View
216
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
MacroProcess: Process Owner:
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
MacroProcess: Process Owner:
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
MacroProcess: Process Owner:
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
MacroProcess: Process Owner:
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 rseemer@etsfl.com 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
Facilities Planning DMAIC Lite 5/22/09 Page 2
DMAIC “Lite” Storyboard – Facilities Planning
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
(a) P1 – Data Accuracy
Methodology utilized to measure spaces
(a) P1 – Data Accuracy
Timeliness of new or revised data for input to FISH
(a) P1 – Data Accuracy
Revisions to FISH Standards by the Florida Department of Education (FDOE)
(a) P1 – Data Accuracy
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
Facilities Planning DMAIC Lite 5/22/09 Page 3
DMAIC “Lite” Storyboard – Facilities Planning
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
Changes to actual spaces (physical or usage) by parties outside of Planning staff
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
Facilities Planning DMAIC Lite 5/22/09 Page 4
DMAIC “Lite” Storyboard – Facilities Planning
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
Facilities Planning DMAIC Lite 5/22/09 Page 5
DMAIC “Lite” Storyboard – Facilities Planning
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
Facilities Planning DMAIC Lite 5/22/09 Page 6
DMAIC “Lite” Storyboard – Facilities Planning
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 DMAIC Lite 5/22/09 Page 7
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 DMAIC Lite 5/22/09 Page 8
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
1. BPS FISH Data Accuracy
2. Growth Management Projections Schedule Milestones
3. Student Accommodation Plan Schedule Milestones
4. 5-Year Facility Work Program Schedule Milestones
5. Educational Plant Survey Schedule Milestones
Q4 – Facility Design Capacity Utilization (%)
1. BPS FISH Data Accuracy
2. Growth Management Projections Schedule Milestones
3. 5-Year Facility Work Program Schedule Milestones
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)
D. TheodoreM. Gaffney
• 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
Target: 100% of activities completed by scheduled milestone dateBaseline: 100%
• 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)
D. TheodoreM. Gaffney
• Failure to meet milestone(s) warrants staff overtime as necessary to meet final milestone of October 1.
• Reference: F.S. 1013.35
And
5/14/2009 FINAL Page 2 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
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
Target: 100% of activities completed by scheduled milestone dateBaseline: 63%
• 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
5/14/2009 FINAL Page 3 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
P7
Boundary / Concurrency Service Area (CSA) Changes Schedule Milestones
Target: 100% of activities completed by scheduled milestone dateBaseline: 89%
• 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
Target: 100% of activities completed by scheduled milestone dateBaseline: 100%
• 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)
D. TheodoreM. Gaffney
• 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
Target: 100% of activities completed by scheduled milestone dateBaseline: 100%
• 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
5/14/2009 FINAL Page 4 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
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
• Refer to contingency plans and miscellaneous information above related to individual submittals.
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
• Refer to contingency plans and miscellaneous information above related to individual submittals.
And
5/14/2009 FINAL Page 5 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
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
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
P1.1 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
Facilities Planning DMAIC Lite 5/22/09 Page 9
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
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 2
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%
(a) P1 – Data Accuracy
Changes to actual spaces (physical or usage) by parties outside of Planning staff
(a) P1 – Data Accuracy
Methodology utilized to measure spaces
(a) P1 – Data Accuracy
Timeliness of new or revised data for input to FISH
(a) P1 – Data Accuracy
Revisions to FISH Standards by the Florida Department of Education (FDOE)
(a) P1 – Data Accuracy
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:
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
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 3
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
Changes to actual spaces (physical or usage) by parties outside of Planning staff
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:
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
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 4
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:
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
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 5
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
Comment: Action plans are still being implemented.
15. [Results] The improvement target was achieved and causes of significant variation were addressed. Yes: No: X Rating: 2
Comment: Action plans are still being implemented.
16. [Results] The effect of countermeasures on the theme indicator representing the stakeholder’s need was demonstrated. Yes: No: X Rating: 2
Comment: Action plans are still being implemented.
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
Facilities PlanningDepartment FISH
DatabaseTechnician
Facilities PlanningDepartment FISH
DatabaseTechnician
Facilities PlanningManager
Facilities PlanningManager
Facilities PlanningManager
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
Recommended