1 FY02 ASA Presentation “Provide Space Planning to Support IC Programs” Presented by: Gerald W. Hines (team leader) Cyrena Simons Joan Swaney Camelia Smith

1

FY02 ASA Presentation

“Provide Space Planning to Support IC Programs”Presented by:

Gerald W. Hines (team leader)Cyrena SimonsJoan SwaneyCamelia SmithPaul HudesMark HeadingsRobert EnglandRobert Sheridan

Office of Research ServicesNational Institutes of Health

18 November 2002

2

Table of Contents

Main PresentationASA Template ……………………………….……………………………….4Customer Perspective……………………….……………………………….5

Customer Segmentation …………………….……………………………………6Customer Satisfaction……………………….…………………………………….7Unique Customer Measures………………….…………………………………..8

Internal Business Process Perspective…………………………………….9Service Group Block Diagram…………………………………………………..10Conclusions from Discrete Services Deployment Flowcharts……………….11Process Measures………………………………………………………………..12

Learning and Growth Perspective………………………………………….13Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data……..14Analysis of Readiness Conclusions…………………………………………….15Unique Learning and Growth Measures………………………………………..16

Financial Perspective………………………………………………………..17Unit Cost……………………………………………………………………………18Asset Utilization……………………………………………………………………19Unique Financial Measures..……………………………………………………..20

Conclusions and Recommendations……………………………………….21Conclusions from FY02 ASA..……………………………………………………22Recommendations…………………………………………………………………23

3

Table of Contents

AppendicesPage 2 of your ASA Template

Customer segments graphs

Customer satisfaction graphs

Block diagram

Process maps

Process measures graphs

Learning and Growth graphs

Analysis of Readiness Information

Unit cost graphs

Asset utilization graphs

Any unique measures graphs

4

Mark Headings Paul Hudes Robert Sheridan

Cyrena Simons Joan Swaney Robert England

Camelia Smith

Team Members

X - Customer Intimacy Sustain

Product Leadership Harvest

Team Leader

Gerald W. Hines, AIA

ASA Template - 2002

"Provide Space Planning To Support IC Programs"

Discrete Services

Service Group

a. DS-1: Develop Facilities Options to Support IC Programs (provide potential space options to the IC and SRB to satisfy requested space)b. DS-2: Manage Space Justification Document Process (handles the request for space from ICs through a specific step-by-step process, based on 1-5 year needs)

Service Strategy

Operational Excellence Growth

c. DS-3: Manage NIH Director's Reserve Space (handle the tracking existing and new space acquired in the space inventory for loan and/or assignment by the SRB for the NIH Director)

Customer Value Proposition

Provide a timely, open, informed and equitable process in response to IC space requirements using the space justification document process. This allows the ICs to assess their space needs, learn about available options and plan for future space requirement.

5

Facilities Planning Continuum

Facilities planning activities fall along a continuum:

-Long Range Planning (10-20 year planning horizon)-Mid-range Planning (5-10 year planning horizon)-Short-range Planning (1-5 year planning horizon)

The continuum encompasses two related ASAs:

-Perform Master and Facilities Planning-Provide Space Planning to Support IC Programs

6

Customer Perspective

7

• FY 2002: 191 approved SJDs of 206 received (93%)• FY 2001: 100 approved SJDs of 170 received (59%) (the number of SJD increased with the assignment of Bldg. 10 phase 0)

Customer Segmentation

Grand Totals of Approved SJDs for Each IC in FY 01 & 02

0

5

10

15

20

# of

App

rove

d S

JDs

Grand Total FY 02 12 14 18 15 18 2 13 11 2 11 11 8 1 16 3 7 3 7 2 6 3 2 1 4 1

Grand Total FY 01 8 11 8 5 5 6 5 2 1 6 2 3 1 2 5 6 5 2 3 5 6 2 1

OD NIDDK NICHD NEI NIAMS NIAAA NCI NHLBI NIBIB NIAID NIMH NHGRI CIT CC NIEHS NIDCD NIDCR NINDS NINR NIA NLM NCCAM NIGMS ORS NIDA CRS NCRR

