Upload
irene-fields
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
FY02 ASA Presentation
Environmental Protection Branch
Presented by:
Don Wilson
Division of SafetyNational Institutes of Health
18 November 2002
2
Table of Contents
Main PresentationASA Template ……………………………….……………………………….4Customer Perspective……………………….………………………….…5-6
Customer Segmentation …………………….………………………………...7-11Customer Satisfaction……………………….………………………………..12-19
Internal Business Process Perspective……………………………………20Service Group Block Diagram……………………………………………………21Conclusions from Discrete Services Deployment Flowcharts………….…….22Process Measures………………………………………………………….…23-38
Learning and Growth Perspective………………………………………….39Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data……...40Analysis of Readiness Conclusions……………………………………………..41
Financial Perspective………………………………………………………..42Unit Cost……………………………………………………………..…………43-48Asset Utilization……………………………………………………………………49
Conclusions and Recommendations……………………………………….50Conclusions from FY02 ASA..………………………………………..………51-52Recommendations…………………………………………………………………53
3
Table of Contents
AppendicesPage 2-3 of your ASA Template
Customer satisfaction graphs
Block diagram
Process maps
Learning and Growth graphs
Analysis of Readiness Information
4
Team Members
Chuck Carroll, Dave Crook, Paul Durand, Charlyn Lee, Janie Lee, David Mohammadi
Contribute to safe and clean working conditions by providing cost-effective, timely, and efficient waste and recycling services in accordance with applicable regulations.
DS1: Collect and Dispose of Recyclables
DS2: Remove and Dispose of Solid Waste
DS4: Collect and Dispose of Medical/Pathological Waste
Product Leadership Harvest
Donald M. Wilson
Operational Excellence Growth
Service Strategy
ASA Template - 2002
Customer Value Proposition
Team Leader
Provide Waste Management
Discrete Services
Service Group
DS3: Collect and Dispose of Hazardous Waste
Customer Intimacy Sustain
X
5
Customer Perspective
6
Customer PerspectiveEPB WMS Services Overview
Recycling, solid and medical waste services provided under one Performance Based Contract. Contract services from Bldg 25 operations center with approximately 30 contractor employees.
Hazardous waste services provided under Chem/Rad Contact. Services provided from Bldg 21 and 26T operations center with 23 contractor employees on-site.
All operations must comply with applicable license, permits and regulations.
7
Customer Segmentation
Chemical Waste
Medical/
Pathological Waste
Recycling
Solid Waste
Environmental Protection BranchWaste Management Section
8
Customer Segmentation – DS1,2,4
• Customer Segmentation Charts are same for Discrete Services 1 (Recycling), 2 (Solid Waste), and 4 (Medical Waste).
• These 3 services are performed by collecting waste or recyclables from either loading docks, cold boxes,or containers in corridors or at outside locations.
• Segmentation based on assigned Institute square footage within on-site buildings.
• Largest Customers: ORS (18%), CC (17%), NCI (10%), NLM (8%)
9
ORS18.25%
NIDDK4.22%
NIAID4.73%
CC17.68%
NCMHD, NIDA, NIEHS, NIBIB, NCRR, NINR,
NIAAA, NCCAM, NIH_RENO, NIDCD,
NIA, CINIH, FIC, OD/OA, NIGMS, HHMI
5.48%NA
1.05%DIR RES
1.11%
NIAMS1.16%
NHGRI1.58%
NIDCR2.16%
CIT2.19%
NIMH2.68%NEI
2.79%OD3.03%
CBER3.19%
NICHD3.22%NINDS
3.45%NHLBI3.65%
NLM8.11%
NCI10.29%
749,530 ft 2
232,153 ft 2
44,344 ft 246,930 ft 2
49,113 ft 2
66,873 ft 2
91,705 ft 2
92,977 ft 2
773,749 ft 2
113,467 ft 2
118,251 ft 2
128,227 ft 2
154,559 ft 2
146,113 ft 2
178,711 ft 2
136,629 ft 2135,190 ft 2
200,313 ft 2
343,735 ft 2
436,060 ft 2
DS 1, DS 2, DS 4 - Customer SegmentationNIH Campus Institutes Serviced in Square Footage
Percent of Each Customer to
Total Campus Area = 4,238,629 ft 2
Total Area in Ft. 2 per Institute
ORS18.25%
NIDDK4.22%
NIAID4.73%
CC17.68%
NCMHD, NIDA, NIEHS, NIBIB, NCRR, NINR,
NIAAA, NCCAM, NIH_RENO, NIDCD, NIA,
CINIH, FIC, OD/OA, NIGMS, HHMI5.48%
NA1.05%
DIR RES1.11%
NIAMS1.16%
NHGRI1.58%
NIDCR2.16%
CIT2.19%
NIMH2.68%
NEI2.79%OD
3.03%
CBER3.19%
NICHD3.22%NINDS
3.45%NHLBI3.65%
NLM8.11%
NCI10.29%
749,530 ft 2
232,153 ft 2
44,344 ft 246,930 ft 2
49,113 ft 2
66,873 ft 2
91,705 ft 2
92,977 ft 2
773,749 ft 2
113,467 ft 2
118,251 ft 2
128,227 ft 2
154,559 ft 2
146,113 ft 2
178,711 ft 2
136,629 ft 2135,190 ft 2
200,313 ft 2
343,735 ft 2
436,060 ft 2
% #
10
Customer Segmentation – DS3
• The Customer Segmentation Chart for DS3, Collect and Dispose of Hazardous Waste, was created based on a list of customers from the Hazardous Waste Customer Database.
