

A. Information regarding change not communicated to Planning

o No construction permit issued without transmittal of renovation to Planning

o Maintenance to issue schedule of work to Planning

B. Data Gatherers not familiar with FISH User’s Manual

o Establish procedure (including Sampling Plan) and train specific team members

9. Determine the “effectiveness x feasibility” score for each countermeasure, and note the highest scores. All 3 countermeasures listed in 8 above scored 20 or 25 (see attached

Countermeasures Matrix)

(Hint: Refer to six sigma DMAIC course, checkpoint #18 of the “Improve” step.)

10. Develop an action plan for each countermeasure to be implemented which shows the following: What (description of countermeasure)

o See attached Action Plans. Note that no Action Plan was assembled for the countermeasure regarding “Maintenance to issue schedule of work to Planning”, as this only requires a weekly (or monthly) email.

When (projected start and end dates) o See attached Action Plans

Who (accountable person) o See attached Action Plans

Which organizations need to support you o See attached Action Plans

Estimated cost to implement o Estimating that the FISH Sampling Plan will require approximately 300-

400 labor hours annually, this process could cost, at an average weighted labor rate of $40 per hour, roughly $12 to $16K per year.

(Remember: Email your action plan(s) with this completed DMAIC “Lite” Storyboard, per instructions on page 1.)

ATTACHMENT A



CONTROL

11. Briefly explain how you will know the root causes were reduced or eliminated. As the DOE forms (Form 208, 208A, etc.) and drawings begin to come into

Planning regarding Maintenance Department projects, the spaces affected will be accounted for in FISH.

It will be clear as to whether or not Planning is receiving a copy of the regularly updated Maintenance Project schedule.

As the Sampling Plan is implemented, validation efforts should reflect diminishing corrections to the FISH data base as time goes on.

12. Briefly explain how you will know the problem was reduced.

As noted in number 11 above, as the Sampling Plan is implemented, the corrections to the FISH database should diminish.

13. Briefly explain how you will know the theme measure was improved.

By continuing the Sampling Plan effort year to year, the field measures/surveys will match the FISH data that is currently in the database.

14. Explain how you will prevent this problem from recurring.

By continuing the Sampling Plan effort year to year, the field measures/surveys will match the FISH data that is currently in the database.

15. Identify which other BPS locations should consider implementing your

countermeasures.

As the Planning Department is the ‘keeper’ of the District’s FISH data, these countermeasures do not apply to other Departments.

16. Identify what other BPS locations could learn from this project.

Refer to number 15 above.

17. List the remaining problem areas in this process.

There are occasional “Parent-Teacher Organization” (PTO) projects that may be implemented without adhering to the process currently in place to capture these renovations/additions that affect FISH.

ATTACHMENT A



CONTROL 18. List the key lessons learned from this process improvement.

Key “lessons learned” will be visited after the first exercise of the sampling plan is implemented.

ATTACHMENT A


FACILITIES PLANNING PRIORITY PROCESS SELECTION MATRIX FORM

Key Work Processes Selection Factor Priority

Rank Importance x Gap = Point Score 1. Maintain and Certify BPS FISH

Data 5 3 15 1

2. Maintain Other Planning Data 4 2 8 3

3. Develop and Publish Growth Management Projections 5 1 5 4

4. Develop and Publish Student Accommodation Plan 5 2 10 2

5. Develop and Publish 5-Year Facility Work Plan 5 1 5 4

6. Develop and Publish Boundary Changes 5 2 10 2

7. Perform School Concurrency Activities 5 1 5 4

8. Develop and Publish Educational Plant Survey 5 1 5 4

9. Manage Impact Fee Activities 5 1 5 4

SCALE: 5 = Extreme 4 = High 3 = Moderate 2 = Low 1 = None

ATTACHMENT A


FACILITIES PLANNING KEY IN-PROCESS MEASURES DETERMINATION FORM

Outcome Measures In-Process Measures

Q1 – FISH Data Accuracy 1. BPS FISH Data Accuracy

Q2 - State and Local Submittals On Time

1. BPS FISH Data Accuracy

2. Growth Management Projections Schedule Milestones

3. 5-Year Facility Work Program Schedule Milestones

4. Concurrency Application Review Cycle Time

5. Educational Plant Survey Schedule Milestones

6. Impact Fee Activities Schedule Milestones

Q3 - BPS Submittals On Time



3. Student Accommodation Plan Schedule Milestones


5. Educational Plant Survey Schedule Milestones

Q4 – Facility Design Capacity Utilization (%)