8

Customer Survey

• Response Rate: low at 18%• Response Profile: Good cross section

of respondents with respect to • Location:

• Bethesda, Local Leased area, Outside area

• Size: very large to very small ICs• Function: mix of intramural,

extramural, both

9

Short Range Planning Ratings

Space Justification Document (SJD) Process, Manage Director’s Reserve, Develop Facilities Options

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Category

Mea

n R

atin

g

Mean Rating 7.91 7.18 7.75

Quality Timeliness Responsiveness

Data based on 12 respondents

10

Customer Survey: Short Range Planning Ratings

• Lowest ratings among the three timeframes:

the point in the continuum where competition among priorities is greatest and most disappointments will occur

• As NIH implements plans to maintain Director’s Reserve and more funds are available to meet more priorities, these rating should improve

11

Unique Customer Measures:

• Performance Objective to increase customer satisfaction

• Performance Measure: Examine the frequency of meetings with ICs by compared to the number of SJDs by IC• Charted the number of meetings with ICs for 02 and

01 along with the number of approved SJDs• Identified the relationship with high number of SJDs

to a low number of meetings, such as NHLBI, NIAMS, NICHD & NIDDK

• Determine whether more meetings or regular meetings should be established to improve customer interaction

12

Unique Customer MeasuresApproved SJDs compared to # of IC SJD Meetings

16

12

13

1

15

8

11

6

2

11

18

2

18

7

3

14

3

1

11

7

23

12

4

21 1

5 5 5

32

6 65

1

8

2

65

11

5

2 23

8

6

16

8

1 0

26

1

97 8

2

52

9

5 4

9

14

2 3

8

42

69

3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

CC CITCRS

FDA

NCCAMNCI

NCRRNEI

NHGRI

NHLBI

NIA

NIAAA

NIAID

NIAM

SNIB

IB

NICHD

NIDA

NIDCD

NIDCR

NIDDK

NIEHS

NIGM

SNIM

H

NINDS

NINR

NLM ODORS

IC

# o

f A

pp

rove

d S

JDs

-5

5

15

25

35

45

55

# o

f IC

SJD

Mee

tin

gs

SJDs in FY 02 SJDs in FY 01 # meetings in FY02

13

Internal Business Process Perspective

14

Service Group Block Diagram

IC generates requjrementsand Space Justification

Document (SJD)

OFP evaluates SJD andpresents recommendationsto SRB, including:- Options and proposedchoices among them- Impact on Reserve Space

OFP proactively managesDirector's Reserve Space

so as to accommodateexpected IC requirements

SRB makes decisionHand-off to DCAB forimplementation and to

OBSF for rent adjustment

15

• For SJD Process - shows process is well defined & functions effectively

• For Manage Director’s Reserve – recently approved as policy, flowchart defined process better

• For Developing Facility Options – routinely done as an informal and/or formal part of the SJD process

• SJDs have become a tracking mechanism to project changes in space and rent, and considerable coordination now occurs with OBSF, OAS & OFP

Conclusions from Discrete Services Deployment Flowcharts

16

Process Measures & Findings

• DS-1: Develop Facilities Options to Support IC Programs

• Measure: Number of times SJD’s presented to SRB with and without formal options

• Findings: The number of times informal and formal options were not presented to SRB were insignificant. Therefore, development of options is an integral part of the process

17

Process Measures & Findings:

• DS-2: Manage Space Justification Process• Measure: SJDs, by IC, by program, by on/off

campus & SJD process timeframes• Findings: For FY 01 460K net sq. ft. which is

the total approved request is 6%, and for FY 02 1.2 mil nsf of total approved is 17% (excluding Building 10 phase 0, most allocations are off campus) of the total space on and off campus (7.0 mil nsf)

18

Process Measures & Findings:

• DS-3: Manage NIH Director’s Reserve• Measure: Number of SJDs denied due to no

Director’s Reserve vs SJDs met with Director’s Reserve

• Findings: Since NIH has not had sufficient Director’s Reserve, therefore multiple (25) request for space could not be met in a timely manner (130K nsf of admin. And 159K of research requirements were unmet in FY 01 & 02)