• There are a total of 984 customer groups in the database.
• A customer is not a single person, but a laboratory group that works together under the same lab chief or PI.
• Largest Customers: NCI (162), NIDDK (102), NIAID (100), NHLBI (80)
11
IC's that are Less than 1%7.62%
NIDDK10.98%
NIN1.63%
NIA2.44%
NIAMS2.64%
NIAID10.16%
NHLBI8.13%
NIMH5.69%
NICHD5.69%
NINDS5.08%
CC4.47%
CBER5.08%
NEI3.56%NCI
15.45%
NIDCR3.15%
NHGRI3.46%
ORS4.78%
DS 3 – Customer SegmentationCollect and Dispose of Hazardous Materials
152
108
100
80 56
56
50
44
50
35
47
3431
262416
75
Percent of Each Customer to Total Customer Base = 984
Number of Customers per Institute#%
12
FY02 ORS Customer Scorecard Data for the Annual Self Assessments
Service Group 18:
Provide Waste Management DS3 - Collect and Dispose of Hazardous Waste
16 October 2002
Summary Prepared by the Office of Quality Management (OQM)
13
Survey Distribution
Number of Surveys Distributed
Collect Chemical Wastes from Laboratories
and Provide Empty Containers as Needed 30
Number of Surveys Returned Collect Chemical Wastes from Laboratories
and Provide Empty Containers as Needed 13
Response Rate 43%
14
Radar ChartFY02 Product/Service Satisfaction Ratings
Note: The rating scale ranges from 1 - 10 where “1” represents Unsatisfactory and “10” represents Outstanding. Refer to the Data Analysis and Graphing training for advice on interpreting these results.
ORS Index = 8.278.27
8.40
8.28
8.48
7.42
1.00
4.00
7.00
10.00Cost
Quality
Timeliness
Reliability
Data based on 436 respondents
Service Group Index = 9.949.94
10.00
10.00
10.00
9.801.00
4.00
7.00
10.00
Cost
Quality
Timeliness
Reliability
Data based on 13 respondents
15
Radar ChartFY02 Customer Service Satisfaction Ratings
Note: The rating scale ranges from 1 - 10 where “1” represents Unsatisfactory and “10” represents Outstanding. Refer to the Data Analysis and Graphing training for advice on interpreting these results.
ORS Index = 8.558.55
8.60
8.58 8.54
8.518.51
1.00
4.00
7.00
10.00
Availability
Responsiveness
ConvenienceCompetence
Handling ofProblems
Data based on 436 respondents
Service Group Index = 9.97 9.97
10.0010.00
9.8510.00
10.00
1.00
4.00
7.00
10.00
Availability
Responsiveness
ConvenienceCompetence
Handling ofProblems
Data based on 13 respondents
16
Scatter DiagramFY02 Customer Importance and Satisfaction Ratings: A Closer Look
Note: A smaller portion of the chart is shown so that the individual data points can be labeled.
7.00
7.20
7.40
7.60
7.80
8.00
8.20
8.40
8.60
8.80
9.00
9.20
9.40
9.60
9.80
10.00
7.00 7.20 7.40 7.60 7.80 8.00 8.20 8.40 8.60 8.80 9.00 9.20 9.40 9.60 9.80 10.00
Satisfaction
Imp
ort
an
ce
SATISFIED,IMPORTANT
Cost
Convenience
ResponsivenessAvailability
Handling of ProblemsCompetence
Quality
Timeliness
Reliability
Data based on 13 respondents
17
Scorecard Comments for - What was done particularly well?
• We appreciate the prompt pickup of old full containers and the delivery of new empty ones.
• Handling of problems.• They are prompt and courteous.• Gentlemen know what assigned task was, performed
politely and efficiently• Promptness is very important. The chemical waste
was picked up within the 24 hour call.• Polite customer service contact by phone. Picked up
waste the next morning. Very efficient.• Response time very good. Very friendly pick up
people.• Always prompt, polite.• I am very impressed with the next day service.
18
Scorecard Comments for – What needs to be improved?
• We have never had a problem.• Nothing.
19
Feedback to Scorecard Responders
• Provide email back to all responders. Email thanks them for participating and gives a summary of the results of the surveys. The email expresses our commitment to providing the highest quality of service and continuing to support the NIH mission of biomedical research.
