FACILITIES SERVICESBALANCED SCORECARD REPORTFY2018 Q2 (OCT – DEC 2017)

FACILITIES SERVICES ACCOMPLISHMENTS  Building Services Department  

98% of Building Services employees have completed required training  New custodians have been hired and trained Hosted visitors from Stanford School of Medicine and University of California, San Francisco Slip, Trip and Fall Prevention video was created and viewed by all seven work areas  Placed 3rd in PAC 12 Conference National Recycling GameDay Challenge (82% diversion rate) Updated waste infrastructure at Roosevelt Building, Fluke Hall, FS Training Center and Gould Hall

Transportation Services 

Completed several upgrades to their workflow process using the new parking management software (FLEX). These upgrades have streamlined work creating reduced turnaround time and administrative burden while increasing value to customers.

Reduced past due services on vehicles by 50% across the entire fleet by using their new fleet management software.

Implemented a plan intended to reduce labor costs of refilling receipt paper in parking machines by 28% ($2,600/year).

Achieved an error rate (equipment malfunction) of less than 1% across the top 10 highest traffic parking lots on campus in December 2017.

Completed numerous facilities maintenance (equipment, signage, safety upgrades, anti-bird netting, wayfinding, physical upgrades) projects to enhance customer satisfaction leading to an 87% positive rating from surveys administered to customers.  

Facilities Maintenance & Construction 

Implemented safety improvements at: Smith Hall, (safety cage); Suzzallo Library (handicap ramp); Theodore Jacobsen Observatory (roof access); Padelford Hall (installed awning); Allen Library and EH&S building (ADA door access and ramps).

Collaborated with CPD on UW Medical Center to install nine floors of scaffolding to allow contractors to remove asbestos covered ducting and install new ducting.

Created and granted a vendor bid contract for asbestos abatement and regulated materials removal.

Established a process to clean BB Tower Mechanical room to bring the room in to (code) compliance.

Strategic Planning, Engineering, Communications, and Customer Care 

The Customer Care Team expanded their shared services portfolio by adding work intake services for Capital Planning & Development.

The FS Communications Team was co-located and fully staffed for the first time since their reorganization in 2016.

Adopted new name for department: Integration Operations and Engagement. Completed phase 1 of new GIS enabled Accessibility Map with instantaneous updates and is

accessible using mobile devices.

Scanned Operation and Maintenance Manuals (O&Ms) from archives and uploaded them to the Facilities Information Library (FIL). This is the culmination of a 2-year effort of scanning and uploading over 500 boxes of O&Ms to complete the digitization of record documents.

 

Finance & Business Services 

TS Operations, reduced gatehouse year to date over and shorts from December, 2016 to December, 2017 by 70.3.

Resource Conservation Program broke the “million dollar mark” in Puget Sound Energy rebates received since the program’s inception in FY15 Q1. UW now avoids consumption of 4,640 klbs of steam, 64,000 therms of natural gas resulting in a $51,000 PSE utility cost avoidance annually.

Moving and Surplus purchased eco-friendly plastic moving boxes (Dawg Boxes) that are sustainable, ergonomic, and cost effective.

Transitioned the Records group from a paper form to a webform for document transmittal Configured AiM database and coordinated data access for data sharing with CPD.

UW Emergency Management 

UWEM has a 100% completion rate for employee mandatory and compliance training requirements. Designated by the National Weather Service as a “Weather Ambassador” demonstrating exceptional weather awareness public education and outreach efforts and programs.

Ms. Stacie (Smith) Louviere, Seismic Resilience Program Manager, graduated from yearlong “National Emergency Management Basic Academy”

Ms. Eli King, Plans, Training and Exercise Manager, was invited to be on the national US Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Science and Tech workgroup.

Ms. Eli King, was a featured speaker at the IAEM conference’s annual University and College Caucus Symposium in October (Long Beach, CA).

Facilities Employee Services 

Conducted 44 Workday Trainings for Staff & Supervisors Achieved state approval for CPR/First Aid class as a CEU Launched the GrapeVine Newsletter

Campus Engineering and Operations 

Assisted UWPD, Crisis Communications and Emergency Management with UW’s campus-wide Indoor Alert drill. 

Created shop specific work plans and procedures for Shop23 – Elevator, improving worker safety.  Shop 20 – FOMS and Shop 24 Fire Signal completed all Q3 online training sessions on time,

improving worker safety.  

   

Perspective Objective # Measure Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual

Build capacity L2Create a safe and injury-free environment

L2.1 FS-wide incident rate <2 2.0 <2 1.6 <2 2.2 <2 2.5

C2.1 Grounds Resource Utililization >80% 92.2% >185 89.1% >185 87.6% >185 88.2%

C2.2Selected Public Spaces at APPA 1 or 2 goal

N/A No data N/A 47.4% >80% 54.3% >80% 53.8%

P2.1 Water conservation <1028 1158 <1028 1130 <1017 1156 <1017 1121

P2.2 Energy conservation <172.7 191.3 <172.7 190.0 <168.8 188.3 <168.8 190.8

P2.3-1 Carbon Footprint Reduction >12%

P2.4 Waste diversion >67% 62.4% >67% 62.0% >67% 61.3% >67% 61.2%

F1.1 Recharge Center Working Capital 0-10 9, -15 0-10 10,-18 0-10 3, -28 0-10 4, -41

F1.2 Direct Labor to Job Availability =3 1 =3 1 =3 1 =3 1

F1.3 AiM Work Order Actual vs Estimate >50% 42.7% >50% 38.8% >50% 27.1% >50% 25%

F1.4 Steam Cost <14.78 $ 9.64 <14.78 $ 12.97 <14.78 $15.04 <14.78 $9.31

F1.5Resource Conservation Program: RCM ROI

>1 5.77 >1 10.51 >1 3.27 N/A N/A

BREAK (10 minutes)

C1.1 Preventive vs Corrective Maintenance >17% 16.9% >20% 20.3% >20% 20.9% >20% 19.5%

C1.2 FS Repair vs Campus Identified >60% 32% >60% 32% >60% 34% >60% 33%

C1.3 Resilience Planning

P1.1Lean Maturity (formerly Lean Participation)

>80% 52.1% >80% 59.7% >80% 65.3% >80% 54.5%

P1.2 Employee idea implementation >2 0.72 >2 0.77 >2 0.59 >2 0.62

C3.1Expand reach - number of impressions

N/A 42% N/A 45% >60% 33% >60% 30%

C3.2 Response times >90% 79.2% >90% 82.8% >90% 84.7% >90% 82.8%

C3.3 Deadlines Met >90% 88% >90% 90.1% >90% 92.9% >90% 92.1%

C3.4 Location-based Feedback >80% 72% >80% 71% >80% 77% >80% 77%

C3.5 Completion of Service Survey N/A 95% N/A 87% N/A 89% N/A 93%

Build capacity L1Hire, train and develop for excellence

L1.1 Internal Promotions >50% 58% >50% 59% >50% 54%

Measure in Planning / Development Phase

Enhance the customer / stakeholder experience

C2Provide quality campus spaces and places

FY2018 BSC - Q2 3/31/17 6/30/17 9/30/17 12/31/17

Data Not Avail Until Early 2018

Reduce Cost / Increase Value

F1Deliver cost-effective services

Embrace Innovation P2Champion environmental stewardship

Embrace Innovation P1Engage all staff in continuous improvement

Enhance the customer / stakeholder experience

C1Deliver a campus ready for business each day

Enhance the customer / stakeholder experience

C3Be easy to do business with

Measure in Planning / Development Phase

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Facilities Services Management System, or How We Improve, utilizes a mix of Balanced Scorecard (BSC) and Lean Systems to align staff and processes around achiveing the vision of becoming a world-class organization providing exceptional service, anytime, anywhere. Nearly all strategies utilizing BSC are developed around the alignment of objectives and measures to four themes – customer experience, innovation, internal capacity and financial stewardship. Objectives provide general goals such as “be easy to do business with” while measures directly support those goals with key performance indicators (KPIs). Targets for the KPIs are typically set above benchmarks and increase in difficulty once a target has been met consistently. It is with that, we must note to all attendees of the BSC report out, that failing to meet the target is not necessarily negative, rather it indicates motion towards higher standards of excellence.

The Balanced Scorecard report is summarized by individual measures below.

BUILD CAPACITY ‐ SAFETY 

L2.1 FS‐WIDE INCIDENT RATE Facilities Services aims to continually reduce the injury incident rate for all employees with a goal of becoming better every year (i.e.: to beat the previous record). For Q4 CY2017 there were 19 recordable incidents (a rate of 2.5 per 100 employees) with a target of 2.0 – the target was not met.

CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE ‐ SPACES AND PLACES 

C2.1 GROUNDS RESOURCE UTILIZATION Landscape areas around campus are prioritized and evaluated on pre-determined service level targets (high to low levels of maintenance and care). Grounds crew efforts impact APPA levels for these areas. This quarter again crews exceeded their targeted goals.

C2.2: DESIGNATED BUILDING SPACES AT APPA LEVEL 1 or 2  Over 80 spaces have been identified as a priority for custodial units to maintain at the highest APPA levels (levels 1 and 2). The last quarter did not reach the 80% target, in fact, there was a slight decrease from Q1 54.3% to Q2 53.8%.

EMBRACE INNOVATION – ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP 

P2.1 WATER CONSERVATION Water Conservation, which aims to reduce water usage across campus, missed its targeted reduction goal. Water usage decreased 3% from previous quarter to 1,121,000 gallons per day (rolling 12-mo avg) – which is 9% higher than the target.

P2.2 ENERGY CONSERVATION Energy Conservation, another measure assessing campus sustainability, did not meet its target reduction but in fact went up some. Energy use intensity increased 1.3% from previous quarter to 191 kBtu/ft2/year.

P2.3 CARBON FOOTPRINT REDUCTION  The carbon footprint measure is only updated once a year after the end of the year (no updates to report this quarter). In 2016 UW almost reached its targeted reduction goals of 11% but was slightly off the mark at 10.76%. The target for 2017 increases to 12% and will be a challenge.

P2.4 DIVERSION RATE  The major indicator of UW’s recycling and composting efforts is the Diversion Rate measure. With a goal of 70% waste diverted from the landfill by 2020. This quarter FS diverted 61% of waste, which was not enough to meet the quarterly target of 68%. 

   

FINANCE – REDUCE COST/INCREASE VALUE 

F1.1 RECHARGE CENTER WORKING CAPITAL Working capital in excess of 60 days’ worth may indicate customers are being charged too much for services and is the maximum allowable by UW standards. FS has set a target of less than 10 days working capital to as closely align revenue with overhead as possible. Facilities construction came in at -41 days, indicating revenue loss, while Motor Pool was within the target at 4 days.

F1.2 DIRECT LABOR TO JOB AVAILABILITY By comparing labor hours applied directly to work orders with the total labor hours on site, FS intends to lower the charge rate to customers and increase productivity. Of the three units measured, Campus Operations exceeded the target by 1%, Maintenance was 2% below target, and Construction was 3% below target.

F1.3 AIM WORK ORDER ACTUAL VS ESTIMATE To reduce customer dissatisfaction and misalloc5tion of resources, Facilities has set a goal to improve work order estimates quoted to customers. In Q2 FY2018, 25% of work orders were within the 10% variance - the target of 50% was not met.