19

Total NSF by Program for FY ’02 & ‘01

Total NSF by Program Type FY 02 & 01

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

2002 237881 33329 1082467 24023

2001 193797 5993 175189 20027

ERP ICOD IRP NIHOD

20

IC Total NSF On/Off Campus FY ‘02

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

2 002 - O F F 5 7 03 9 2 8 6 2 4 00 6 01 2 9 3 2 3 00 9 2 1 4 3 1 9 2 6 6 2 1 1 1 5 4 7 00 4 5 000 2 2 3 3 00 3 8 2 5 5 1 8 6 8 0 2 9 3 4 3 3 2 8 00 3 6 7 00 4 7 4 9 2 1 4 7 3 1 0000 8 8 1 9 1 2 5 8 9 4 3 3 07

2 002 - O N 3 6 03 3 5 1 4 7 1 1 2 8 8 8 6 1 5 5 6 7 6 9 6 3 5 6 5 8 5 6 04 9 1 05 1 3 2 8 8 6 2 3 04 7 5 2 5 8 1 7 4 7 6 2 2 6 0 1 08 6 3 2 6 3 9 5 1 05 9 2 4 1 8 4 2 5 7 2 1 8 3 6 1 2 3 6 5 4 9 2 2 4 5 1

C C C IT N C C A M N C I N C R R N E I N H G R I N H L B I N IA N IA A A N IA ID N IA MS N IB IB N IC H D N ID C D N ID C R N ID D K N IE H S N IG MS N IMH N IN D S N IN R N L M O D O R S

21

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

2001 - OFF 2000 15054 21000 19284 11346 15300 3776 104760 16546 1200 30700 10207 75098 11854 10000 35282 0

2001 - ON 3623 990 10407 560 3455 5998 3616 3055 4477 2446 6504 1100 10885 1467 3530 7368 4089 480 240 7086 8617

CC CIT CRS NCCAM NCI NEI NHGRI NHLBI NIA NIAAA NIAID NIAMS NIBIB NICHD NIDA NIDCD NIDCR NIDDK NIEHS NIMH NINDS OD ORS

IC Total NSF On/Off Campus FY ‘01

22

For FY 01 and 02 the following are average timeframes:

• 4 days between date received and notification memo• 42 days between notification memo to SRB meetings• 46 days between SRB Decision and Decision Memo• Total of 92 days or 4.6 months for process

Findings:• The number days in FY 00 between received and

notification memo is about the same • The number of days in FY 00 between SRB and Decision

Memo increase by 9 days, because of additional details required to complete documentation

• However, an e-mail communication to the IC and implementation teams was started within 5 days for SRB decision

SJD Process Timeframes

23

Learning and Growth Perspective

24

Data Show:• Little turnover • Little absence • No EEO, other complaints• Third largest number of awards among the

service groups in a service area with 13 staffConclusions from Learning and Growth Data• Service area a good place to work• Awards are viewed as meaningful and

prominently displayed

Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data

25

Analysis of Readiness & Conclusions

Human Resources:

Dedicated staff lacking

skill requirements identified for functional areas

backup staff for functional areas: one person, one task

specialized skills, e.g., to develop presentation materials

Recommendations for

Corrective Action

gap analysis of functional requirements and capacity to address them underway: to be completed by 1/1/03

winter retreat to address staff and organizational issues

Special note: in many important instances, corporate knowledge and records reside with contractors, not staff.

26

Analysis of Readiness ConclusionsUnmet Support Needs:

technology: state of the art space and other data management systems;

systems aren’t connected

space to interact with clients; lay out, display, and store drawings, house large pieces of equipment

equipment for reproduction of drawings, scanning

software: up to date office suite

• Current space management system recently sold for the 2nd time. NIH at risk re unknown continuing support. Lack of interconnectivity costs time and leads to conflicting information

• Lack of space, equipment, and software increases reliance on contractors to develop, maintain, and reproduce drawings

In the coming year, service groups will explore alternatives for data management systems, such as DCAB’s IPS.