20
Internal Business Process Perspective
21
RecyclablesCollection and
Disposal
Solid WasteCollection and
Disposal
HazardousWaste
Collection andDisposal
MedicalPathological
WasteCollection and
Disposal
Block Diagram of Service Group:Provide Waste Management
22
• Our Service Group completed 4 deployment flowcharts for 4 discrete services
• The flowcharts show EPB waste services are potentially impacted by other parties. Other parties include:- Housekeeping staff that load and operate trash
compactors- MPW generators or CC Housekeeping Staff who
package MPW for disposal- Vehicles parked illegally that prevent emptying or
pulling of trash dumpsters
Conclusions from Discrete Services Deployment Flowcharts
23
Performance MeasuresDS1: Collection and Processing of Recyclable
Materials
• Time between customer collection request and delivery of service (PBSC Measure)
• Contract Performance Standard: Receive service request calls for recycling collection from Project Officer or customers by phone or electronic means, document electronically and respond within 24 hours.
• AQL = 100% of all service request calls serviced within 24 hours
• Results: AQL measured for 40 weeks. Met AQL in 39 of 40 weeks = 97.5% Compliance
24
DS 1 - Compliance with 24 hour Recycling Pick Up Requests – 40 week measurement
Performance Measures
Internal Business Process PerspectiveCompliance History for 24 hour Recycling Pick-up Requests - FY 02
40 Week Measurement - Monitored Weekly
2.50% Percent Non-
Compliant
97.5% Percent
Compliant
25
Performance Measures
DS1: Collection and Processing of Recyclable Materials
• Timeliness and effectiveness of recyclable collections (PBSC Measure)
• Contract Performance Standard: Timely and efficient collection of recyclable materials from interior and exterior containers and liners replaced as required in the SOW
• AQL = No more than 10% of a representative sample of all containers in use greater than 50% full as measured within 4 hours of scheduled service.
• Results: AQL measured for 40 weeks. Met AQL in 40 of 40 weeks = 100% Compliance
26
Performance Measures DS 1 - Compliance with Timeliness and Effectiveness of Emptying Recycling Containers Campus Wide – 40 week measurement
100.00%
0.00%
Internal Business Process Perspective40 Week Measurement - Monitored Weekly
Non-Compliance
Timeliness & Effectiveness
Dec 01 Jan 02 Feb 02 Apr 02 June 02May 02Mar 02 Jul 02 Aug 02 Sep 02
40 Weeks
27
Performance Measures
DS2: Collection and Disposal of Solid Waste
• Timely and effective emptying of exterior trash dumpsters to prevent overfilling and loading dock backups (PBSC Measure)
• Contract Performance Standard: Empty containers on schedules that allows continuous loading from the dock.
• AQL = No more than 10% of containers full and unable to receive additional trash on main campus during core hours.
• Results: AQL measured for 40 weeks. Met AQL in 40 of 40 weeks = 100% Compliance
28
DS 2 - Compliance with Timeliness and Effectiveness of Emptying Dumpsters to Prevent Overfilling – 40 week measurement
Performance Measures
100.00%
0.00%
Internal Business Process Perspective40 Week Measurement - Monitored Weekly
Non-Compliance
Timeliness & Effectiveness
Dec 01 Jan 02 Feb 02 Apr 02 June 02May 02Mar 02 Jul 02 Aug 02 Sep 02
40 Weeks
29
Performance Measures
DS2: Collection and Disposal of Solid Waste
• Effectiveness of waste reduction efforts accomplished through the recycling program
• The effectiveness was determined by taking the amounts recycled divided by amounts of solid waste plus amounts recycled. This provides a percentage of solid waste reduction achieved through recycling.
• Results: Achieve an average recycling rate of 25% for FY2002
30
Performance Measures DS 2 – Effectiveness of Waste Reduction FY 02 In Tonnage and Percentile
Internal Business Process Perspective
25
.41
%
22
.16
%
27
.80
%
28
.84
%
25
.34
%
26
.41
%
24
.74
%
25
.41
%
27
.55
% Average % Recycled FY 02 =
25.49%26
.99
%
21
.19
%
24
.00
%
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200O
ct-0
1
No
v-0
1
De
c-0
1
Jan
-02
Fe
b-0
2
Ma
r-0
2
Ap
r-0
2
Ma
y-0
2
Jun
-02
Jul-
02
Au
g-0
2
Se
p-0
2
Month
To
ns
Total Recycled Tons
Net Trash Tons
% Total SW StreamRecycledTotal Tonnage Tons
31
Performance Measures
DS3: Collection and Disposal of Hazardous Waste
• Effectiveness of hazardous waste regulatory compliance as measured by regulatory violations
• The effectiveness was determined by evaluating the results of all regulatory inspections performed during FY02. One 2-day regulatory inspection was performed by the Maryland Department of the Environment.
• Results: No regulatory violations were discovered as a result of this inspection = 100% compliance
32
Performance Measures DS 3 – Effectiveness of Hazardous Waste Regulatory Compliance FY 02
100.00%
0.00%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00%
FY 02
Internal Business Process PerspectiveOne Regulatory Inspection - No Violations
Violations
Regulatory Compliance
33
Performance Measures
DS3: Collection and Disposal of Hazardous Waste
• Time between customer collection request and delivery of service
• The effectiveness was determined by using the ORS Customer Scorecard. We added an extra question on the Scorecard to measure whether the customers felt that contract requirement for providing waste collection services within 24 hours of request was being met.