F1.4 STEAM COST Facilities Services considers it a success if we can produce steam more efficiently than the local Seattle producer (Enwave). In 2014 Enwave average cost per 1000lbs of steam was $14.78, this last quarter the cost of steam production for UW was $9.31 per 1000lbs – which did meet the target.

F1.5 RESOURCE CONSERVATION ROI  The Resource Conservation ROI, a measure of the financial soundness of completed energy-conservation projects. Due to state capital budget enactment delay no Resource Conservation Measures were executed in FY18 Q2. This represents that for resource conservation exceeded the target of “cost effective” and reported an ROI of $3.27 for every $1 invested.

CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE – CAMPUS READINESS 

C1.1 PREVENTIVE VS CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE APPA has benchmarked “comprehensive stewardship” as a 75% preventive to 25% corrective maintenance ratio which has become Facilities Services future goal. This quarter FS reached 20% preventive maintenance, a record level that did not reach the current 25% target.

C1.2 REPAIR: FS VS CAMPUS IDENTIFIED Measure C1.2 was developed to encourage employee identification of issues ahead of customer needs. For Q2 FY2018, the target of 60% was not met. The percentage of FS Employee identified issues remained relatively steady.

C1.3 RESILIENCE PLANNING FS aims to increase emergency readiness through a Resilience Planning measure by tracking the status (implemented/up-to-date) of continuity plans throughout FS units. The measure is still in its planning stages.

EMBRACE INNOVATION – LEAN TEAMS 

P1.1 LEAN PARTICIPATION As part of the FS Management System, employees are encouraged to participate in continual improvement (daily kaizen). This quarter we achieved a record 54.5% participation in regular (1 or more a week) team huddles, which remains outside the target of 80%.

P1.2 IDEA IMPLEMENTATION The measure of Idea Implementation, an indication of Lean culture, did not meet its target of 2 ideas per person per month. For the 5th quarter in a row, ideas implemented per person remained below 1. This is likely due to the addition of many new participants that may be slow to participate.

CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE – BE EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITH 

C3.1 EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION The measure of effective communication uses a KPI of email open rate statistics for all FS emails - an indicator of message relevance and reader retention. The target of 60% open rate was not met as this quarter’s open rate was only 30%.

C3.2 RESPONSE TIMES Facilities Services aims to decrease the amount of time customers spend waiting for acknowledgement of receipt. Response time goals vary by team and urgency, but a target of meeting 90% of those unit level goals was set. This quarter 83% of work orders met their response time goals.

C3.3 DEADLINES MET Deadlines Met compares the target and actual completion times of work orders in maintenance shops. The percent of work orders completed on or before set deadlines remained relatively steady at 92% for Q2, surpassing the 90% target for the third quarter in a row.

C3.4 LOCATION BASED FEEDBACK Happy-or-Not kiosks record customer satisfaction data at the point of interaction. A target of 80% positive feedback has been set for all results, independent of question asked. Q2 data was unavailable as the contract with Happy or Not lapsed. Units are using HoN machines less, possibly because of the limited value of data.

C3.5 COMPLETION OF SERVICE SURVEY This measure sets out to improve customer interactions by tying surveys to individual transactions, allowing for a quicker response to customer needs. The measure is still in the process of finding a benchmark, the overall the data is trending slightly upward across the majority of services.

BUILD CAPACITY – EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT / RECOGNITION 

L1.1 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT & GROWTH FS has started tracking the number of available positions filled by internal candidates through promotion or transfers. The benchmark target was set at 50%, the target was met and results remain steady for Q2 FY2018.

  

OBJECTIVE DEFINITIONS

CHAMPION OWNER

INCIDENT RATES BY QUARTER CY2012-2017 Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Away from target (increase in injury rate)• Qtr Difference: 11% Increase• Year Difference: 1% increase from Q4 2016

Reasoning?There were 19 recordable cases in FS in Q4 2017. This is two more incidents than occurred in Q4 2016. Two (2) departments met their target for the quarter, three (3) did not meet their departmental targets, and three (3) departments are continuing at an incident rate of zero (0).

Recommendations: • Reinforce the use of safe work practices, Hazard Review.

Checklists/JHA , field checks and verify work plans and permits being completed and followed.

• Proper and consistent use of PPE. • OARS reports should be reviewed and lessons learned implemented

within each department, and FS wide when applicable.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Safety as the first topic at all meetings• CEO development of JHAs• BSD Slips, Trips, and Falls Focus• Evaluate how to obtain ergonomist services• Compliance with required training• Accident Reports Reviewed by senior leaders, monthly• Monthly operational meeting to discuss safety with FS Senior Leaders

What can we expect in the future?• FS can achieve a quarterly rate below 2.0 for Q1 2018

STEVE CHARVAT TRACEY MOSIER

QUADRANT: BUILD CAPACITYOBJECTIVE L2: EMBRACE A SAFE AND INJURY-FREE WORKPLACEL2.1 FS-WIDE INCIDENT RATE

Measure Intent: Incident rate is the best proxy indicator for safety, and can reflect if our safety improvement efforts are successful.

Measure Formula: Incident rate = the number of recordable incidents X hours worked YTD by 100 FTE*/ actual hours worked by all FTE. * Q1=50,000, Q2= 100,000, Q3=150,000, Q4= 200,000.

Good

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

OBJECTIVE L2: EMBRACE A SAFE AND INJURY-FREE WORKPLACEL2.1 FS-WIDE INCIDENT RATE

Incident Rate by Department Q 4 CY2017

BLS DATA for WA State 2016 Incident Rate

All industries 4.4

Construction 6.4

Heavy & CE construction 6.9

Specialty trade contractors 6.5

Passenger transportation 9.3

Warehousing and storage 9.0

Waste management 4.6

Utilities 2.4

Repair and maintenance 8.7

Commentary:

Upper Left: Chart displays cumulative yearly incident rates. Targets are based on best previous year of all recorded years.

Lower Left: Chart displays cumulative incident rates for CY2017 separated by department. Targets are based on departments previous best year incident rates.

Upper Right: Table of incident rates by department for the most recent quarter. Red indicates missing the target. Targets are based on the quarterly average of the previous best calendar year’s incident rates.

Lower Right: Industry data for reference. Industry rates are for entire calendar years.

Good

Dept Incidents this Qtr Incident Rate Target RateES 0 0.00 0.00AVP 0 0.00 0.00TS 0 0.00 0.19FES/EM 0 0.00 0.00FABS 2 3.01 0.45CEO 2 2.03 0.85FMC 6 2.18 2.95BSD 9 3.24 1.84

CHAMPION OWNER

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE APPA SERVICE LEVEL EVALUATION Movement:• Target Met? Yes• Toward or Away: Within target (met)• Qtr Difference: +0.6 pts (88.2 average vs 87.6 past quarter)• Year Difference: -1.1 pts (89.2 average vs. 90.3 previous biennium)

Reasoning:As plant growth activity begins to subside during the Fall months, staff is primarily focused on the removal of the tree leaf drop. This typically allows the staff to get caught up on the lower prioritized maintenance practices. However, still short 3 gardeners due to state budget issues and 113.97 hours of Leave Without Pay, our ability to provide the requisite service level hours in each of the zones remain deficient.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Winter renovation projects of overgrown landscapes• Safety/security landscape renewals funded projects• Hiring 2 of the 4 vacant Gardener 2 positions

Recommendations:Staff analysis of problematic areas across all of the maintenance zones to identify landscapes that can be modified to reduce the frequency of care that is required. Analysis of actual operational costs to maintain landscaping vs. budgeted amount to demonstrate funding deficiency.

What can we expect in the future:• Unfunded water quality state mandates and new labor intensive

landscapes requires strategic realignment of our staffing efforts to meet these new demands that further diminish our campus landscape aesthetic quality.

• Although rated scores are above the target, they do not align with the preferred conditions in the field. We are re-evaluate the scoring process to consider weighing the evaluation criteria differently.GENE WOODARD HOWARD NAKASE

QUADRANT: ENHANCE CUSTOMER / STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCEOBJECTIVE C2: PROVIDE QUALITY CAMPUS SPACES AND PLACESC2.1 GROUNDS RESOURCE UTILIZATION

Measure Intent: Evaluating the different maintenance service levels of landscape areas on campus will help identify and prioritize the areas to focus our resource efforts, as well as assert a level of accountability within our operations.

Measure Formula: Percentage of points possible for rated campus maintenance zones. Zones are evaluated based on APPA Maintenance Levels 2-5, with possible scores of 10, 10, 9, and 4 respectively.

Goo

d

381

134

199

424

192 197

241216 207

137 130

90.6%97.0%

88.9%92.2%

82.3%

89.8% 92.1%

80.6%

90.3%83.9%

89.2%

70%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

FY2017 FY2018

Points Available Points Received Percent Target

Q1 (87.6%) Q2 (88.2%)

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

OBJECTIVE C2: PROVIDE QUALITY CAMPUS SPACES AND PLACESC2.1 GROUNDS RESOURCE UTILIZATION

Square Foot Maintained Per Hour Strategic Alignment

1. Reduction in Total Area of Level 2 Priority Landscapes

2. Reduce Maintenance Task Frequency Levels

3. Change Landscapes Types

4. Design Process Improvements

5. Hire Additional Staff

Advantages of New Streetscape Construction

99

52 48 5170

81

40 33

97.0% 96.2% 91.7% 90.2% 85.7% 85.2% 85.0%

57.6%70%

0

50

100

150

200

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

5 2 7 8 4 6 3 1N

umbe

r of

Poi

nts

Avai

labl

e /

Poss

ible

perc

ent o

f Poi

nts

Zone (sorted by % of points)

Possible Points by Zone For Q2 FY2018

Points Available Points Received Percent Target

128158

132

56

86.7% 85.4%93.2%

87.5%

70%

0

50

100

150

200

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2 3 4 5

Num

ber

of P

oint

s Av

aila

ble

/ Po

ssib

le

perc

ent o

f Poi

nts

APPA Score

Percent Possible by APPA Score

Points Available Points Received Percent Target

CHAMPION OWNER

PERCENT OF SELECTED AREAS MEETING APPA TARGETS Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Q2 average was down from Q1 FY 2018• Qtr Difference: A very small decrease this quarter (54.3 vs 53.8)• Year Difference: N/A

Reasoning?• The low APPA score was affected by absenteeism throughout all

seven work areas.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Some new hires have completed their onboard training and others

are currently going through training.• MiniMax adoption in every building (ongoing)• Reallocation and prioritization of staff to APPA buildings.• Utilizing Project Crew Team to APPA buildings.

• Recommendations:Continue assessing and prioritizing designated spaces.

What can we expect in the future?• APPA targets should improve with future MiniMax efforts being made

with recycling, specifically in the Health Science Buildings.• Significant hours should be reallocated to iconic locations over trash

collection in offices.

GENE WOODARD VICTOR CARDONA

QUADRANT: ENHANCE CUSTOMER / STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCEOBJECTIVE C2: PROVIDE QUALITY CAMPUS SPACES AND PLACESC2.2: DESIGNATED BUILDING SPACES AT APPA LEVEL 1 OR 2

Measure Intent: To increase and/or maintain cleaning levels by prioritizing and tracking high-profile/usage public spaces.