4. Boundary Changes Schedule Milestones

5/14/2009 FINAL Page 1 of 5

Macro Process Control System – Update 5/21/09 Process Name: Manage Facilities Planning Process Owner: Dane Theodore

Process Customer: BPS School Board, representing staff, DCA, FDOE, Local Governments, students, parents, and the community Critical Customer Requirements:

Current Sigma Level: TBD Process Purpose: To ensure adequate and appropriate educational facilities to accommodate projected student membership and program offerings Outcome Indicators: Q1 – Q4

Process and Quality Indicators Checking / Indicator Monitoring Process

Indicators Control Limits Data to Collect

Timeframe (Frequency) Responsibility

Quality Indicators

Specs/ Targets

What is Checking Item or Indicator Calculation

When to Collect Data?

Who will Check?

Contingency Plans / Miscellaneous Actions Required for Exceptions Procedure References

P1

Brevard Public Schools (BPS) Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) Data Accuracy

Target: > 95% Baseline: 72%

• Statistically significant sample of current Florida Department of Education (FDOE) FISH data for BPS

Annually (by 3/31)

D. TheodoreM. Gaffney

• Perform additional sampling or validation of entire data set if warranted.

• Reference: SREF §6.1(7)(c)

P2

Growth Management Projections Schedule Milestones

Target: 100% of activities completed by scheduled milestone dateBaseline: 50%

• Growth/Certificate of Occupancy (CO) Data from Local Govts (LGs): 1st week June thru mid-July

• Six-Day and October FTE Counts: 3rd week-Aug. & Mid-Oct.

• Projection calculations: 2nd week Nov. • Five-Year Capacity Utilization Table: Nov. 30

Annually (6/1 – 11/30)


• Failure to meet established mid-July milestone due to lack of relevant input from Local Governments will necessitate use of prior year’s Growth/CO data.

• Reference: Interlocal Agreement §3.1

P3

5-Year District Facilities Work Program Schedule Milestones


• Obtain Growth Mgt Projections: Mid-Nov. • Obtain COFTE Projections: 1st week July (of

following calendar year) • Obtain Preliminary FY Budget: Mid-July • EPS “Spot” Survey (if necessary): July 31 • Assemble and Distribute Draft: August 1 • Obtain Local Govt Comments: Sept. 1 • Submit Board Information Agenda: Early Sept. • Obtain August 6-Day Count: 1st Week Sept. • Obtain Final FY Budget: 1st Week Sept. • Generate Final Draft: 2nd Week Sept. • Submit for Board Consent Agenda/Approval:

Final Sept. mtg. • Submit to FDOE: October 1

Annually (Mid-Nov,

then 7/1 thru 9/1)


• Failure to meet milestone(s) warrants staff overtime as necessary to meet final milestone of October 1.

• Reference: F.S. 1013.35

And








Quality Indicators

Specs/ Targets



Who will Check?


P4 # School Concurrency Applications

Target: None Baseline: Avg. # of

Application Received

• Average Number of Applications Received in SY 08/09. This number varies year to year.

Annually (6/30)

D. TheodoreM. Gaffney • This is a level of effort measurement.

P5 School Concurrency Application Review Cycle Time

Target: 100% of reviews ≤ 10 working days from receipt of application to written response Baseline: 100%

• # Working Days for each Review • Total # Working Days for All Reviews divided

by Total # of Reviews = Average Days per Review

Monthly D. TheodoreM. Gaffney

• Failure to review applications and respond in an average <10 working days requires reprioritization of non-statutory tasks.

• Reference: Interlocal Agreement §13.2(d) & 13.3(a)

P6

Student Accommodation Plan (SAP) Schedule Milestones


• Request Area Supt. Input: Jan. 2 • Obtain Area Superintendent Input: Feb. 1 • Generate Draft SAP: 2nd Week Feb. • Obtain Comments: 4th Week Feb. • Generate Final Draft SAP: 1st Week March • Obtain Area Supt. Approval: 2nd Week March • Submit for Board Info. Agenda: Early April • Submit for Board Consent Agenda: Mid-April

Biweekly (1/2 – 4/30)

D. TheodoreJ. Stannard

• Failure to meet milestone(s) warrants staff overtime as necessary to meet milestone date for Board approval in mid-April.

And








Quality Indicators

Specs/ Targets



Who will Check?