• Results: Of the 12 responders that answered the question, all 12 gave a perfect score of 10 = 100% compliance
34
ORS Scorecards No
Response Given
8%
ORS Scorecards Favorable Response
92%
12 Customers120 out of 120 Points Received
1 Customer
Total Customer Base Surveyed = 13
DS 3 - Hazardous Waste Survey Survey of Customer Satisfaction with 24 hour Request for Pick Up
Requirement
35
Performance Measures
DS3: Collection and Disposal of Hazardous Waste
• Effectiveness of using recycling options as compared to destruction or disposal
• The effectiveness was determined by calculating the total weight of hazardous waste recovered for reuse divided by the the total weight disposed plus weight recovered for reuse. This provides a percentage of hazardous waste that was effectively recovered for reuse.
• Results: Achieve an average recycling rate of 18% for FY2002. This is a very good recycling rate due to the light weight of many recyclable waste streams.
36
Total Recyled, FY 2002
Total Disposed,
Treated, and Recycled FY2002
17.85%
DS 3 - Effectiveness of Utilizing Recycling Optionsas Compared to Destruction or Disposal
37
Performance Measures
DS4: Collection and Disposal of Medical Pathological Waste
• Time between MPW boxes placed in storage areas by customer and removed by Contractor (PBSC Measure)
• Contract Performance Standard: Timely and efficient collection of MPW containers from building interiors and loading docks
• AQL = 90% of all MPW containers collected on-site within 3 hours of being set-out by generator.
• Results: AQL measured for 40 weeks. Met AQL in 40 of 40 weeks = 100% Compliance
38
Performance Measures DS 4 – Timeliness and Effectiveness of Pick Ups of MPW Boxes within 3 hours of Being Placed Out by Client
40 Weeks
100.00%
0.00%
Internal Business Process Perspective40 Week Measurement - Monitored Weekly
Non-Compliance
Timeliness & Effectiveness
Jan 02 Apr 02Feb 02Dec 02 Mar 02 May 02 June 02 Jul 02 Aug 02 Sep 02
40 Weeks
39
FY02 Learning and Growth (L&G) Data for the Annual Self Assessments
Service Group 18:
Provide Waste Management
26 September 2002
Summary Prepared by the Office of Quality Management
40
No significant conclusions can be drawn from the data
Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data
41
• One employee to staff proposed Twinbrook Research Complex, scheduled to open 2004.
• Additional human resources for service demands created by completion and occupancy of new CRC , Twinbrook Research Campus, and new NRC Building.
Analysis of Readiness Conclusions
42
Financial Perspective
43
UNIT COST MEASURED BY COST OF METRIC TON PER YEAR
$11,
757.
96
$12,
481.
15
$9,8
95.8
7
$12,
105.
77
$1,7
13.5
7
$1,6
06.6
4
$1,4
59.3
9
$1,3
53.9
4
$380
.44
$369
.55
$397
.20
$319
.90$1
45.3
7
$152
.28
$127
.90
$132
.90 $1.00
$100.00
$10,000.00
$1,000,000.00
Yearly Cost per Metric
TonWaste Management
Stream in Unit Cost Per Metric Ton
Logarithmic Overview of Unit Cost in Metric Tons Measured Over Time in Years
44
UNIT COST MEASURED BY COST OF METRIC TON PER YEAR
$132.90 $127.90
$152.28 $145.37
$0.00
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
$160.00
$180.00
Cost per Metric Ton
FY 01Actual
FY 02Actual
FY 03Forecast
FY 04Forecast
Solid Waste
45
UNIT COST MEASURED BY COST OF METRIC TON PER YEAR
$319.90
$397.20$369.55 $380.44
$0.00
$50.00
$100.00
$150.00
$200.00
$250.00
$300.00
$350.00
$400.00
$450.00
Cost per Metric Ton
FY 01Actual
FY 02Actual
FY 03Forecast
FY 04Forecast
Recyclables
46
UNIT COST MEASURED BY COST OF METRIC TON PER YEAR
$1,353.94$1,459.39
$1,606.64$1,713.57
$0.00
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
$1,400.00
$1,600.00
$1,800.00
Cost per Metric Ton
FY 01Actual
FY 02Actual
FY 03Forecast
FY 04Forecast
Medical / Pathological Waste
47
UNIT COST MEASURED BY COST OF METRIC TON PER YEAR
$12,105.77
$9,895.87
$12,481.15$11,757.96
$0.00
$2,000.00
$4,000.00
$6,000.00
$8,000.00
$10,000.00
$12,000.00
$14,000.00
Cost per Metric Ton
FY 01Actual
FY 02Actual
FY 03Forecast
FY 04Forecast
Hazardous Waste
48
• EPB provides top quality waste services to the NIH without significant costs increases from year to year
Unit Cost Measure Conclusions
49
• EPB staff are assigned to manage the recycling services and hazardous, medical, and solid waste services.
• High amount of direct staff involvement required due to complex technical and regulatory nature of work. Work writing permits, reviewing regulatory shipping documents, new building plans impacting our services, and Contractor prepared regulatory reports.
• Because the staff does not perform repetitive quantifiable tasks, an asset utilization measure of EPB human resources was not practical.