58.9%54.7%

49.3% 50.0%

56.9% 55.4%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

00.0%

10.0%

220.0%

30.0%

440.0%

50.0%

660.0%

70.0%

880.0%

90.0%

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Total Areas Areas Meeting Target Percent Meeting Target Target %

53.8%Q2 FY18

Measure Formula: The percent of selected building spaces at APPA rating 1 or 2.81 selected buildings were based on traffic and profile, with selected hallways, classrooms, entryways, and restrooms.

54.3%Q1 FY18

Goo

d

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

OBJECTIVE C2: PROVIDE QUALITY CAMPUS SPACES AND PLACESC2.2: DESIGNATED BUILDING SPACES AT APPA LEVEL 1 OR 2

Comments:Area E (Bank of America, Paccar, Denny, etc.) had the highest percentage of spaces meeting desired APPA levels.

The chart shows a trend of higher APPA percentage with less spaces per area. Areas A and B have the largest number of spaces to inspect. Adjustments will be made after assessing the current spaces.

The 5 APPA Levels Defined

1 – Orderly Spotlessness (eat off the floor) 2 – Orderly Tidiness (fingerprints/low dust)3 – Casual Inattention (looks good at distance)4 – Moderate Dinginess (obvious dirt buildup)5 – Unkempt Neglect (cobwebs abound)

126

153137

252276

426

525

126 129

90

155 161

217

138

100.0%

84.3%

65.7%61.5%

58.3%

50.9%

26.3%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

E D G F C A B

Num

ber

of A

reas

Perc

ent M

eetin

g AP

PA T

arge

t

FY2018 Q2 Areas Meeting APPA Level 2 or Higher

Total Areas Areas Meeting Target Percent Meeting Target

CHAMPION OWNER

10621115

1054 10451008

962 981

1074 1080 1111 1118 11101149 1158 1130 1156

1121

1017

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

FY2009FY2010FY2011FY2012FY2013FY2014FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Aver

age

Usag

e Ga

llons

Per

Day

(100

0's)

Water Use, kGPD Target kGPD

ROLLING 12-MONTH AVERAGE WATER CONSUMPTION Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Closer than previous qtr (toward)• Qtr Difference: 3.0% better• Year Difference: 2.4% better (409M gal vs 419M gal)

Reasoning?Recent increases due to failures of some steam water heater and cooling tower equipment, Drumheller Fountain cleaning, cooling tower cleanings, warm summertime temperatures, largest-ever shutdown of CCW Central Cooling Water system to install new piping, CPD construction activities, and occupancy of new capital projects after completion near end of biennium.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Tube bundles replaced in More, SCC, VDG, ATG. • Drumheller Fountain biennial cleaning in May 2017 • H-Wing cooling tower tube bundle leaking, needs replacement• New CCW pipe installed toward Life Sciences Bldg, April 2017

Recommendations:Replace H-Wing cooling tower. Verify hydronic expansion tanks precharged correctly. Identify and replace old assets before failure to avoid waste. Implement measures found by Resource Conservation Team, including replacement of single-pass city-water cooled equipment and lowering humidity setpoints.

What can we expect in the future?Long term, completion and occupancy of new LSB, CSEII, Burke, Fluke, UWMC Exp Ph 2, North Campus Housing, Population Health buildings will add to usage.

JOHN CHAPMAN JOE COOK

QUADRANT: EMBRACE INNOVATIONOBJECTIVE P2: CHAMPION ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIPP2.1 WATER CONSERVATION

Measure Intent: Water conservation is one of the best indicators of our impact as a champion of environmental stewardship.

Measure Formula: Central campus annual water consumption. Data from 7 main meters. Excludes buildings served directly by SPU. Excludes re-used rainwater and other recycled water.

Good

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

OBJECTIVE P2: CHAMPION ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIPP2.1 WATER CONSERVATION

Commentary• For central campus only, water+sewer costs of

~$9.0M during year ending December 2017 are an increase of ~$224k over prior year. Higher cost due to 1.7% higher water rate and 5.3% higher sewer rate vs prior year. Water+SewerCost = $0.0248/gallon = $18.56/CCF

• SPU 2018-2023 strategic plan proposes 5.5% average annual rate increases

• Rate increases and campus growth may push UW water/sewer costs up $3.8M by FY2022

• For 12-M ending December 2017 versus prior year, Central Plant cooling tower makeup down 13.7% to 32.0M gal (excludes new WCUP), steam makeup down 5% to 21.8M gal (13.4% of total feedwater vs 15% in year prior), overall CP water usage down 7.3% to 61M gal

• Largest-ever shutdown of CCW system to add new pipes toward Life Sciences Bldg in March 2017.

• Most bldg cooling towers cleaned Feb/Mar 2017

• H-Wing cooling tower tube bundle leaking, needs replacement.

• CPD projects using some additional water for fire flow tests, pipe pressure testing and flushing, dust control

• CPD exploring feasibility of sustainability measures at Population Health Facility, which would increase code-required maintenance for systems including rainwater/graywater harvesting filters, UV, cistern, pumps

$8,898,754 $12,711,452

$-

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

FY20

08FY

2009

FY20

10FY

2011

FY20

12FY

2013

FY20

14FY

2015

FY20

16FY

2017

FY20

18FY

2019

FY20

20FY

2021

FY20

22

Cent

ral C

ampu

s W

ater

/Sew

er C

ost,

$

Rate hikes plus campus growth may drive up future water/sewer costs

Estimated Water+Sewer by New Construction

Future Water+Sewer w/ Rate Increase

Water+SewerAnd makeup water PRV pressure must be high enough to fill entire system with pumps off.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Heat

ing

Degr

ee D

ays -

Rolli

ng 1

2M

Heating Degree Days near 10-Year Average

Sep Dec Mar Jun

0

100

200

300

400

500

Cool

ing

Degr

ee D

ays -

Rolli

ng 1

2M

Cooling Degree Days at 136% of 10-Year

Average

Sep Dec Mar Jun

Reminder that expansion tanks should always be valved open in normal mode and

ET precharge pressure should match system fill pressure at point of ET install.

CHAMPION OWNER

198.6 194.1 190.4 187.4 188.3 188.6 190.3 186.8 185.1 185.4 185.4 185.8 189.4 189.3 191.3 190.0 188.3 190.8

168.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

EUI,

kBtu

/ft2 /

year

Total Energy Usage Average of Target Energy Usage

ANNUAL ENERGY USE INTENSITY (SITE) FOR PREVIOUS 12-MO PERIOD Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Farther than previous qtr (away)• Qtr Difference: 1.3% worse• Year Difference: 0.8% worse

Reasoning?Many factors contribute. EUI rate improves when efficient office or housing buildings come online (Denny, UWPD in 2016) but gets offset when new energy-intensive buildings are occupied (ARCF - June 2017, Nano - July 2017). Several leaking heat exchangers have been, or will be, replaced.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Leaking tube bundles fixed in VDG, More, SCC, ATG.• CPD projects completed with efficiency measures (ARCF, Nano)

Recommendations:Identify and replace old assets before failure. Verify makeup water PRVs and expansion tank precharge settings adjusted correctly to avoid leaks and comfort issues. Proceed with ideas found by Resource Conservation Team, including variable frequency drive installs, Building Automation System upgrades, leaking steam valve replacements, controls adjustments such as temperature and static pressure resets; repairs to economizers, steam traps, insulation, etc.

What can we expect in the future?Savings from energy conservation projects may be offset by new energy-intensive buildings Nano-Engineering, ARCF, UWMC Phase 2, Life Sciences Building.

JOHN CHAPMAN JOE COOK

QUADRANT: EMBRACE INNOVATIONOBJECTIVE P2: CHAMPION ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIPP2.2 ENERGY CONSERVATION

Measure Intent: Energy conservation is one of the best indicators of our impact as a champion of environmental stewardship.

Measure Formula: Central campus annual electricity used (in kBtu) per GSF + annual fuel used (in kBtu) per GSF (adjusted for heating degree days). Excludes non-central campus energy usage. Excludes on-site renewable energy usage.

Good

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

OBJECTIVE P2: CHAMPION ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIPP2.2 ENERGY CONSERVATION

Commentary:• For central campus only, energy costs of ~$27.6M during year

ending December 2017 are an increase of ~$1.43M compared to the prior year. Electricity rate increased 4.2% to $0.071/kWh while gas rate decreased 1.5% to $0.415/therm over previous year.

• SCL 2017-2022 strategic plan proposes 4.3% average annual rate hike

• Rate increases and campus growth may push energy costs up $5.8M by FY2022

• For 12-months ending December 2017 versus year prior, Central Plant chiller usage down 27.4% to 15,409,249 ton-hours (excl new WCUP chilled water); steam usage up 5.1% to 1,316,817 klbs; turbine generator electricity down 15% to 17,334,484 kWh (repairs in FY18q1); diesel generator electricity up 9.6% to 124,904 kWh; compressed air down 0.1% to 951,681 kCF

• Compared to previous period, electricity EUI down 1.0% and fuel EUI up 2.5%. Some fuel increase likely due to steam usage in new buildings ARCF, NanoES and UWMC Expansion Ph II.

• Compared to 10-year averages, this 12-M period’s heating degree days slightly below normal at 4520 (vs 4421 average) and cooling degree days are 36% above normal at 323 (vs 241 average).

• For this measure, data includes buildings supplied by electricity from East and West Receiving Stations (~15.7M ft2 incl parking garages) and UW Central Plant steam (~12.8M ft2), and excludes buildings supplied directly by public utilities SCL (electricity) and PSE (natural gas). EUI (Site) includes energy consumed on the campus-level as metered by public utilities at Receiving Stations (electricity) and Central Plant (natural gas and fuel oil). Excludes on-site renewable energy usage.

• UW Energy Dashboard: http://dashboard.mckinstry.com/uw/

$27,173,797.42

$33,010,166.11

$- $5

$10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35

Ener

gy C

ost,

$Mill

ions

Rate hikes and campus growth may drive up energy costs

Electricity Future Electricity w/ Rate IncreaseEstimated Electricity by New Construction FuelFuture Fuel w/ Rate Increase Estimated Fuel by New Construction

936,220 992,391

1,654,331 1,687,177

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

Q1

Q2

FY2008FY2009FY2010FY2011FY2012FY2013FY2014FY2015FY2016FY2017 FY2018

MM

Btu

Actual Energy Use, Non-Normalized

Average of Actual Non-Normalized Fuel, MMBtu

Average of Actual Non-Normalized Electricity, MMBtu

61.4

129.4

0

50

100

150

Q4 Q1 Q2

FY2008FY2009FY2010FY2011FY2012FY2013FY2014FY2015FY2016FY2017 FY2018

EUI,

kBtu

/ft2

/yea

r

Normalized EUI by Energy Source

Electricity (excluding turbine)

Fuel (including turbine energy)

CHAMPION OWNER

0.00

%

0.71

%

2.51

%

0.38

%

7.20

%

8.72

%

5.07

%

7.91

%

4.69

%

8.83

%

9.03

%

10.7

6%

#N/A

#N/A

#N/A

#N/A1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

15%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Perc

ent M

gCO

2e R

educ

tion

from

200

5 Ba

selin

e

MgCO2e % Change Target

PERCENT MGCO2E REDUCTION FROM 2005 BASELINE YEAR Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Toward• Year Difference: 1.8 point improvement

Reasoning?Despite the historical trend towards reduced MgCO2e emissions, this trend is not expected to continue due to the: 1) construction of additional facilities at the Seattle/Bothell/Tacoma campuses, 2) acquisition of offsite UW facilities (Northwest Hospital), 3) inclusion of ICA athletics and study abroad travel, 4) planned 2018 readjustment to the UW baseline, and 5) general update to the MgCO2e emissions estimating methodology.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Convert Seattle Campus heating systems to hot water (on hold)• Facility Services Resource Conservation Program Initiatives • Fleet Services Fuel Conversion (E85 & Electric)

Recommendations:FS should continue to implement carbon and energy-saving projects throughout the Seattle campus. Exploration of the viability and associated cost of purchasing carbon offsets or allowances should continue.