P7

Boundary / Concurrency Service Area (CSA) Changes Schedule Milestones


• Obtain Six-Day Student Membership: Mid-Aug. • Develop New (Proposed) Scenarios: End Sept. • Obtain Recommendations from Evaluation

Committee: Mid-October (New) • Update Scenarios (if Required): Mid-Nov. • Submit for Board Info Agenda: Mid-November • Board Work Shop: Fall (Nov-Dec) • Submit Proposed Changes to Local Governments

/ Capital Outlay Committee (COC): 45 days prior to adoption

• Submit for Board Consent for Public Hearing Agenda: December

• Submit for Public Hearing / Board Approval: January

Monthly (Mid-Aug thru

1/31)

D. TheodoreD. Theodore

• Failure to meet milestone(s) warrants staff overtime to meet Board agenda milestones. Failure to meet milestone(s) could also result from postponement of School Board workshops/meetings or request(s) for additional information/work shops.

• Reference: Interlocal Agreement §12.2(d)2

P8 Educational Plant Survey (EPS) Schedule Milestones


• Validate approved projects are appropriate for upcoming 5-Year District Facilities Work Program

• Submit EPS to FDOE: Prior to June 30 of 5th FY

Annually (5/1 – 7/31)


• Failure to meet milestone(s) warrants staff overtime as necessary to meet milestone date for submittal to FDOE.

• Reference: F.S. 1013.31

P9 Impact Fee Activity Schedule Milestones


• Obtain collections from Brevard County: April 1 and October 1

• Hold Advisory Committee Meetings: May 31 and November 30

• Submit for Board approval: June and Dec. mtgs.

Monthly (4/1 – 6/30 )

(10/1 – 12/31)

D. TheodoreD. Theodore

• Reference: Brevard County Educational Impact Fee Ordinance Chapter 62, Article V, Division 7.

Q1

Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) Data Accuracy

Target: > 95% Baseline: 72% • Statistical Sampling of FISH data Monthly D. Theodore

D. Theodore

• Refer to contingency plans and miscellaneous information above related to individual submittals.

And








Quality Indicators

Specs/ Targets



Who will Check?


Q2 State and Local Submittals On Time

Target: 100% Baseline: 90%

• Certification of FISH Data(FDOE): April 1 • School Board Approved EPS (FDOE): Prior to

June 30 of 5th FY • Draft 5-Year Work Program (Local

Governments / Capital Outlay Committee): August 1

• School Board Approved 5-Year District Facilities Work Program (FDOE): Oct. 1

• 5-Year Capacity Utilization (Local Governments): Nov. 30

• Proposed Boundary/CSA Changes (Local Governments/Capital Outlay Committee): 45 days prior to School Board adoption

• Concurrency Reviews (Local Govts): <10 days

Monthly D. TheodoreD. Theodore


Q3 BPS Submittals On Time

Target: 100% Baseline: 92%

• Recommended Boundary/CSA Changes – Information Agenda (School Board): Mid-Nov.

• Recommended Boundary/CSA Changes – Public Hearing Advertisement (School Board): December

• Recommended Boundary/CSA Changes – Public Hearing/Approval(School Board): January

• Recommended SAP (School Board): Mid-April • Recommended EPS (School Board): June • Impact Fee Recommendations (School Board):

June and December • Recommended 5-Year District Facilities Work

Program (School Board): Mid-September

Monthly D. TheodoreD. Theodore


And








Quality Indicators

Specs/ Targets



Who will Check?


Q4 Facility Design Capacity Utilization (%)

Target: 100% of Schools utilized ≤ 100% of Factored Permanent FISH Capacity Baseline: 74% (FY08)

• Mid-October Student Count divided by Factored Permanent FISH Capacity (for every school): November

• 5-Year Capacity Utilization (Local Governments): November 30

Annually (11/30)

D. TheodoreJ. Stannard

• Adjust projection assumptions and methodologies for the following fiscal year.

Approved:

Date:

Rev #:

Rev Date:

And

12/16/08 Page 1 of 1

Facilities Planning KWP1 – “Maintain and Certify BPS FISH Data” - Process Control System – Update 5/22/09 Process Name: Facilities Planning – Manage Annual FISH Database

Certification Process Owner: Dane Theodore

Process Customers: BPS School Board, representing staff, DCA, FDOE, Local Governments, students, parents, and the community Critical Customer Requirements:

Current Sigma Level: TBD Process Purpose: To ensure accuracy of data in the Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) Outcome Indicators: Q1 – FISH Data Accuracy




Quality Indicators

Specs/ Targets



Who will Check?