Asset Utilization Measures
50
Conclusions and Recommendations
51
Conclusions from FY02 ASA
• Major findings from the FY02 ASA
• ORS Scorecard showed customer satisfaction at an extremely high level
52
Conclusions from FY02 ASA
• Other Comments Concerning ASA Process
• WMS expended approximately 480 total man-hours
• Too much specialized training required• ASA demands reduced staff ability to provide
services at highest level• ASA process needs streamlining to allow
standardized inputs from Service Groups after which final report is self-generated
53
• Award a new 5 year Chemical and Radioactive Waste Contract in FY03 with performance based elements.
• Work to improve performance in areas identified by process maps
• Implement customer recommendations from scorecard where possible
Recommendations
54
Appendices
55
DS2: Effectiveness of waste reduction efforts accomplished through the recycling program
DS3: Effectiveness of using recycling options as compared to destruction or disposalDS3: Effectiveness of hazardous waste regulatory compliance as measured by regulatory violations
DS3: Time between customer collection request and delivery of service
Customer PerspectivePerformance Measure
Customer satisfaction ratings from the ORS Customer Scorecard for each Discrete Service
DS4: Time between MPW boxes placed in storage areas by customer and removed by contractor (PBSC Measure)
Turnover
Customer segmentation of Discrete Services
Analysis of Readiness Index
Performance Objective
Awards/Recognition
Contacts/Complaints with EEO/ER/ADR
Sick Leave Usage
Performance Measure
Performance Objective
Increase understanding of customer base
Increase customer satisfaction
Performance Objective
Service Group:
DS2: Timely and effective emptying of exterior trash dumpsters to prevent overfilling and loading dock backups (PBSC Measure)
Performance MeasureInternal Business Process Perspective
Complete process maps of Service Group/Discrete Services
DS1: Time between customer collection request and delivery of service (PBSC Measure)DS1: Tiimeliness and effectiveness of recyclable collections (PBSC Measure)
Increase understanding of processes.
Enhance quality of work life for employees in ORS.
Identify methods to measure processes.
Learning and Growth Perspective
Maintain & enhance competencies for the future organization.
ASA Template - 2002 (Continued)
56
ASA Template - 2002 (Continued)
Actual assets utilized/planned asset utilization for each Discrete Service
Maximize quality of contract services Incentives paid or penalties levied under PBSC
Maximize utilization of assets.
Change in Unit Cost for each Discrete ServiceMinimize unit cost at a defined service level.
Performance Objective Performance Measure
Financial Perspective
57
FY02 ORS Customer Scorecard Data for the Annual Self Assessments
Service Group 18:
Provide Waste Management DS3 - Collect and Dispose of Hazardous Waste
16 October 2002
Summary Prepared by the Office of Quality Management (OQM)
58
Survey Distribution
Number of Surveys Distributed
Collect Chemical Wastes from Laboratories
and Provide Empty Containers as Needed 30
Number of Surveys Returned Collect Chemical Wastes from Laboratories
and Provide Empty Containers as Needed 13
Response Rate 43%
59
Survey RespondentsFY02 Respondents by IC
6
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
NCI
NIDDK
NICHHD
NINDS
NIAID
NIDCR
CBERNIM
H
NIDCD
Other
ORSCC OD
NHLBI
NEINIA
NHGRI
NIAM
S
NIAAA
CSRNID
A
NCCAMNCRR
NINR
NLM CIT
JEFIC
NIBIB
NIEHS
NIGM
S
NCMHD
NIH IC
Nu
mb
er o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Data based on 13 respondents
Note: One respondent did not answer question.
60
Survey Respondents (cont.)FY02 Respondents by Location
13
0 0 00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
On-Campus Off-Campus Both No Response
Location
Nu
mb
er o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Data based on 13 respondents
61
Radar ChartFY02 Product/Service Satisfaction Ratings
Note: The rating scale ranges from 1 - 10 where “1” represents Unsatisfactory and “10” represents Outstanding. Refer to the Data Analysis and Graphing training for advice on interpreting these results.
ORS Index = 8.27
8.40
8.28
8.48
7.42
1.00
4.00
7.00
10.00Cost
Quality
Timeliness
Reliability
Data based on 436 respondents
Service Group Index = 9.94 10.00
10.00
10.00
9.80
1.00
4.00
7.00
10.00Cost
Quality
Timeliness
Reliability
Data based on 13 respondents
62
Radar ChartFY02 Customer Service Satisfaction Ratings
Note: The rating scale ranges from 1 - 10 where “1” represents Unsatisfactory and “10” represents Outstanding. Refer to the Data Analysis and Graphing training for advice on interpreting these results.
ORS Index = 8.55
8.60
8.58 8.54
8.518.51
1.00
4.00
7.00
10.00Availability
Responsiveness
ConvenienceCompetence
Handling ofProblems
Data based on 436 respondents
Service Group Index = 9.97
10.0010.00
9.8510.00
10.00
1.00
4.00
7.00
10.00Availability
Responsiveness
ConvenienceCompetence
Handling ofProblems
Data based on 13 respondents
63
Scatter DiagramFY02 Customer Importance and Satisfaction Ratings
Note: The Importance rating scale ranges from 1 - 10 where “1” represents Unimportant and “10” represents Important. The Satisfaction rating scale ranges from 1 - 10 where “1” represents Unsatisfactory and “10” represents Outstanding.