What can we expect in the future?The UW will not meet its carbon footprint reduction goal without implementing energy-saving initiatives or purchasing offsets. Developing and implementing energy-saving initiatives prior to 2020 will reduce or eliminate the need to purchase carbon credits. Note: A project has been started to update the UW “facility” baseline emissions estimate, and to account for changes to the GHG protocol which now includes regional electricity-related emissions. JOHN CHAPMAN DAVID OGRODNIK

QUADRANT: EMBRACE INNOVATIONOBJECTIVE P2: CHAMPION ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIPP2.3 CARBON FOOTPRINT REDUCTION

Measure Intent: To reduce UW’s GHG emissions by 15% from 2005 emission levels by July 2020.

Measure Formula: Percent difference in annual metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent (MgCO2e) emissions relative to baseline calendar year 2005 emissions.

Goo

d

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

OBJECTIVE P2: CHAMPION ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIPP2.3 CARBON FOOTPRINT REDUCTION

Comments:

• Scope 1 includes “direct” emissions from UW equipment and facilities (natural gas heating, vehicle fleets, landfill). Scope 2 includes “energy import” emissions from non-UW facilities that generate the steam and electricity purchased by UW-owned facilities. Scope 3 emissions originate from sources not classified as Scope 1 or 2. UW has decided to included commuting, professional travel and off-campus medical facilities in Scope 3.

• Increased 2016 Power Plant %MgCO2e emissions (relative to 2015) is associated with the increased operation of 1) lower efficiency steam boilers, and 2) steam turbines used to generate electricity.

• Calendar year 2015 and 2016 (SeaTac Airport

3827, respectively. This suggests that weather had a relatively minor influence on 2016 Power Plant and Seattle building MgCO2e emissions relative to 2015.

• Reduced 2016 Seattle Campus commuting MgCO2e emissions (relative to the 2015) is associated with the startup of the UW Link light rail station (changing commuter habits).

• Decreasing landfill MgCO2e emissions is expected to continue with increasing landfill age.

• Decreasing Seattle vehicle MgCO2e emissions is associated with increasing alternate fuel consumption.

• Tacoma, Bothell, Seattle building and professional travel MgCO2e emissions remain relatively stable.

Goo

d

-

50

100

150

200

250

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

MgC

O2e

Out

put i

n Th

ousa

nds

Total Scope 1-3 MgCO2e Emissions from 2005

Fleet

Tacoma (Scope 1-3)

Bothel (Scope 1-3)

Landfill

Seattle Buildings Other

Off-Campus Medical

Professional Travel

Seattle Commuting

Power Plant

Target by Weight

Good

CHAMPION OWNER

QUARTERLY DIVERSION RATE Movement:• Target Met? No, the goal of 68% was not met.• Toward or Away: Away• Qtr Difference: 0• Year Difference: 3.3 point decrease

Reasoning?Compared with FY17, total waste generated decreased. While FY18 landfilled waste increased by 54 tons in Q1 and 42 tons in Q2, recycling tonnage decreased by 236 tons in Q1 and 213 tons in Q2. Increases in landfilled waste are primarily due to increased generation at Health Sciences and the new Animal Research & Care Facility. FY18 recycling tonnage decreased the most in the following streams compared with FY17:• Concrete decreased by 94 tons in Q1 and 55 tons in Q2 • Construction/Demolition decreased by 52 tons in Q1 & 35 tons in Q2• Scrap Metal decreased by 46 tons in Q1 & 44 tons in Q2• Yard Waste decreased by 47 tons in Q2• Mixed Containers decreased by 22 tons in Q1 & 65 tons in Q2• Single-Stream Recycling decreased by 34 tons in Q2• Resold Items (Surplus) decreased by 8 tons in Q1 & 17 tons in Q2

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Improved bulky material collection (FMC, corp yard)• University waste characterization study in high generation areas• Improved food waste collection from UWMC and HFS• 100% academic/facilities implementation of the MiniMax Program

Recommendations:Create targeted education programs, new buildings, and investment in infrastructural improvement and education, based on the waste study results.

What can we expect in the future?We do not anticipate being able to reach our fiscal year 2018 goal of 68% waste diversion. JOHN CHAPMAN LIZ GIGNILLIAT

QUADRANT: EMBRACE INNOVATIONOBJECTIVE P2: CHAMPION ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIPP2.4 DIVERSION RATE

Measure Intent: Diversion rate is the key outcome indicator of success at promoting recycling and composting on the UW campus.

Measure Formula: The percentage of campus waste that is being diverted from landfill, accumulated through fiscal year.

Goo

d

58.9

%59

.3%

56.4

%57

.2%

60.9

%60

.8%

60.4

%59

.3%

62.9

%63

.4%

67.1

%66

.4%

61.5

%62

.1%

64%

61.7

%65

.2%

64.5

%62

.3%

62.1

%61

. 2%

61.2

%

68%

62.0%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018Diversion Rate Target Rolling 12-Month Diversion Rate

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

OBJECTIVE P2: CHAMPION ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIPP2.4 DIVERSION RATE

Diverting Waste Reduces Costs

Every quarter we track the disposal cost savings of our diversion efforts. In Q2 we diverted 1,844 tons of material. If we sent that material to the landfill we would have spent over $267,000 on disposal costs. We spent over $210,000 on recycling this quarter, creating a cost avoidance of $57,000.

Compared with FY2017, Q1 recycling costs increased by $12,500 while total recycling tonnage decreased by 236 tons. Q2 recycling costs increased by 20,000 while tonnage decreased by 213 tons.

Fluctuating net avoided disposal costs this quarter were driven by the decreases in tonnage for our most efficiently hauled recycling streams:

• Concrete • Construction/Demolition • Scrap Metal Yard Waste

These materials are collected and hauled in bulk, which is much less costly per ton.

Also, resold items (UW Surplus) have no hauling or disposal costs, so it’s impact on our cost avoidance is greater than most recycling streams.

$163

,544

$188

,178

$127

,602

$156

,767

$150

,889

$157

,510

$151

,435

$153

,100

$169

,736

$186

,631

$182

,415

$209

,605

$116

, 827

$122

,027

$115

,060

$106

,169

$123

,309

$110

,298

$101

,814

$104

,933

$74,

917

$57,

245

1,575

1,821

1,517

1,7071,700

1,980

1,7961,880

1,784

2,1272,139

2,374

1,651

1,980

1,857

1,8181,956

2,047

1,882

2,022

1,732

1,844

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Waste Diversion Cost Avoidance

Waste Diversion Cost Avoidance Diverted Tons

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

OBJECTIVE P2: CHAMPION ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIPP2.4 DIVERSION RATE

Commentary:

UW’s waste diversion story is still impressive despite not reaching our waste diversion goal!

First, the composition of our recycling and food waste streams is changing and the weight of those waste streams is a lot lighter than years past (thanks in large part to lighter recyclable and compostable food packaging).

Second, overall landfill waste generated per FTE on the UW Campus is on the decline while waste diversion per FTE is much higher.

At the end of FY2016 the average person at UW diverted 233 lbs of waste and only landfilled 142 lbs over the course of the year.

Because it will be harder and harder to achieve our overall waste diversion goal, tracking how much waste is generated per FTE will become more and more important and more accurate way to tell the UW’s waste diversion story.

The MiniMax program increases waste awareness while increasing access to recycling and composting containers across campus. The more buildings converted to MiniMax waste infrastructure standards, the less material will go to the landfill.

183

170 169162 160

148142

120

140

160

180

200

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

Poun

ds p

er p

erso

n (F

TE) Pounds Landfilled Per Person (FTE-year)

Landfilled/FTE

6,72

6

6,41

7

6,54

7

6,62

1

7,36

0 8,56

9

7,35

1

7,93

5

5,18

3

4,90

1

4,93

4

4,79

0

4,80

2

4,50

4

4,40

6

4,54

1

56% 57% 57% 58%61%

66%63% 64%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

Perc

ent D

iver

ted

Tons

of M

ater

ial

Diverted Landfilled Diversion Rate

CHAMPION OWNER

RECHARGE CENTER – DAYS OF WORKING CAPITAL Movement:• Target Met? Construction = No, Fleet Services = Yes• Toward or Away: Construction moved away, Fleet remained in target.• Qtr Difference: 13 days further away from target for Construction,

Fleet still within target. • Year Difference: 21 days further away for Construction. From outside

target to within for Fleet.

Reasoning?For construction, skilled trades FTE (57) was less then required FTE (64) to generate revenue and productivity was at 76% which was lower than required 79%. Further causes listed on supplementary slide. Fleet Services was hit by a higher consulting fee associated with implementation of the software and unexpected expensive bus repairs.

Recommendations: • Aggressively pursue client projects, improve client relationships.• Focus minor capital dollars towards construction, using as filler work.• Bring on new Superintendent staff, restructure roles, assign key

clients, define routing of work.• Backfill open positions quickly, reduce the number of HLD’s.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Visual management, PM workflow improvements, direct-to-job for

leads, supply chain management, and daily productivity reports.• Monitor and perform daily corrections using new productivity reports• PM team continue to meet weekly using lean practices to develop

ideas and improve processes

What can we expect in the future?• Historically, the 4th quarter (October – December) was a very slow

quarter because of holidays and vacation. Expect that Facilities Construction will continue the negative trend.JIM ANGELOSANTE LORI NATSUME

QUADRANT: REDUCE COST / INCREASE VALUEOBJECTIVE F1: DELIVER COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICESF1.1 RECHARGE CENTER WORKING CAPITAL

Measure Intent: A working capital of more than 60 days may indicate overcharging of customers and is the maximum allowable by UW. FS has set a goal of 10 days to as closely align revenue with overhead as possible.

Measure Formula: Days of Working Capital = Budget Balance/Daily Expenditure

GoodGood14 13

4

7 13 16

9 10 3 4

2129

157

-5 -4

-20 -15 -18-28

-41

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec

2015 2016 2017

Days

of W

orki

ng C

apita

l

Quarter

Target Min Fleet Services Facilities construction Target Max

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

OBJECTIVE F1: DELIVER COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICESF1.1 RECHARGE CENTER WORKING CAPITAL

Construction:• Construction had a negative balance of 786k

as of December 31, 2017 which equates to negative 41 days working capital. Well outside the target range.

• Negative 22 days working capital was carryforward from previous biennium.

Construction Contributors:• Reduction in client funded project work• Delayed approval of minor capital budget.• Inefficient project management processes

resulting in delayed client approvals• Reduction in project management staffing • Reduced FTE count resulting in earning

potential• The actual skilled trades FTE (58) was less then

required FTE (64) to generate revenue. • Productivity was at 73% which was lower than

required 79%.