Issue of staff capacity and support to be considered in staff retreat

27

Financial Perspective

28

• Unit cost for an SJD:• For FY 02 (for 206 SJDs) is about $1,500 • For FY 01 (for 170 SJDs) is about $1,700 ( a more

realistic cost and this does not include supplemental cost for Bldg. 10 phase 0 for documentation)

• The unit cost of DS-1 and DS-2 were rolled together• Small and large SJDs require a similar level of effort,

and therefore unit cost not impacted by net sq. ft. allocated

Unit Cost Measures to the SJD Process:

29

• Two cost components in a given year:• Manage use of available DR

• Unit of measure is nsf of DR available within a year• This is a baseline cost which will remain fairly constant

• Manage the acquisition of required DR• Unit of measure is nsf of DR to be acquired• Depends on how much DR must be acquired

Unit Cost Measures to Manage Director’s Reserve (DR) Space

30

• FY 2002, • 68,000 nsf of space was in the DR during FY

2002. It took about 1/10th of the OFP staff time dedicated to this discrete service to manage that DR. Or about $0.5/nsf of DR.

• No effort was spent acquiring new DR, because NIH had not formally authorized the acquisition of DR List asset utilization measures for each discrete service

Cost to Manage Director’s Reserve (DR) Space

31

• FY 2003 Projections• managing DR available within a year will remain

about the same as level for 2003 is expected to be similar.

• Acquiring New DR• It is estimated that it will cost about $150,000 of contract

services ($25K for POR, $50K for real-estate services, and $75K for concept design) to lease this space or about $30/nsf of space to acquire 50,000 nsf of “rolling DR”.

• In additional about 1/10th of the OFP staff time dedicated to this service group to will be needed for this acquisition, or about $.5/nsf.

Cost to Manage Director’s Reserve (DR) Space

32

• Director’s Reserve Space was identified to measure asset utilization, based on frequency of use

• 48K nsf of admin. and 28K nsf of research Director’s Reserve for FY 02 & 01

• Average utilization of admin. Director’s Reserve is 80%

• Average utilization of research Director’s Reserve is 99%

• Translates to 10,300 nsf of vacant space out of 7.0 mil nsf in inventory on and off campus

Asset Utilization Measures

33

Conclusions and Recommendations

34

Conclusions from FY02 ASA

• The e-mail to the ICs and the ORS Implementation team after approval of an SJD has provided an improvement for communications to all parties

• Without sufficient DR, some NIH requirements cannot be met and other requirements require complex maneuvers to satisfy

• Once the “pipeline” of DR is established in 2004, effort to develop options for SJDs will decrease and effort will focus on maintaining DR supply

• Until the “pipeline” of DR is established, the effort to to meet current SJDs will remain high, and the effort to acquire DR will be additive.

• Coordination between ORS for tracking rent changes increased, but continued effort to make more efficient is needed

35

• Revalidate the appropriate level of rolling Director’s Reserve

• Actively pursue the rolling Director’s Reserve to met program growth

• Develop plan to accommodate staff replacements due to upcoming retirements

• Add Microsoft Project and Viso software systems to staff PC’s

• Complete staff training for IPS and other management programs

Recommendations

36

Appendices

37

Appendices

• Include the following:

• Page 2 of your ASA Template• Customer segments graphs • Customer satisfaction graphs• Block diagram• Process maps• Process measure graphs• Learning and Growth graphs• Analysis of Readiness Information • Unit cost graphs• Asset utilization graphs• Any unique measures graphs

38

Page 2 of ASA Template

DS-3: asset utilization % useage/vacant

DS-3: Cost/Sq. Ft. to maintain

Actual assets utilized/planned asset utilization for each Discrete Service

What is unit cost for each discrete

Performance MeasureChange in Unit Cost for each Discrete Service

DS-2: How much does the SJD process cost? Management cost/SJDDS-1: Develop measure next year

Contacts/Complaints with EEO/ER/ADRAwards/Recognition

Analysis of Readiness Index

Financial Perspective

Maintain & enhance competencies for the future organization.