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
Satisfaction
Imp
ort
ance
NOT SATISFIED, IMPORTANT
NOT SATISIFIED, NOT IMPORTANT
SATISFIED,IMPORTANT
SATISFIED, NOT IMPORTANT
Data based on 13 respondents
64
Scatter DiagramFY02 Customer Importance and Satisfaction Ratings: A Closer Look
Note: A smaller portion of the chart is shown so that the individual data points can be labeled.
7.00
7.20
7.40
7.60
7.80
8.00
8.20
8.40
8.60
8.80
9.00
9.20
9.40
9.60
9.80
10.00
7.00 7.20 7.40 7.60 7.80 8.00 8.20 8.40 8.60 8.80 9.00 9.20 9.40 9.60 9.80 10.00
Satisfaction
Imp
ort
an
ce
SATISFIED,IMPORTANT
Cost
Convenience
ResponsivenessAvailability
Handling of Problems
Competence
Quality
Timeliness
Reliability
Data based on 13 respondents
65
Scorecard CommentsWhat was done particularly well?
• We appreciate the prompt pickup of old full containers and the delivery of new empty ones.
• Handling of problems.• They are prompt and courteous.• Gentlemen know what assigned task was, performed
politely and efficiently• Promptness is very important. The chemical waste
was picked up within the 24 hour call.• Polite customer service contact by phone. Picked up
waste the next morning. Very efficient.• Response time very good. Very friendly pick up
people.• Always prompt, polite.• I am very impressed with the next day service.
66
What needs to be improved?
• We have never had a problem.• Nothing.
67
Other Comments
• Task assignment from EPB needs refinement. 1. Chemical waste tags need to be redesigned to include DATE you delivered containers and instructions that containers must be removed within 60 days. 2. You should notify all users by WRITTEN MAIL or E-MAIL of this new 60 day rule.
• Very good.• There should be some kind of a clear window on
the red cans so the investigator will know when it is full.
• This is a wonderful service.
68
Customer Scorecard Summary
• Conclusions based on graphs and comments– Our customers rate the quality of this service
very highly– This service excels in all measured areas
• Potential actions based on what you have learned from the data– Revise the Chemical Waste Tag as suggested– Provide NIH wide email notification concerning
removal of containers within 60 days
69
Summarizing Your Customer Scorecard Data (cont.)
• Does the customer satisfaction data, when compared to data in other perspectives, show potential relationships?• Answer: None that could be observed
• From reviewing your data, what could be done to improve your customers’ satisfaction?• Answer: Very little based on the data. We will
consider customer suggestions concerning the Chemical Waste Tag and the collection containers.
70
Feedback to Scorecard Responders
• Will provide email back to all responders. Email will thank them for participating and give a summary of the results of the surveys. The email will express our commitment to providing the highest quality of service and continuing to support the NIH mission of biomedical research.
71
RecyclablesCollection and
Disposal
Solid WasteCollection and
Disposal
HazardousWaste
Collection andDisposal
MedicalPathological
WasteCollection and
Disposal
Block Diagram of Service Group:Provide Waste Management
72
Process Flow Charts
73
DevelopContract
ContractorProvidesExterior
collectioncontainers at
required locations
Contractorprovides
vehicles anddrivers
TentativeDaily
SchedulesDeveloped
Front EndContainers
Roll-OffContainers
ContainersFilled by
HousekeepingStaff
EmptyContainers asper Schedule
Modify Scheduleif Project OfficerRequests Basedon Emergency
Need
When Full Deliverto Transfer
Station
Rad Screening atTransfer Station
Dump at transferstation
Receive scaleticket for the load
Container Filledby Housekeeping
Staff
Turn Unit on withKey and Active the
Compactor arm
Call EPB for PullWhen 80% Light
Activities
No
SOLID WASTEEPB Gov’t Waste Contractor Waste Generator Off-Site
Facilities
A
Is the ContainerBlocked by Illegally
Parked Cars?