$597$698

$370

$167

-$117 -$103

-$473

-$343-$409

-$530

-$786

80% 82%

73%70% 68%

77%

68%71%

78% 76%73%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

$(1,000)

$(800)

$(600)

$(400)

$(200)

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec

2015 2016 2017

Cum

ulat

ive

Wor

king

Cap

ital i

n Th

ousa

nds

Construction Working Capital ($) vs Productivity

Balance Construction Productivity

CHAMPION OWNER

PERCENT HOURS APPLIED DIRECTLY TO WORK Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Away from target• Qtr Difference: none, 2/3 still not at target• Year Difference: FM and FC have not meet the target. CO met target

every quarter. Reasoning:Lower construction productivity rate was likely due to: Vacant positions, Leads out on FMLA, HLD’s resulting in lower productivity numbers; Slow development of work and handling time for projects; Slow down of shop direct work, resulting in lack of filler work.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Facilities Construction reorganization• Monitoring and Reviewing daily labor hours • Visual board for managed projects• Client outreach to generate business

Recommendations:• Increase productivity with good planning and scheduling. • Improve project manager efficiency to push projects forward quickly

and decrease wait time before and during work order execution.• Cut back on overhead cost to improve budget balance.

What can we expect in the future?• October – February were slow months for construction and it is

expected that the productivity would be lower then the target 79%.

JIM ANGELOSANTE LORI NATSUME

QUADRANT: REDUCE COST / INCREASE VALUEOBJECTIVE F1: DELIVER COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICESF1.2 DIRECT LABOR TO JOB AVAILABILITY

Measure Intent: To deliver cost–effective services to clients. Higher direct labor to job availability could result a lower charge rate.

Measure Formula: Direct labor to job availability % (excluding Supervisors) = hours applied directly to work orders/total hours on site/100

Goo

d

85%

86%

84%

84%

85%

84%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Jun Sep Dec Jun Sep Dec

2016 2017

Facilities Maintenance

90%

91%

92%

91%

92%

91%

Jun Sep Dec Jun Sep Dec

2016 2017

Campus Operations

68% 77

%

68% 78

%

76%

73%

Jun Sep Dec Jun Sep Dec

2016 2017

Facilities Construction

CHAMPION OWNER

% OF WORK ORDERS WITH +/- 10% VARIANCE Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Away• Qtr Difference: 2 points further away• Year Difference: 1 point further away

Reasoning; The variance of -10/+10% with a 90% confidence is considered to be acceptable. This measure also works as a customer satisfaction and process improvement KPI. The discrepancies between estimated and completed have several reasons: Primarily – work orders not being updated and contingencies not being used.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Identify resources to update work orders prior to entering "closed"

status• Work order review and client outreach• Analyze WO's that were closed over budget by more that 10% -

customer communication/awareness.

Recommendations:• Edit work orders to reflect cost changes throughout the course of the

project. • Provide staff training in estimating and evaluate cost effectiveness

to have an estimator on staff. • Review and determine protocol to determine and account for

contingencies in a way that does not reflect in AiM estimate.

What can we expect in the future?• Continued increase toward the goal of 50% as procedures and

protocol for work order accuracies are improved.

JIM ANGELOSANTE RICH DIERCK

QUADRANT: REDUCE COST / INCREASE VALUEOBJECTIVE F1: DELIVER COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICESF1.3 AIM WORK ORDER ACTUAL VS ESTIMATE

Measure Intent: To improve work estimates and planning to more closely match the actual result. Inaccurate estimates can result client dissatisfaction and misallocation of resources.

Measure Formula: # work order variance within -10/+10% divided by total number of work orders. Only applies to work orders closed in the quarter that are over $1000 and excludes Maintenance Corrective work orders.

Goo

d

50.0%

26%31%

30% 26%

43% 39%

27%25%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec

2016 2017

Fixed Cost Time & Material Target Total

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

OBJECTIVE F1: DELIVER COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICESF1.3 AIM WORK ORDER ACTUAL VS ESTIMATE

AiM Work Order Actual and Estimate Variance by Quarter

Commentary:We continue to see trends of construction projects being completed within the 10% variance or beyond the 10% variance but below the estimate.

Date Work Order Type # of Work Order <10%

% of WO with -10/+10% Variance Estimate Actual

Over/ (Under) Estimate

Mar-16 TM (construction) 279 83 30% 2,835,651$ 2,670,912$ (164,739)$Mar-16 TM (Maintenance) 58 3 5% 506,809$ 402,249$ (104,560)$Mar-16 FC (Construction) 8 2 25% 52,830$ 62,172$ 9,342$Mar-16 FC (Maintenance) - - - - -Mar-16 Total 345 88 26% 3,395,290$ 3,135,333$ (259,957)$Jun-16 TM (construction) 211 69 33% 2,104,423$ 1,902,864$ (201,559)$Jun-16 TM (Maintenance) 41 10 24% 210,683$ 379,841$ 169,158$Jun-16 FC (Construction) 5 0 0% 93,847$ 103,351$ 9,504$Jun-16 FC (Maintenance) - - - - -Jun-16 Total 257 79 31% 2,408,953$ 2,386,056$ (22,898)$Sep-16 TM (construction) 171 50 29% 1,279,896$ 1,171,290$ (108,606)$Sep-16 TM (Maintenance) 41 12 29% 535,747$ 606,166$ 70,419$Sep-16 FC (Construction) 8 3 38% 77,932$ 74,381$ (3,551)$Sep-16 FC (Maintenance) - - -Sep-16 Total 220 65 30% 1,893,576$ 1,851,838$ (41,738)$Dec-16 TM (construction) 169 44 26% 1,557,286$ 1,197,337$ (359,949)$Dec-16 TM (Maintenance) 10 2 20% 367,638$ 704,418$ 336,780$Dec-16 FC (Construction) 8 3 38% 132,604$ 119,044$ (13,560)$Dec-16 FC (Maintenance) - - -Dec-16 Total 187 49 26% 2,057,529$ 2,020,799$ (36,730)$Mar-17 TM (construction) 130 50 38% 1,652,981$ 1,447,220$ (205,761)$Mar-17 TM (Maintenance) 12 10 83% 477,624$ 441,145$ (36,479)$Mar-17 FC (Construction) 1 1 100% 6,390$ 6,253$ (137)$Mar-17 FC (Maintenance) 0 0 -$ -$ -$Mar-17 Total 143 61 43% 2,136,995$ 1,894,617$ (242,378)$Jun-17 TM (construction) 219 88 40% 1,678,415$ 1,515,318$ (163,097)$ Jun-17 TM (Maintenance) 10 3 30% 257,418$ 277,520$ 20,102$ Jun-17 FC (Construction) 11 2 18% 155,683$ 116,818$ (38,866)$ Jun-17 FC (Maintenance) - Jun-17 Total 240 93 39% $ 2,091,516 $ 1,909,655 $ (181,861)Sep-17 TM (construction) 244 65 27% 1,895,173$ 1,666,449$ (228,724)$Sep-17 TM (Maintenance) 21 4 19% 580,138$ 476,028$ (104,110)$Sep-17 FC (Construction) 12 6 50% 119,326$ 99,880$ (19,445)$Sep-17 FC (Maintenance) -$ -$ -$Sep-17 Total 277 75 27% 2,594,637$ 2,242,358$ (352,280)$Dec-17 TM (construction) 258 68 26% 1,463,175$ 1,043,873$ (419,303)$ Dec-17 TM (Maintenance) 31 7 23% 253,100$ 256,172$ 3,072$ Dec-17 FC (Construction) 8 0 0% 22,528$ 23,097$ 568$ Dec-17 FC (Maintenance) 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$ Dec-17 Total 297 75 25% 1,738,804$ 1,323,142$ (415,662)$

CHAMPION OWNER

AVERAGE STEAM COST PER 1000LBS Movement:• Target Met? Yes• Toward or Away: Toward• Qtr Difference: $5.73 less expensive• Year Difference: $1.47 less expensive

Reasoning?UW Power Plant generated about 1.275 M units (1000lbs per unit) steam in FY17 to heat 157 buildings with approximately 13M GSF. For the quarter ending 12/31/2017, the average steam cost per 1000 lbsdecreased from $15.04 to $9.31. The average monthly steam production was 141,805 units (1000lbs per unit) which was an increase of 106% compared to Q1, and a 6% decrease in fuel pricing accounts for the decreased steam cost.

Additional measures used to keep steam production cost as low as possible include minimizing the number of boilers running, maintaining a strong preventive maintenance program (less breakdowns) and keeping staff to a minimum level (increase productivity). The higher steam cost in the summer months is due to a low demand in steam with the same level of staffing cost.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• None

Recommendations: Benchmarking the fuel cost of steam generation, in dollars per 1,000 pounds ($/1,000 lb) of steam, is an effective way to assess the efficiency of the steam system. Also taking advantage of the lower fuel price to co-generate more electricity would save on the overall energy costs of the university.

What can we expect in the future?Expect the steam cost to be lower than the national average. When fuel price goes down, the steam cost would go down as well. JIM ANGELOSANTE MARK KIRSCHENBAUM

QUADRANT: REDUCE COST / INCREASE VALUEOBJECTIVE F1: DELIVER COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICESF1.4 STEAM COST

Measure Intent: To reduce the cost of steam production through continuous improvement efforts.

Measure Formula: $/1000 lbs. =Total operating and Capital cost/Total Steam Produced/1000

Good

16.0

0

9.22 9.89 10.6

7

11.6

2

10.7

8

9.64

12.9

7

15.0

4

9.31

11.88

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

UW Steam Cost Seattle Steam 12-mo Rolling Average

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

OBJECTIVE F1: DELIVER COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICESF1.4 STEAM COST

Commentary: Steam production is much lower during the warm summer months than during the winter months. Subsequently the "cost" of payroll, operations and water/sewer is a much larger component of the steam cost than during the winter months. (below chart)

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Distribution $0.23 $0.16 $0.20 $0.27 $0.29 $0.21 $0.24 $0.46 $0.45 $0.15Water/Sewer $1.44 $0.40 $0.40 $0.65 $1.12 $0.56 $0.29 $0.71 $1.30 $0.33Operations $2.08 $0.98 $1.72 $1.99 $1.35 $1.75 $1.28 $2.43 $2.75 $1.58Payroll $4.30 $2.14 $2.27 $2.92 $3.45 $2.73 $2.31 $3.75 $4.95 $2.42Fuel $7.95 $5.54 $5.30 $4.84 $5.40 $5.53 $5.51 $5.61 $5.59 $4.82Total $16.00 $9.22 $9.89 $10.67 $11.62 $10.78 $9.64 $12.97 $15.04 $9.31Steam Production 193840 401759 373488 288888 237378 349296 420031 264694 206677 425415

0

150000

300000

450000

$-

$3.00

$6.00

$9.00

$12.00

$15.00

$18.00

Aver

age

Mon

thly

Cos

t

Stem Cost Breakdown

0

60000

120000

180000

0

20

40

60

80

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Steam Production (1000lbs) Seattle High Seattle Low Avg Cost

Average Temperature vs Steam Cost

CHAMPION OWNER

RESOURCE CONSERVATION RETURN ON INVESTMENT Movement:• Target Met? Yes• Toward or Away: Target met and exceeded• Qtr Difference: Less ROI but still in target.• Year Difference: Less ROI but still in target.