P1.1 Maintain / Certify FISH Data Accuracy

Target : > 95% Baseline: 72% Statistical sampling of existing FISH data Annually

(by Jan.30) D. TheodoreM. Gaffney

Should statistical sampling warrant, perform validation of entire data set for that particular facility.

Q1 FISH Data Accuracy Target : > 95% Baseline: 72% Statistical sampling of existing FISH data Annually D. Theodore

Approved:

Date:

Rev #:

Rev Date:

And

ATTACHMENT A


Countermeasures Matrix – Facilities Planning

COUNTER-MEASURES

PRACTICAL METHODS

Action

ROOT

CAUSES

5 4 20 Yes

5 5 25 Yes

5 5 25 Yes

PROBLEM

SCALE: 1 = Negligible 2 = Somewhat 3 = Moderate 4 = Very 5 = Extreme

Building Dept checklist

Issue no permits for construction w/o transmittal to Planning

Maintenance to issue schedule of work to Planning

Information regarding change not communicated to Planning

Obtain copy of update provided at Maintenance Project status meetings

Establish procedure & train team members

Develop sampling procedure

Data Gatherers not familiar with FISH User’s Manual

FDOE surveys pointed out a 10.2% and 28% variance between FISH data vs. survey data

Effectiveness X Feasibility = Overall

Data gatherers not familiar with FISH User's Manual Date:

Establish procedure(s) and train team members Owners:

Develop sampling plan

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Comments

Scheduled

Completed

Scheduled

Completed

Scheduled On going

Completed

Scheduled On going

Completed

Scheduled

Completed

Scheduled

Completed

Scheduled

Completed

Scheduled

Completed

Scheduled

Completed

3

4

Week

Monitor discrepancies between field sampling and FISH data base

No. Task Accountable Person

1

2

Establish Verification & Validation process (Statistical Analysis)

RW, MG, RB

Team

RB

Implement sampling efforts

Determine/quantify team members, sampling periods and sampling sizes

Action Plan #1 - Facilities Planning

Root Cause:

Countermeasure:

Practical Method:

Robert Wiebel (RW)Mike Gaffney (MG)Rick Bellanger (RB)

25-Jul-08

RW, MG, RB

Information regarding change not communicated to Planning Date:

Issue no construction permit without notice of renovation to Planning Owners:

Building Department Checklist

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Comments

Scheduled

Completed

Scheduled

Completed

Scheduled On-Going

Completed

Scheduled

Completed

Scheduled

Completed

Scheduled

Completed

Scheduled

Completed

Scheduled

Completed

Scheduled

Completed

3

WeekNo. Task Accountable

Person

1

2

Discuss issue with Bldg. Dept. and Maintenance

MG, RB, Bldg. Dept. & Maintenance

Dept.

Bldg. Dept. & Maintenance Dept.

Coordinate with Maintenance Construction Mgrs. on regular basis

Develop Process to include DOE forms, drawings, etc. (similar to Project Mgt Dept.)

Action Plan #2 - Facilities Planning

Root Cause:

Countermeasure:

Practical Method:

Mike Gaffney (MG)Rick Bellanger (RB)

25-Jul-08

MG, RB, Bldg. Dept & Maintenance

Dept.

MANAGE FACILITIESPLANNING

MANAGE FACILITIESPLANNING

Process Improvement

Document TreeMacro

Process: Process Owner: Document Title:

MACRO DMAIC LITE STORYBOARD

MACRO PCS

MACRO FLOWCHART

MACRO PRIORITY PROCESSSELECTION MATRIX FORM

MACRO KEY IN-PROCESSMEASURES DETERMINATION

SYSTEMS FORM

MACRO DMAIC LITE STORYBOARD

MACRO PRIORITY PROCESSSELECTION MATRIX FORM

KWP1 MAINTAIN &CERTIFY FISH

ACCURACY FLOW CHART

KWP1 ACTION PLAN(s)

KWP1COUNTERMEASURE

MATRIX

KWP1 INDICATOR DATA

KWP6 DMAIC LITE STORYBOARD

KWP7 DMAIC LITE STORYBOARD

KWP6 PRIORITY PROCESSSELECTION MATRIX FORM

KWP7 PRIORITY PROCESSSELECTION MATRIX FORM

KWP6 DEVELOP &PUBLISH STUDENT

ACCOMMODATIONPLAN FLOW CHART

KWP7 DEVELOP &PUBLISH SCHOOL

BOUNDARY CHANGESFLOW CHART

KWP6 ACTION PLAN(s) KWP7 ACTION PLAN(s)

KWP6COUNTERMEASURE

MATRIX

KWP7COUNTERMEASURE

MATRIX

KWP6 INDICATOR DATA KWP7 INDICATOR DATA

Note 1: May be required if flow chart has internal work processin addition to individual steps.