Call Policeand Remove
Vehicle
Yes
Is the CompactorDamaged due to
Improper Operation
No
PerformRequired
RepairYes
74
Collect and Dispose of Recycables
ReceiveCustomerRequest
BeginWork
ReceiveCustomer
Request or DoScheduledCollections
Collectrecyclables
Deliver toConsolidation
Area
Deliver toRecycling falciity
Receive amdProvide Weight
Ticket
Scape MetalContaminated
No
EPB Gov’t Recycling Contractor Off-Site
Recycling Facilities
Ensure ContractVehicle is in
Place
ProcessRecyclable
Material
Transfer to Off-Site Facility
ProcessRecyclable
Material
Yes
Process ifNeeded
75
Mentor/SupportContract
Provide ITSupport
ProvideTechnical
Support to WasteGenerators
Procure Gov’tProvided
Equipment
CoordinateFacility
Maintenance andRepairs
Prepare ServiceAgreements for
FacilityEquipment
Prepare andReview Permits
Interact withRegulatoryAgencies
Oversee ContractPerformance for
RegulatoryComplianceProcedures
Develop WasteManagementGuidelines
Mange andCoordinateWaste Mgt
Activities andOff-Site Facilities
Review Invoices
Prepare SOPs
Provide Training
Oversee Collecting,preparing, storing,packing incoming,categorize waste
Contract isAwarded
Receive ServiceRequest
Enter Name,Location, Service
Type, Phone #,and other
Required Factsplus Schedule SR
Perform ServicesDeliver Empty
Containers (withtags & barcodes)Supplies and/orCollect Waste
Is the WasteAvailable &
Acceptable forCollection
Leave Notice
ConductFollow-up
NO
Collect and Dispose of Hazardous Waste
EPB NIH Waste Contractor
Develop Contract
A
YES
76
Deliver Collected toNIH WMF and
Assign Barcodewith Facility Receipt
Date on theBarcode
Update SR andComplete ElectronicReceiving to WMTIS
by InputtingConstituent Data,Barcode Data, and
Other Required Fields
Collect and Dispose of Hazardous Waste EPB NIH Waste Contractor A
Conduct FacilityInspections Segregate Waste
by ChemicalCompatibility andPlace in Interim
Storage Location
Is the WasteTreatable on
Site?Consolidate Itemand Perform On-site Treatment
Update On-siteTreatment and
Tracking inWTMIS
ResidueGenerated
Requires FurtherTreatment?
DischargeTreated Wasteand Enter Date
in WTMIS
Can Waste beConsolidated into LargeContainers with Other
Compatible Waste
Package Wasteinto Lab pack
Bulk Waste intoLarger Containersand Enter Date intoWTMIS for On-site
Tracking
Take Sample, DoAnalysis, and
Enter Date intoWTMIS
C
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
DB
ReviewAnalytical
Data
77
Review andApproveWaste
Profiles
Review andCorrect all
Documentation for WasteShipments
ConductTSDF Audits
Collect and Dispose of Hazardous Waste EPB NIH Waste Contractor
C
Is There anProfile for the
Container
D
Create InventoryContainer in
WTMIS
Place Residue inContainer
Prepare Bulk CCSheet,
ElectronicallyPack Container in
WTMIS
YES
Create NewProfile
NO
Prepare ContentsSheet and
ElectronicallyPack Container in
WTMIS
Produce Manifestfor LDR, ShippingDocuments etc.
Ship Waste Off Site forTreatment, Recycling,Storage, or Disposal
B
78
ContractorProvides
Vehicles, Trailers,and Drivers
TentativeCollectionSchedulesDeveloped
MPW Box isPrepared andSealed-InnerBags Sealed
Bldg 10Collected byContractor in
Building
Delivered toRefrigerated
Truck at B2 Dock
Transferred toBldg 25
Rad screening atBldg 25
Transferred toBldg 25 by
Reefer Truck
ContractorCollects at
Dock
All Bldg sExcept 10:
Delivered toLoading Dock
RSB Cold Box at25 Yes
NO
A
Ensure Contractis in Place
EPB Gov’t Waste Contractor Waste Generator Off-Site Facilities
MEDICAL WASTE
79
Deliver FullContainer to Off-Site Treatment
Facility
Treat MPW
Yes
Medical Waste - Page 2
Open Box,Remove and
Label Bag, andLoad Bag intoBOP Container
Label Box andLoad into BOP
Container
PathologicalWaste
YesNO
A
EPB Gov’t Waste Contractor Waste Generator Off-Site Facilities
Provide WeightTicket and Certificate
of Destruction
Are the BagsTied
Tie the Bags
No
80
Collect and Dispose of Recycables
ReceiveCustomerRequest
BeginWork
ReceiveCustomer
Request or DoScheduledCollections
Collectrecyclables
Deliver toConsolidation
Area
Deliver toRecycling falciity
Receive amdProvide Weight
Ticket
Scape MetalContaminated
No
EPB Gov’t Recycling Contractor Off-Site
Recycling Facilities
Ensure ContractVehicle is in
Place
ProcessRecyclable
Material
Transfer to Off-Site Facility
ProcessRecyclable
Material
Yes
Process ifNeeded
81
FY02 Learning and Growth (L&G) Data for the Annual Self Assessments
Service Group 18:
Provide Waste Management
26 September 2002
Summary Prepared by the Office of Quality Management
82
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
12 16 21 30 27 20 42 13 41 3 24 23 7 18 1 2 10 11 17 31 26 25 40 28 37 29 33 39 5 32 36 38 4 8 9 14 15 19 34 35 43
Service Group Turnover Rate (Oct 2001 - June 2002)
Service Group Number
Tu
rno
ve
r R
ate
83
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
14 3 9 31 8 17 43 38 36 33 41 12 30 32 28 18 29 21 39 20 16 24 27 40 35 5 23 42 19 4 34 15 37 25 26 1 2 10 11 13 7
Average Hours of Sick Leave Used(Oct 2001 - June 2002)
Service Group Number
Av
era
ge
Ho
urs
84
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
9 43 1 2 10 11 40 42 7 41 12 4 5 28 39 35 32 33 8 15 36 38 34 37 29 17 14 31 16 30 19 18 13 20 21 3 24 26 25 23 27
Average Number of Awards Received(Oct 2001 - June 2002)
Service Group Number
Av
era
ge
nu
mb
er
85
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
20 8 33 34 7 31 26 25 38 36 32 5 1 2 3 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 23 24 27 28 29 30 35 37 39 40 41 42 43
Average Number of EEO Complaints (Oct 2001 - June 2002)
Service Group Number
A
ve
rag
e N
um
be
r
86
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
7 23 16 3 31 13 9 20 25 26 17 36 38 37 29 32 39 1 2 4 8 10 11 12 14 15 18 19 21 27 28 30 33 34 35 40 41 42 43
Average Number of ER Cases (Oct 2001 - June 2002)
Service Group Number
Av
era
ge
Nu
mb
er
87
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
7 9 30 24 33 34 3 23 26 25 5 20 21 31 29 39 28 32 36 16 38 1 2 4 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 27 35 37 40 41 42 43
Average Number of ADR Cases (Oct 2001 - June 2002)
Service Group Number
Av
era
ge
Nu
mb
er
88
Learning and Growth Data Table
About 1 week sick leave per employee
About 1 award for every 2 employees
10% employee turnover
Pop
ulat
ion
Est
imat
e
No.