Reasoning? Charting resource conservation investments as they are completed show the effect of fact based decision making (IE: project prioritization based on ROI) based on comprehensive planning data (IE: campus wide energy audits completed in FY16 Q2) combined with great support from FMC & CEO resources in timely cost effective execution of the work.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• FMC LED Lighting Team completed two projects that received

$48,098 in rebates this quarter!• RCP funded critical project at Mary Gates Hall using rebate reserves...

backstopping delayed state allocation to meet critical capital need.

Recommendations:Expand conservation program processes to minor capital, building based maintenance and preventative maintenance programs. Thorough building audits and comprehensive planning provide necessary data for “optimized business case” decision making that combined with cost effective and timely work execution lead to reductions in deferred maintenance backlog, O&M efficiencies, higher customer satisfaction and longer facility life.

What can we expect in the future?17-19 projects are prioritized based on ROI and carbon avoidance. Cumulative ROI of 17-19 funded projects are estimated to return $8.22 per $1 invested. While individual project ROI’s will vary the cumulative ROI of projects completed is forecast to continue rise at an average rate of $0.25 per quarter over the next biennium. JIM ANGELOSANTE NORM MENTER

QUADRANT: REDUCE COST / INCREASE VALUEOBJECTIVE F1: DELIVER COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICESF1.5 RESOURCE CONSERVATION PROGRAM: RCM ROI

Measure Intent: Insure completed RCM’s are cost effective by targeting more cost effective projects and making sure lifetime utility cost avoided is greater than the net capital investment.

Measure Formula: ROI = LUCA / NCILUCA = Lifetime Utility Cost Avoided NCI = Net Capital Investment NCI = Funded Labor + Material Cost – Rebates & Grants Secured

Goo

d

$2,0

56,1

47

$2,0

74,0

35

$2,2

32,4

95

$2,7

82,6

16

$2,7

84,1

22

$2,9

44,7

89

$3,0

51,3

09

$3,1

08,7

30

$3,7

82,0

13

$4,2

24,6

63

$4,7

25,3

03 $6

,634

,698

$6,7

89,9

97

3,851 4,069

5,155

5,733 5,739

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

CUM

ULAT

IVE

ANNU

AL C

ARBO

N AV

OID

ED M

g CO

2e

Resource Conservation: COMPLETED PROJECT BENEFITS TO DATE

Utility Cost Avoided -Life Rebates/Grants Earned Net Capital Investment Carbon Avoided (MgCo2e/Yr)

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

OBJECTIVE F1: DELIVER COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICESF1.5 RESOURCE CONSERVATION PROGRAM: RCM ROI

Completed Resource Conservation Measure - Return on Investment Details

Commentary

• The LED lighting project completed in FY18 Q1 is noteworthy for a number of reasons:

• This project has high student visibility (no pun intended) and improves player safety by improved light distribution (less shadows) and higher light output consistency over time.

• This projects uses in-house FMC shops labor thus avoiding contractor overhead and profit costs while simultaneously enhancing FMC’s bottom-line by funding work from utility rebate reserves.

• This project not only reduces future utility cost $12,942/annually but also eliminates maintenance costs by eliminating maintenance intensive, high cost ballasts in the fixtures. LED lights consume 277 Volt power, no ballast required.

• The table above provides the relevant details that inform calculation of the measure.

• Cumulative Statistics for FY15-FY18 shown above illustrate the compounded impact of the program on key FS performance Indicators: champion environmental stewardship and deliver cost effective services.

• Program “all time” statistics since program inception, FY15 Q1:

• $4.5M gross/$1.9M net capital investment in 26 completed projects

• $2.7M in rebates and grants secured • $6.8M in utility cost avoided over the life of the improvements• 5,739 MgCO2e avoided annually (5.1% of 2005 UW baseline

emissions)• Cumulative ROI: $3.63 saved for $1 net investment.

RCP Project FY 16.1 FY 16.2 FY 16.3 FY 16.4 FY 17.1 FY 17.2 FY 17.3 FY 17.4 FY 18.1 CUMULATIVEUtility Cost Avoided -Annual $502 $12,359 $10,652 $4,417 $44,886 $29,510 $33,376 $127,293 $12,942 $498,695 Utility Cost Avoided -Life $1,506 $160,667 $106,520 $57,421 $673,283 $442,650 $500,640 $1,909,395 $155,298 $6,789,997 Gross Investment $1,074 $66,609 $71,856 $26,666 $198,940 $143,606 $136,724 $776,557 $98,939 $4,547,358 Rebates/Grants $0 $0 $42,986 $0 $139,258 $75,823 $49,903 $594,805 $51,408 $2,677,677 Net Capital Investment $1,074 $66,609 $28,870 $26,666 $59,682 $67,783 $86,821 $181,752 $47,531 $1,869,681 Return on Investment 1.40 2.41 3.69 2.15 11.28 6.53 5.77 10.51 3.27 3.63 Carbon Avoided(MgCo2e/Yr) 1 85 5 2 1,929 218 1,086 578 6 5,739 Completed projects 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 26Name: Completed projects: Clark Hall retro

Commissioning Initiative

partnering w/ Shop 69

Shop 17-Insulation

Projects MHSC Wings, I, RR, B,

D, F

LED Lighting Retrofits: Shop

15 and 41-Electrical IMA Sports Courts

Shop 17-Insulation

Projects MHSC Wings, DEF,K,

C,G,H,H-addition

Shop 17-Steam Valve

Replacement Projects MHSC:

J Wing & T Wing

Raitt Hall DDC Replacement

Project

Gowen Hall Coil

Replacement Project

MHSC T Wing DDC Project,

W. Gates Hall RetroCx Project

IMA Large Gyms, LED

Lighting Retrofit Project

Cumulative statistics for FY15-

FY18

Cumulative ROI 2.14 2.15 2.18 2.18 2.55 2.72 2.88 3.64 3.63

CHAMPION OWNER

18.4

%

16.9

%

18.9

%

18.4

%

18.4

%

16.9

%

18.9

%

18.4

%

17.6

%

16.9

%

16.9

%

20.3

%

20.9

%

19.5

%

75%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015 2016 2017 2018

PM:CM Hour Ratio Original Projection New Target APPA Lvl 2

PM TO CM RATIO (ACTUAL WORK HOURS) Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Away• Qtr Difference: 1.4% increase• Year Difference: 2.6% increase (compared to FY17 Q2)

Reasoning?• Decrease occurred in CEO (23.2% to 19.9%) & FMC (19.9% to 19.4%)

but remain higher than past Q2’s

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• FS Goal for FY18 to reach 50% PM:CM ratio• SW Zone piloting Building Based Maintenance (BBM) program was

launched in Jan/Feb 2018

Recommendations:• Incorporate PM accomplishment into natural work group huddles to

identify crew- and shop- based gaps and generate ideas.• Identify PM work accomplished by contract (i.e Elevator Maintenance)

and capture this effort as part of our PM ratio.• Define methods to collect data for non - AiM units.

What can we expect in the future?• FS is unlikely to meet FY18 goal for improving this measure• Review of future goals should align with current initiatives and BBM

goals from Lean Launch.• FMC is methodically capturing asset information and planning to

schedule 10 buildings for BBM starting in January 2018.• Capturing non-shop PM work may balance some of the seasonal lull

as these pilot programs gain traction, but significant improvement is necessary to reach 50% goal.

DAMON FETTERS RYAN GUTZWILER

QUADRANT: ENHANCE CUSTOMER / STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCEOBJECTIVE: C1 DELIVER A CAMPUS READY FOR BUSINESS EACH DAYC1.1 PREVENTIVE VS CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE

Measure Intent: To minimize unplanned outages and system failures. A 75:25 ratio of Preventive to Corrective Maintenance is considered APPA Level 2, Comprehensive Stewardship.

Measure Formula: Ratio (%) of actual work hours of planned vs corrective maintenance retrieved from AiM work orders.

Goo

d

CHAMPION OWNER

PERCENT OF ISSUES (WORK ORDERS) IDENTIFIED BY FS STAFF Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: moving away from the target• Qtr Difference: .9 point loss• Year Difference: 1.1 point loss

Reasoning?The baseline data now reflects the elimination of preventative work orders from previous quarters. Student reporting has been completely eliminated from the data as of the Q4 2017 report out to give us true reporting from FS employees.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Employee Training• Improved website/submission features.• Customer care team

Recommendations: Continued staff education and awareness training and customer outreach through the Customer Care Team.

What can we expect in the future?The 50% target will remain a stretch. The availability of the Customer Care team, many more administrators and building coordinators have a direct link to placing work orders long after the custodial staff have left for the day. More data is needed to see if there are seasonal fluctuations.

DAMON FETTERS CHRISTINE LUCIER

QUADRANT: ENHANCE CUSTOMER / STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCEOBJECTIVE C1: DELIVER A CAMPUS READY FOR BUSINESS EACH DAYC1.2 REPAIR: FS VS CAMPUS IDENTIFIED

Measure Intent: To create a culture of FS staff awareness of their surroundings and to identify and repair issues before the customers complain.

Measure Formula: Percentage of corrective work orders submitted by FS staff vs those submitted by customers through complaints, FS Works, or AiM.

Goo

d

35.9% 36.4% 37.1% 38.1%35.1% 33.8%

31.5% 32.0%33.8% 32.7%

50%

6,039

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

FY2016Q1

FY2016Q2

FY2016Q3

FY2016Q4

FY2017Q1

FY2017Q2

FY2017Q3

FY2017Q4

FY2018Q1

FY2018Q2

Tota

l Num

ber

of W

ork

Ord

ers

Perc

ent o

f Iss

ues

Iden

tifie

d by

FS

%FS Generated Target FS Work Order Count

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

OBJECTIVE C1: DELIVER A CAMPUS READY FOR BUSINESS EACH DAYC1.2 REPAIR: FS VS CAMPUS IDENTIFIED

Above: There was an organizational change in Q1 FY2018 moving Engineering Services over to SPCI that has resulted in an increase for SPCI and a decrease for CEO in reported issues.

Right: The combined Student Submissions and Housing Services increased this quarter to 70% compared to 68% last quarter. The Library and School of Social Work were new to the top 10 this quarter. The top four operate outside normal operating hours.