Learning and Growth PerspectivePerformance Measure

TurnoverSick Leave Usage

Performance Objective

Complete process maps of Service Group/Discrete Services

DS-1: Number of times Facility Options were developed to satisfy customer space needs

DS-2: Number of SJDs by IC, by program, on and off campus and process time frames

DS-3: Number of SJDs denied since no Director's Reserve and How often unassigned Director's Reserve used to satisfy space needs.

Customer satisfaction ratings from the ORS Customer Scorecard for each Discrete Service

Frequency of meetings with ICs by IC compared to the number of SJDs submitted by IC

Internal Business Process PerspectivePerformance Measure

Increase customer satisfaction


Customer PerspectivePerformance MeasureCustomer segmentation of Discrete Services

Performance ObjectiveIncrease understanding of customer base

Maximize utilization of assets.

Minimize unit cost at a defined service

Increase understanding of processes.


Enhance quality of work life for employees in ORS.

To identify options when appropriate

To have the right amount of Director's Reserve

To process SJDs in timely manner

39

Customer Survey Distribution

Number of Surveys Distributed 85

Number of Surveys Returned 12

Response Rate 18%

40

Survey combined two ASAs: Perform Master and Facilities Planning Provide Space Planning to Support IC Programs

Arrayed their 12 discrete services on a continuum: Long Range Planning (10-20 year planning horizon)Mid-range Planning (5-10 year planning horizon)Short-range Planning (1-5 year planning horizon)

Customers were asked to rate satisfaction on ascale of 1-10, (unsatisfactory to outstanding) with respect to• Quality• Timeliness• Responsiveness

Customer Satisfaction Survey

41

Survey RespondentsFY02 Respondents by IC

3

1 1 1 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 00

1

2

3

4

NIDA

NCI

NIDDK

NIMH

NIAAA

CSR

NCCAM

NCRRNLM

NIGM

SO

RS CC

NICHHD

NINDS

NIAID O

D

NHLBI

NEINIA

NIDCR

NHGRI

NIAM

SCBER

NIDCD

NINR

CITJE

FIC

NIBIB

NIEHS

NCMHD

Oth

er

NIH IC

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

on

den

ts


42

Survey Respondents (cont.)FY02 Respondents by Location

3 3

2 2

1 1

0

1

2

3

4

Bethesda On-Campus

Bethesda On- andOff-Campus

Outside Bethesda All Bethesda Off-Campus

Bethesda On-Campus and Outside

Bethesda

Customer Location

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

on

den

ts


43

Survey Respondents (cont.)FY02 Respondents by Customer Mission

6

3 3

00

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Intramural and Extramural Intramural Extramural OD

Customer Mission

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

on

den

ts


44

FY02 Short Range Planning Ratings

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Category

Mea

n R

atin

g

Mean Rating 7.91 7.18 7.75

Quality Timeliness Responsiveness


Note: The rating scale ranges from 1 - 10 where “1” represents Unsatisfactory and “10” represents Outstanding.

45

Do the facilities planning services in ORS support your Institute’s mission planning efforts?

No0%

Don't Know9%

Not Applicable0%

Yes91%


46

Do you understand how to get your Institute’s needs into the strategic facilities planning process?

No8%

Don't Know0%

Not Applicable0%

Yes92%


47

Does the current process work effectively for your Institute to acquire the space you need?

No18%

Don't Know0%

Not Applicable0%

Yes82%


48

What needs to be improved?• DES has provided NIDDK with excellent service.• Speed up the process for obtaining lease space. Give the institutes more independence in

managing and renovating their lease space. Educate the institutes in the process of getting B&F funding for their projects. Publish the yearly B&F budget so we can see what is being funded; the strategic and long range plans so we can see what is included and how we need to adjust our plans based on what is proposed by NIH.

• CSR has acquired space on two different occasions. In the first instance, the SJD process worked beautifully and in a very timely fashion. The second experience was very unsatisfactory and CSR ended up paying rent on 15,000 square feet that was unusable for six months. For this reason I marked the SJD process very low. I also did not answer two of the last three questions because "sometimes" would have been the right answer but it wasn't offered.