Note 1Note 1

Key Work Processes 1 - 8

1st DMAIC Lite Storyboard 2nd DMAIC Lite Storyboard 3rd DMAIC Lite Storyboard

M. Gaffney

EEZZ DDMMAAIICC 2200 CCHHEECCKKPPOOIINNTTSS DDEEFFIINNEE MMEEAASSUURREE AANNAALLYYZZEE IIMMPPRROOVVEE CCOONNTTRROOLL

PPllaann DDoo CChheecckk AAcctt

EZDMAICSM is a registered Service Mark of ets Inc. ~ Copyright 2009, ets Inc. 5/22/2009 Page 1

Macro Process Name: Manage Facilities Planning Key Work Process: KWP1 – Maintain and Certify BPS FISH Data

Work System / Leader: Dane Theodore Process Owner: Dane Theodore DMAIC Status: Improve Cycle: Yes Refine Cycle: No

Revision: N/A

DEFINE

1. The stakeholder and need were identified. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: Both internal and external customers have been identified.

2. An indicator measuring our performance in meeting the need was developed. Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: Facets related to Q1 “Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) Data Accuracy” will be assessed by tracking Process Indicators: P1.1 Maintain / Certify FISH data accuracy

3. A theme statement consistent with the indicator was selected. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: A theme statement consistent with the indicator was selected.

Theme Statement: Increase FISH data accuracy form 72% to minimum 95% accurate.

Rating Legend:

5 = Checkpoint Fully Satisfied / 4 = Meets Most Criteria of Checkpoint / 3 = Meets Minimal Requirement of Checkpoint 2 = Checkpoint Somewhat/Partially Satisfied / 1 = Checkpoint Not Addressed




MEASURE

4. The theme was stratified from various viewpoints and a significant problem was chosen. Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: The theme was stratified into 5 problems.

Delta between field survey data and FISH data greater than 5%




Methodology utilized to measure spaces


Timeliness of new or revised data for input to FISH


Revisions to FISH Standards by the Florida Department of Education (FDOE)


5. A target for improvement was established based on the stakeholder's need

and its impact on the theme indicator was determined. Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: The target for improvement was established as minimum 95% FISH data accuracy.

6. A problem statement that addressed the gap between the actual and target values was developed. Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: The problem statement addressed the gap between the actual and target values. During "validation" and "validation audit" efforts in 2006 and 2007 respectively, the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) surveys pointed out a 10.2% and 28% variance respectively between the square footage data contained in FISH versus the surveyed data.

Rating Legend:





ANALYZE

7. Potential causes most likely to have the greatest impact on the problem were selected. Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: Via brainstorming, five (5) potential causes were identified.

Existing spaces not included/incorrectly entered in FISH


Methodology used to measure spaces

Multiple FISH users entering data

Sampling size (set of classrooms vs. entire campus)

8. A relationship between the root causes and the problem was verified with data. Yes: X No: Rating: 3

Comment: By constructing a “Cause and Effect” or “Fishbone” diagram, the likely root causes were identified and discussed.

9. Root causes were selected and the impact of each root cause on the gap was determined. Yes: X No: Rating: 4

Comment: The fishbone diagram allowed the team to see two things clearly: Projects are implemented at facilities that revise buildings/rooms, and the information is not

being communicated to the Planning Dept to update the FISH data. It would appear that different "data gatherers" surmise field (FISH) data utilizing different

parameters. Rating Legend:





IMPROVE

10. Countermeasures were selected to address verified root causes. Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: Two (2) countermeasures were developed: No construction permit issued without transmittal of renovation to Planning. Maintenance

Department to issue schedule of work or progress reports to the Planning Dept. Establish procedure, including a "Sampling Plan" and train specific team members in the methods

for obtaining FISH data.