of S
epar
atio
ns
Turn
over
Rat
eTo
tal H
ours
of S
ick
Leav
e U
sed
Ave
rage
Hou
rs o
f
Sic
k Le
ave
Use
d
Num
ber o
f Aw
ards
Rec
eive
dA
vera
ge N
umbe
r of
Aw
ards
Rec
eive
d
Num
ber o
f EE
O
Com
plai
nts
Ave
rage
Num
ber o
f
EE
O C
ompl
aint
s
Num
ber o
f ER
Cas
es
Ave
rage
Num
ber o
f
ER
Cas
esN
umbe
r of A
DR
C
ases
Ave
rage
Num
ber o
f
AD
R C
ases
5343 11 1 0.09 386 36 6 0.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00Service Group
18 Total11 1 0.09 386 36 6 0.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
No EEO complaints or ER/ADR cases
89
Summary of Service Group 18Learning and Growth Data
• Ten percent employee turnover• About 1 week sick leave used per employee• About one award for every 2 employees• No EEO, ER, or ADR issues
90
No significant conclusions can be drawn from the data
Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data
91
• 1. What are the right mix of skills and abilities needed to carry out the mission of this service group?
Recycling: Understanding of industry equipment, operations and work practices, basic PC skills, contract management skills, communication skills, a full understanding of applicable regulations and required reports, good people skills and customer service skills
Solid Waste: Understanding of industry equipment operations and work practices, basic PC skills, contract management skills, communication skills, a full understanding of applicable regulations and required reports, good people skills and customer service skills
Answers to Readiness Questions
92
Hazardous Waste: Understanding of hazardous waste regulations and their application at the NIH, ability to interpret new regulations and permit conditions knowledge of the industry (transportation, treatment, and disposal), good college science background in chemistry, biology, and physics, good PC skills for data tracking and document preparation, contract management skills, communication skills, good people skills and customer service skills
Medical Waste: Understanding of industry operations and work practices, college background in biology and general sciences, understanding of state and DOT medical waste regulations, basic PC skills, contract management skills, communication skills, good people skills and customer service skills
Answers to Readiness Questions (Cont.)
93
• 2. Will the service group have sufficient numbers of people, with the right skills and abilities to carry out its
mission in the next three years?
In 2004, an additional EPB staff member will be required to manage proposed Twinbrook Research Complex Waste Facility.
Additional staff resources also required 2004-2006 to support increased service demands created by occupancy phases of following new buildings: CRC, NRC and
Twinbrook Research Complex.
Answers to Readiness Questions (Cont.)
94
• 3. What are going to be the training needs of the employees and contractors employed in this service group in the next two to three years?
Will continue our existing training track including: regulatory and industry specific training, customer relations and leadership skills training, on-site training required by permits, and IT training related to data tracking and contract management. A stronger emphasis will be placed on IT training related to data management and on leadership/management skills.
Answers to Readiness Questions (Cont.)
95
• 4. What will be the right tools or materials (e.g., information, software applications, hardware, specialized equipment) needed to carry out the mission of this service group in the next three years?
Industrial waste handling equipment, hazardous waste analytical equipment, replacement computers, hazardous waste tracking software, and data tracking software. On-site staging area for dumpsters with suspected hazardous material contamination.
Answers to Readiness Questions (Cont.)
96
• 5. Does the service group have the right quantity of tools or materials needed to carry out its mission in the next three years?
• Mainly need to continue existing hazardous waste tracking software enhancements for more detailed data tracking.
• 6. What are the anticipated implications of not obtaining the right mix of skills and abilities, or tools and materials (e.g., service disruption, inefficiencies, increased turnover of key personnel) in meeting service or mission expectations?
• Greater difficulties in tracking and retrieving critical hazardous waste data and reduced work efficiency by contractor staff.
Answers to Readiness Questions (Cont.)