1 fy02 asa presentation “provide space planning to support ic programs” presented by: gerald w....
TRANSCRIPT
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
Performance Objective
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.
Performance Objective
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
Data based on 12 respondents
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
Data based on 12 respondents
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
Data based on 12 respondents
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
Data based on 12 respondents
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%
Data based on 12 respondents
46
Do you understand how to get your Institute’s needs into the strategic facilities planning process?
No8%
Don't Know0%
Not Applicable0%
Yes92%
Data based on 12 respondents
47
Does the current process work effectively for your Institute to acquire the space you need?
No18%
Don't Know0%
Not Applicable0%
Yes82%
Data based on 12 respondents
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)
Service Group Number
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)
Service Group Number
Av
era
ge
nu
mb
er
56
Average Number of EEO Complaints (Oct 2001 - June 2002)
Service Group Number
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)
Service Group Number
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)
Service Group Number
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