123

129

152

168

180

212

224

292

1323

2192

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK

INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLET

PRINCIPAL ACCTS

ACAD STUDENT AFFAIRS

COMPUTER SCIENCE & ENG

DEAN BUSINESS

LIBRARY

UNIV FOOD SERVICES

HOUSING SERVICES

STUDENT SUBMISSIONS

Work Orders

Top 10 External Requestors for FY2018 Q2

8704 9155 86788068 8258

921110243

9267 8960

6394 6570 6594 6364 5936 60836892

5756 6039

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

FY2016 Q1FY2016 Q2FY2016 Q3FY2016 Q4FY2017 Q1FY2017 Q2FY2017 Q3FY2017 Q4FY2018 Q1

Wor

k O

rder

s

Work Order Numbers by Qtr

Client Requested FS Generated

FY2016 Q1

FY2016 Q2

FY2016 Q3

FY2016 Q4

FY2017 Q1

FY2017 Q2

FY2017 Q3

FY2017 Q4

FY2018 Q1

FY2018 Q2

CEO 2506 2552 2548 2354 2165 1980 2189 2019 2031 1984

FMC 1719 2009 1684 1810 1380 1713 1424 1397 1511 1559

BSD 358 425 568 530 634 638 719 552 606 682

TS 173 147 218 175 65 263 246 208 248 258

FABS 72 69 61 66 188 70 65 77 68 51

SPCI/ES 16 19 20 18 25 29 58 82 96 95

FES 9 13 7 8 7 13 14 15 7 15

UWEM 1 1 3 2 2

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Wor

k O

rder

s

Department Contributions by Quarter

CHAMPION OWNER

Goo

d

MEASURE NOT YET READY / WORK IN PROGRESS Movement:• Target Met? N/A• Toward or Away: N/A• Qtr Difference: N/A• Year Difference: N/A

Reasoning?Measure in development. Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• New Business, Academic and Research Continuity Manager has been

hired and assigned as measure owner• Data for the program has been compiled and scope of the measure

is in development• U-Wide COOP planning update scheduled for FS Operational Review

on 1/31/2018• Resilience Workgroup re-launch in February 2018 (TBC)• Launched “Build your plan in a year” pilot with two participating

departments

Recommendations: N/A

STEVE CHARVAT MEGAN LEVY

QUADRANT: ENHANCE CUSTOMER / STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCEOBJECTIVE C1: DELIVER A CAMPUS READY FOR BUSINESS EACH DAYC1.3 RESILIENCE PLANNING (NOT READY)

Measure Intent: Evaluate Facilities Services’ readiness to support daily business operations by promoting preparation for space, personnel and processes.

Measure Formula: Measure not yet defined

Act ivity Due By % Complete Notes

Previewed Continuity Efforts

11/30/2016 100%Presented continuity concepts and requirements at monthly FS Manager/Supervisor Meeting

Continuity Position Recruit and Hire

9/25/17 100%

Recruitment/hiring for key vacancy delayed by Central HR mandate to conduct Class & Comp Study. Lack of qualified candidates further delayed hiring process. Hire complete 9/17

Assign measure owner duties

9/30/2017 100% Ownership assigned to new BARC Manager

Draft Enterprise-Wide COOP

12/31/17 100%

Per State law, a Continuity of Operations (COOP) Framework was drafted and presented to the State of Washington Emergency Management Dept

Complete FS Baseline Measures

1/15/18 100%Current status of FS continuity planning has been assessed (see next slide)

Develop measure, add sources

3/31/2018 70%New owner identifying key measurables for the position and goals; to validate with measure

Present Draft Measures to FS Directors

4/1/2018 0%

CHAMPION OWNER

PERCENT EMPLOYEES PARTICIPATING IN LEAN HUDDLES Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Away from the target• Qtr Difference: 10.8 point decrease• Year Difference: 5.2 point improvement

Reasoning?BSC analyst departed organization, and the ability to do departmental follow-up decreased. The idea dashboard was corrupted and so numbers are lower than usual because of the inability to get good data.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Leader standard work• Team maturity tracking• New teams forming in natural work areas

Recommendations: Continue launching teams and have leadership encourage daily huddles through leader standard work. Work with ‘The Lean Team’ to build a process around measuring team maturity.

What can we expect in the future?As more teams are added the participation rate should continue to rise. The measure will at some point move to a qualitative measure of team success (“Team Maturity”) where teams will be regularly assessed on the Four Key Systems.

DAMON FETTERS MARYJO BLAHNA

QUADRANT: EMBRACE INNOVATIONOBJECTIVE P1: ENGAGE ALL EMPLOYEES IN CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENTP1.1 LEAN PARTICIPATION

Measure Intent: Regular participation in Lean Huddles demonstrates a culture of continuous improvement. This measure sets to encourage participation throughout the FS organization.

Measure Formula: The number of huddle participants reported on the Idea Count Survey divided by Employee Headcounts (FTE) multiplied by 100 (percentage).

Goo

d

25.7

%

24.6

%

29.6

%

33.2

%

35.0

%

36.9

%

42.0

%

44.7

%

45.8

%

46.4

%

47.3

%

49.3

%

52.1

% 59.7

%

65.3

%

54.5

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

FY2013FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Perc

ent E

mpl

oyee

s H

uddl

ing

Participation Rate Huddle Target

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

OBJECTIVE P1: ENGAGE ALL EMPLOYEES IN CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENTP1.1 LEAN PARTICIPATION

58% 57% 55% 57%47%

020406080100120140160180

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

FY2017 FY2018

BSD Participation Rate

Qtr Huddle Avg Participation Rate

61% 62%70%

52%

31%

0102030405060708090

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

FY2017 FY2018

CEO Participation Rate

Qtr Huddle Avg Participation Rate

89%82% 84%

94%

71%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

FY2017 FY2018

FABS Participation Rate

Qtr Huddle Avg Participation Rate

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

FY2017 FY2018

FES Participation Rate

Qtr Huddle Avg Participation Rate

8%

21%

41%

57% 53%

020406080100120140160180

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

FY2017 FY2018

FMC Participation Rate

Qtr Huddle Avg Participation Rate

100%

77%

100%

81%71%

05101520253035

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

FY2017 FY2018

SPICES Participation Rate

Qtr Huddle Avg Participation Rate

83% 85% 87% 87%79%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

FY2017 FY2018

TS Participation Rate

Qtr Huddle Avg Participation Rate

100% 100% 100% 100%

67%

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

FY2017 FY2018

UWEM Participation Rate

Qtr Huddle Avg Participation Rate

CHAMPION OWNER

0.45 0.49

0.72

0.69

0.52 0.

61 0.71

0.95

0.83

0.76

1.07 1.09 1.

15

1.06

0.71

0.72 0.76

0.59 0.62

2.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Ideas Imp Per Person (IIPP) IIPP Target

NUMBER OF IDEAS IMPLEMENTED PER HUDDLE PARTICIPANT Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Away from the target• Qtr Difference: 4% increase from previous qtr• Year Difference: -45% decline from previous year

Reasoning?As employees are introduced to lean huddles their idea implementation may not take off immediately. There were several lean launches in preparation, but nothing significant was added. In general the holiday months are not as productive; also the departure of Charles Kennedy added some added uncertainty which may have affected ideas.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Leader standard work• Leadership development intensives (LDI’s)

Recommendations: • Continue launching teams and have leadership encourage daily

huddles through leader standard work. • Work with ‘The Lean Team’ to build a process around measuring

team maturity and create actions that build engagement. • Break up larger teams (8+ people) to allow everyone to contribute. • Increase frequency of huddles for teams not meeting more than

once a week.

What can we expect in the future?As more teams are added the participation rate should continue to rise. The measure will at some point move to a qualitative measure of team success (“Team Maturity”) where teams will be regularly assessed on the Four Key Systems.

DAMON FETTERS MARYJO BLAHNA

QUADRANT: EMBRACE INNOVATIONOBJECTIVE P1: ENGAGE ALL EMPLOYEES IN CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENTP1.2 IDEA IMPLEMENTATION

Measure Intent: The rate of implementation of employee ideas is an indicator of employee engagement and of a management system that values and encourages employee engagement.

Measure Formula: Total ideas implemented divided by the number of huddle participants (and FTE’s). Huddle participants are as documented in each idea count survey.

Goo

d

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

SPICES - - - - 0.02 0.60 2.14 4.59 5.17 3.60 2.21 1.99 2.26 2.67 3.77 3.60 3.10 2.01 1.21UWEM 2.33 2.20 1.24 0.62 0.78 1.27 2.24 2.73 2.37 2.06 2.07 1.57 1.66 1.91 1.78 2.04 2.46 2.68 2.72FES 1.57 1.82 2.61 2.60 1.58 1.01 0.80 1.22 1.54 1.45 1.45 1.72 1.65 1.36 1.05 1.15 1.02 1.05 0.84TS 0.74 0.64 0.56 0.50 0.52 0.61 0.74 0.85 0.96 0.97 1.41 2.13 2.29 2.21 1.80 1.29 1.14 1.14 1.11FABS 0.20 0.29 0.77 1.12 1.00 0.77 0.79 1.04 1.21 1.25 1.13 1.16 1.21 1.26 1.22 1.10 1.15 1.00 0.64FMC 0.20 0.13 0.16 0.26 0.34 0.38 0.39 0.46 0.60 0.84 0.93 0.72 0.63 0.78 1.18 1.07 0.78 0.49 0.36BSD 0.13 0.28 0.25 0.34 0.44 0.40 0.31 0.35 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.41 0.50 0.57 0.53 0.43 0.42 0.51 0.64CEO 0.06 0.06 0.29 0.40 0.32 0.33 0.42 0.41 0.31 0.33 0.46 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.43 0.38 0.36 0.36 0.31

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

Ideas Per Huddle Participant by Department

OBJECTIVE P1: ENGAGE ALL EMPLOYEES IN CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENTP1.2 IDEA IMPLEMENTATION

Left: The 12-mo rolling average of ideas implemented per huddle participant, broken out by department.

Below: Comparing performance by month. No significant conclusions can be made when comparing year-over-year except that Q1 months have typically outperformed themselves each year. The departure of the BSC analyst may have had some affect on idea implementation. In the past the analysist was more proactive with idea follow-up. The idea dashboard was also corrupted and data was unable to be pulled from the database. A new process that is less labor intensive will need to be implemented. This measure should be reviewed for future report outs to match the larger F&A organization.

CHAMPION OWNER

OPEN RATE OF EMAIL CAMPAIGNS (BY CY) Movement:• Target Met? No, the 60% target was not met• Toward or Away: Further away• Qtr Difference: -3 points • Year Difference: -4 point difference

Reasoning?The measure of effective communication uses a KPI of email open rate statistics for all FS emails. The target of 60% open rate was not met; this quarter's open rate was 30%, compared to 33% in Q1. However, this metric combines email campaigns of vastly different audience types, size and purpose (for ex., UPASS reactivations and fire alarm test notices) and is not a good indicator of message relevance and reader retention in its current form.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• N/A

Recommendations: Discontinue.

What can we expect in the future?Change based on the number of emails and which audiences they get sent to.

DAMON FETTERS LORI SMITH

QUADRANT: ENHANCE CUSTOMER / STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCEOBJECTIVE C3: BE EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITHC3.1 EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

Measure Intent: To improve relationships, knowledge, conversation and ease of access to information with customer base.

Measure Formula: Measures total number of FS impressions (a compilation of Web visits, Blog impressions, Facebook Likes, Email opens, Social Media impressions, Event contacts) against goals set by each unit

Goo

d

24%

36% 35%38%

43% 44% 43%

52%

29%

40%36%

41%

35%31%

34%

42%45%

33%30%

26.3%

60%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Succ

essf

ul E

mai

l Del

iver

ies

(thou

sand

s)

Ope

n Ra

te

Successful Deliveries Open Rate Gov't Benchmark Target

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

OBJECTIVE C3: BE EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITHC3.1 EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

Above: This metric gives greater insight into who FS Communication sends emails to, along with the average number we send each quarter and how many open (read) them.

Above: This metric can help us evaluate how well our link placements and email compositions invite readers to interact with the message.

Key audience groups: Parking permit holders, U-PASS members, Opt-in customers, MRAM, Campus administrators, Building coordinators, BOR- Finance Audit and Facilities, Key clients, Focus group attendees, UW event planners list, ICA, South Campus Transportation Committee, Emergency Management list, Neighborhood stakeholders (U Village, U District Chamber, etc.).