11. The method for selecting the appropriate practical methods was clear and considered effectiveness and feasibility. Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: A countermeasures matrix was used to test the practicality of implementing the two actions identified in number 10 above. In completing the matrix, effectiveness and feasibility of implementing the countermeasures were considered. The first involved some procedural tasks and appeared relatively straightforward. However, the Sampling Plan that was discussed would take some resources (labor dollars) to put into place.

IMPROVE

12. The action plan reflected accountability, schedule, and cost, and was implemented. Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: Two action plans were developed that looked at schedule, parties involved, and costs. As indicated in No. 11 above, one of these plans would take some resources.

The first involved getting the various Departments/Team Members together to understand the issue and implement some internal procedural processes. A final "edict" is still being finalized with Maintenance. The second plan was more involved and would require some labor to do the measuring tasks "in the field". Utilizing ANSI/ASQ Z1.4-2003 and MIL-STD-105E Standards, a Sampling Plan was developed that included: Applicable Documents Background Verification and Validation Team Sampling Time Periods

Rating Legend:





CONTROL

13. [Results] The effect of countermeasures on the root causes was demonstrated. Yes: No: X Rating: 2

Comment: Action plans are still being implemented.

14. [Results] The effect of countermeasures on the problem was demonstrated. Yes: No: X Rating: 2


15. [Results] The improvement target was achieved and causes of significant variation were addressed. Yes: No: X Rating: 2


16. [Results] The effect of countermeasures on the theme indicator representing the stakeholder’s need was demonstrated. Yes: No: X Rating: 2


CONTROL

17. [Standardization] A method was established to document, permanently change, and communicate the revised process or standard, and was implemented.

Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: Departmental procedures were implemented, and a Sampling Plan was developed.

18. [Standardization] Specific areas for replication were identified, and an action plan was developed to promote organizational learning. Yes: No: X Rating: 1

Comment: Since only the Facilities Planning group is responsible for maintaining FISH, the countermeasures/action plans are not applicable to other BPS departments.

19. [Future Plans] Any remaining problems of the theme were addressed. Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: These action plans should address all but one of the five problems identified in number 4 above. The last problem, which involves FDOE changes to FISH and the constraints on how spaces can be input into the system, have been addressed by the FDOE with an updated on-line system.

20. [Future Plans] Lessons learned, P-D-C-A of the ets Six Sigma DMAIC Method, and team growth were assessed and documented. Yes: No: X Rating: 1

Comment: Only documented as related to the Baldridge effort. The key members of the team associated with the FISH data base and the Sampling Plan will need to convene to discuss lessons learned as data is assessed.

Rating Legend: 5 = Checkpoint Fully Satisfied / 4 = Meets Most Criteria of Checkpoint / 3 = Meets Minimal Requirement of Checkpoint 2 = Checkpoint Somewhat/Partially Satisfied / 1 = Checkpoint Not Addressed

NEED ISMET

A Complied Listof Facility Space

Additions, Changesor Delections

A Complied Listof Facility Space

Additions, Changesor Delections

UpdatedFISH

Database

UpdatedFISH

Database

ValidatedFISH

Database

Board Approvalof FISH

Board Item

Board Approvalof FISH

Board Item

ValidatedFISH

Database

FISH DatabaseValidation Letter For

Superintendent

CompletedBoardItem

CompletedBoardItem

Facilities PlanningDepartment FISH

DatabaseTechnician


DatabaseTechnician


DatabaseTechnician

Facilities PlanningManager




BPSSchoolBoard

RECEIVEFISH UPDATE

DOCUMENTATION

UPDATEFISH

DATABASE

PERFORM ANNUALFISH DATABASEVERIFICATION

DEVELOPBOARD

ITEM

PERFORMSCHOOL BOARD

APPROVAL

SUBMITCERTIFICATION

TO FDOE

To Certify EachYear the FISH

Database

FloridaDepartmentof Education

FloridaDepartmentof Education

BPSSuperintendnet

BPSSuperintendnet

Facilities PO&M and

Facilities Const.

Copy of W/Oor Form 208

SUPPLIER INPUTS PROCESS OUTPUTS CUSTOMERS

FACILITIES SERVICES / Dane Theodore / Mike Gaffney 8/17/09

M. GaffneyKey Work

Process (1): Process Owner:

MANAGE ANNUAL FISH DATABASE CERTIFICATION

Priority Processes Owner Mike Gaffney, Planning Mgr...

Documents

Transcript of Priority Processes Owner Mike Gaffney, Planning Mgr...