• The corporate implications of individual IC requests for space, including leased space, should be much more rigorously examined and weighed in the decision-making process. A strategic plan for off campus space needs to be developed soon so that the NIH can rationally move toward having a second campus rather than proliferating and widely dispersed sites that the NIH corporate infrastructure must support, at great cost.

49

What needs to be improved? (cont.)

• Yes, I think there needs to be a clearer definition of role responsibilities in ORS once a space decision has been made. I recently had outstanding service from the facilities planning branch, but then when the baton was passed on to DES and the Real Estate Leasing Branch, the service was terrible. I was able to work out the problems with DES staff, and have experienced outstanding service from the DES project officer who was reassigned to my project after my complaints, but I have had terrible, and continue to receive terrible service from the real estate leasing branch. There needs to be some very clear definition of responsibilities once the facilities planning branch passes the baton on to actually get the work done. I experienced an incredible turf battle between the Real Estate Leasing Branch and DES over who had responsibility for what, and this was totally unnecessary. I would strongly recommend that the responsibilities be handed off to DES program management.

50

DS1 Process Map Develop Facility Options

Develop Facility Options

OAS DCABOBSFSATICsOffice of Facilities

Planning

IC Request SpaceOptions

Request OFPfor action

IdentifyOpportunities

Is thereDir. Res.Available

Determineoptions to

create space

Prepare optionsand

recommendations

A

A

No

Yes

IC Selects Option

51

DS2 Process Map ManageSJD Process

Discrete Service: Manage SJD ProcessDate: 7/31/02 Participants: ASA Team

IC SRB

REVIEWERS:SAT, DES/PWB,DES/

DCAB, OBSF

OFP

Prepares SJDevaluation and

recommendation

Logs in SJD,acknowledgesreceipt to IC

Managescomment process

SRB agrees toallocate space?

SRB reviewsevaluation and

recommendation

Prepare SJD forhandoff to DCAB;

update log

Generate workrequest

NoDiscuss rationale with IC

for IC decision remodified SJD

Yes

Notify all players

Work requestneeded?

Prepares SpaceJustification

Document (SJD)

Yes

Handoff to DCABNo

IC Proceeds withOccupancy Plans

Decision e-mail/memo

Project space/rentchanges

52

DS3 Process Map ManageDirector’sReserve

Discrete Service: Manage Director's ReserveDate: Draft 6/13/02 Participants: ASA Team

SATSRB DES OAS OBSFOFP

Reviewrecommendation

Reserve decllining

Create SpaceJustification

Document (SJD)

Explorereplenishment

options

Present finaloptions and

recommendation

Create workrequest

Accept ?

Go to BDiscrete Services:

Acquire Real EstateManage Acquisition Vehicles

for A/E and constructipm

A

no

yes

Track Director's reserveagainst assignments and

loans

53

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

54

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)


Av

era

ge

Ho

urs

55

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)


Av

era

ge

nu

mb

er

56

Average Number of EEO Complaints (Oct 2001 - June 2002)


A

ve

rag

e N

um

be

r

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

20 7 26 38 36 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 23 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 37 39 40 41 42 43

57

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)


Av

era

ge

Nu

mb

er

58

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)


Av

era

ge

Nu

mb

er

59

Learning and Growth Data Table

About 3 days sick leave per employee

About 1.5 awards per employee8% 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

of A

war

ds

Rec

eive

dA

vera

ge N

umbe

r of

Aw

ards

Rec

eive

d

Num

ber

of E

EO

Com

plai

nts

Ave

rage

Num

ber

of

EE

O C

ompl

aint

s

Num

ber

of E

R C

ases

Ave

rage

Num

ber

of

ER

Cas

esN

umbe

r of

AD

R

Cas

esA

vera

ge N

umbe

r of

AD

R C

ases

516 13 1 0.08 263 21 18 1.42 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00Service Group 2

Total13 1 0.08 263 21 18 1.42 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

No EEO complaint and no cases

Documents

1 FY02 ASA Presentation “Provide Space Planning to Support IC Programs” Presented by: Gerald W. Hines (team leader) Cyrena Simons Joan Swaney Camelia Smith