Not currently included: Surplus internal customers, Surplus external customers.

31%

41% 40%45% 46% 47%

66% 64%

53% 55%51% 54%

46%

39%43% 43% 44%

32%

39%

15%

3%7% 4%

12%7% 9% 11% 12% 15%

11% 10% 12%6% 7%

9%14%

5%8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Click Rate (users clicked a link) vs Open Rate (users viewed contents)

*emails had at least 1 click

Average of Open Rate Average of Click Rate

1,714 1,596

819 196 162 143 132 98 55 48

0%10%220%30%440%50%660%70%880%90%1100%

- 500

1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000

Average List Size and Open Rate for Top 10 Email Lists (FY2018 Q2)

Successful Deliveries (avg) Open Rate

CHAMPION OWNER

OVERALL PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSE TIMES MET Movement:• Target Met? No• Toward or Away: Away• Qtr Difference: 1.9 point decrease• Year Difference: 7.2 point improvement

Reasoning?This is the first full year of pulling real data for this new measure. We saw a slight decrease to our response times met compared to last quarter, however the percentage met is consistent with previous results.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Timecard notes on Work Order completion• Implement daily huddles in FS Shops (in progress)

Recommendations:• Clean-up routine work orders.• Focus on data quality in our AiM work order system.• Discuss work orders in daily huddles.• Changing the shop phase from open to active does not measure the

response time.• Implement training to the shops not meeting the expectation to

ensure our on-going measures are accurate.

What can we expect in the future?We have seen 3 quarters with consistent results. Next quarters data will include spring break and possible major weather conditions. Quarters like these have a higher unknown factor and can be difficult to gauge. We expect future data to be equal to this quarters with but with a higher percentage met.

DAMON FETTERS TYLER QUANDT

QUADRANT: ENHANCE CUSTOMER / STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCEOBJECTIVE C3: BE EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITHC3.2 RESPONSE TIMES

Measure Intent: The intent is to measure Facilities Services overall effectiveness to communicate with our customers and to ensure our response times to our customer’s needs are being met.

Measure Formula: Response times met divided by total response times. Times (goals) and priorities are set by individual units depending on the type of work.

Goo

d

75.6

%

79.2

%

82.8

%

84.7

%

82.8

%

90.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

FY2017 FY2018

Response Times Target

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

OBJECTIVE C3: BE EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITHC3.2 RESPONSE TIMES

Commentary

Individual contributions from all groups roll up into the departments and ultimately influence the success of Facilities Services as a whole.

Left: Breakdown of all contributing units to the response time measure.

FY2017 Q4 Response Time Breakdown by Unit & Priority

UrgentHigh

Consistent Trends

CHAMPION OWNER

OVERALL PERCENTAGE OF DEADLINES MET Movement:• Target Met? Yes• Toward or Away: Away• Qtr Difference: 0.8 % point decline• Year Difference: 4.2 point improvement

Reasoning?The steady improvement in work completion processes and implementation of the “FS Front Porch" are improving completion timeframes of work orders. Also a byproduct of Workday, which required daily entries and approval of timesheets, has tightened up the work completion of WO’s.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Timecard notes on Work Order completion• Establish QR Team (in progress)• Implement daily huddles in FMC (in progress)

Recommendations:• Inform shops on how deadlines are met.• Review work orders that did not meet deadlines to see if there are

ways to improve.• Ensure coding for material purchases is correct.• Implement training to the shops not meeting the expectation to

ensure our on-going measures are accurate.

What can we expect in the future?Trends show an increase in work order requests during the next quarter. With more attention on work order details and reporting, we anticipate our deadlines met percentage will continue to increase.

DAMON FETTERS RICH DIERCK

QUADRANT: ENHANCE CUSTOMER / STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCEOBJECTIVE C3: BE EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITHC3.3 DEADLINES MET

Measure Intent: The intent is to measure Facilities Services overall effectiveness to communicate with our customers and to ensure our deadlines are being met.

Measure Formula: Deadlines met divided by total work orders. Times (goals) and priorities are set by individual units depending on the type of work.

Goo

d

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

OBJECTIVE C3: BE EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITHC3.3 DEADLINES MET

Commentary:

Individual contributions from all groups roll up into the departments and ultimately influence the success of Facilities Services as a whole.

Left: Breakdown of all contributing units to the deadlines met measure.

Construction Shops Typically perform lower; due to the lesser amount of corrective work orders for them small changes have a much greater impact to the percentage scores. WO's are mainly in the "Routine" category as well which have a longer timeframe for due dates.

Deadlines Met Breakdown by Unit

CHAMPION OWNER

69.6%

58.9%

67.1%70.5% 71.9% 71.1%

77.2%

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Perc

ent P

ositi

ve (g

reen

)

V Pos Pos Neg V Neg % Positive Target

PERCENT OF POSITIVE FEEDBACK (ALL KIOSKS) Movement:• Target Met? N/A• Toward or Away: N/A• Qtr Difference: N/A• Year Difference: N/A

Reasoning?Our contract lapsed in October and thus we have no Happy-or-Not data for Q2. This slide data is thus unchanged since Q1.

Recommendations: N/A

What can we expect in the future? N/A

DAMON FETTERS LORI SMITH

QUADRANT: ENHANCE CUSTOMER / STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCEOBJECTIVE C3: BE EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITHC3.4 LOCATION-BASED FEEDBACK

Measure Intent: To gather customer satisfaction data at the point of interaction (service areas) with the intent of adjusting priorities based on feedback and volume.

Measure Formula: Percentage of customers rating service areas positively (positive ratings divided by total ratings, multiplied by 100). Secondary metrics by area available as supplementary information.

Goo

d

CHAMPION OWNER

DID WE MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS? Movement:• Target Met: No target set• Toward or Away: NA• Qtr Difference: 4.21% increase of Very Satisfied + Satisfied over last

quarter and Very Dissatisfied dropped by 3.14%.

Reasoning?The focus continues to remain consistency and stabilization with our measurement processes. The data is beginning to demonstrate that our current efforts are supporting our success in these areas.

The overall trend increase is due to slight continued increases seen across the majority of individual services as indicated on the following slide.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Exploration of partnership opportunities with Capital Planning &

Development (mapping stage)

Recommendations: • This measure has been recommended to be moved to the future

operational dashboard.

What can we expect in the future?• Continued stabilization

DAMON FETTERS JENNIFER CONNORS

QUADRANT: ENHANCE CUSTOMER / STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCEOBJECTIVE: C3.5 COMPLETION OF SERVICEC3: BE EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITH

Measure Intent: To measure the frequency of meeting customer expectations and overall service delivery feedback.

Measure Formula: The number of times customers identified that their expectations were met vs not met divided by the number of responses.

Goo

d

77.50%70.70% 70.40%

76.43%

17.80%

16.10% 18.70%16.93%

2.00%

6.00% 3.40%2.40%

2.60% 7.20% 7.40% 4.24%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

16-17 Q3 16-17 Q4 17-18 Q1 17-18 Q2Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

OBJECTIVE C3.5 COMPLETION OF SERVICE C3 BE EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITH

Customer Participation by UnitUnit Responses Percent of TotalConstruction 82 1.84%Custodial 40 .90%Maintenance 245 5.50%Moving 23 .52%Operations 101 2.27%Recycling 49 1.10%Surplus 68 1.53%TS Events 54 1.21%UCAR 3792 85.14%Grand Total 4454

Did We Meet Your Expectations (overall services) N = 4454

Discussion:Response rates for Q2 have increased for almost every unit and overall by almost 10% over last quarter. UCAR, Surplus, Operations, and Moving all had an increase in Very Satisfied results of over 3%, all others had a reduction in their Very Satisfied results.

77.66%

72.22%

88.24%

53.06%

68.32%

82.61%

66.53%

47.50%

78.05%

16.67%

20.37%

8.82%

42.86%

13.86%

17.39%

19.18%

25.00%

10.98%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

UCAR

TS Events

Surplus

Recycling

Operations

Moving

Maintenance

Custodial

Construction

Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

16-17 Q3 VS/S 16-17 Q4 VS/S 17-18 Q1 VS/S 17-18 Q2 VS/S

Overall Satisfactory Responses

16-17 Q3 Operations info was included in Maintenance and Construction16-17 Q3 TS Events Data was not available

Kudos from Customers:

Shout out to Robin Shoemake -- he always shows up personally to let us know our requests will be addressed. So appreciate his excellent customer service. Thanks Robin!

53 Electric: Requested a rush job on Friday afternoon. Electrician came Monday afternoon. Job was done by Tuesday morning. And all at a very reasonable cost. Best Facilities job ever!

SU

PP

LEM

ENTA

RY

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

OBJECTIVE C3.5 COMPLETION OF SERVICE C3 BE EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITH

Discussion:Diving into the trends, courteous staff stands out as an area of strength when it comes to service, followed by understanding customer needs.

Data continues to support communication, accuracy and timelines as the areas in which we could benefit from enhanced service.

Trends shown with this information as well as general satisfaction do seem to indicate that we are improving after a Q1 satisfaction decline across all data points.

How Would You Rate Us Satisfactory Results Customer Participation by Question

Question Response Count

Understanding my Needs 647

Effective Service 645

Response Time Frame 651

Courteous Staff 628

Attention to Detail 636

Completion Time Frame 640

73.3%

74.1%

82.3%

73.4%

71.2%

71.1%

19.8%

19.0%

15.3%

20.4%

20.9%

22.3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Time frame in which work was completed

Attention to detail/thoroughness of work

Courteous, professional staff

Time frame in which staff responded to your request

Providing effective service/status information

Understanding my needs and requirements

Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

How Would You Rate Us?

84.0%

86.0%

88.0%

90.0%

92.0%

94.0%

96.0%

98.0%

100.0%

16-17 Q3 VS/S 16-17 Q4 VS/S 17-18 Q1 VS/S 17-18 Q2 VS/S

CHAMPION OWNER

54%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Job

Opp

ortu

nitie

s

Perc

ent I

nter

nally

Fill

ed

Total Opportunities Internal Promotions % Internally Filled

Moving 12-mo Avg Target Internal Fill

POSITIONS FILLED WITH INTERNAL CANDIDATES Movement:• Target Met? Yes• Toward or Away: Neutral• Qtr Difference: Flat• Rolling Difference: 5 point loss

Reasoning:Goal is still met. Rolling trend is sloping down due to outstanding results from early 2017 falling off the rolling average.

Current/Approved/Planned Initiatives:• Development Road Map Initiative• Trades Training Program• FSTC Course Catalog• Resume & Interview Practice• TED Talk Wednesdays

Recommendations: Continued expansion of available courses. Work has begun on an initiative to understand and chart out the development pathways from one FS position to the next and the skill gaps between each. This work will produce an analysis of which skills are most needed across the organization and allow us to concentrate resources and training time in the most productive areas. Expanded Trades Training Programs will benefit technical skills.

What can we expect in the future?Steady and consistent increases are expected with this metric in place.

PATTI COLAIZZO PAGE RUSSELL

QUADRANT: BUILD CAPACITYOBJECTIVE L1: HIRE TRAIN, AND DEVELOP FOR EXCELLENCEL1.1 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT & GROWTH

Measure Intent: To improve employee engagement, job satisfaction, and retention through improved training and development.

Measure Formula: The percentage of eligible positions filled with an internal candidate during that quarter.

Goo

d