measuring in project processes with team-driven … with team-driven feedback: holly hill hospital...

Measuring In Project Processes with Team-Driven

Feedback: Holly Hill Hospital

Ryan SuydamHouston BrownChristian PikelMark Spies

Client Feedback ToolBrasfield & Gorrie

UHSStengel Hill Architecture

Agenda

• Team Introductions and Perspectives• The Project: Holly Hill Hospital• Overview and Initial Goals• Early Results and Refinement• Quantifying Work Hand-Off• Tracking Conditions of Satisfaction• Wrap up, Lessons Learned, Q&A

Team Introduction & Perspectives

• Ryan Suydam, Client Feedback Tool, “Feedback Guru”

• Houston Brown, Brasfield & Gorrie, “GC / Estimator”

• Christian Pikel, UHS, “Owner”

• Mark Spies, Stengel Hill Architecture, “Architect”

The Project: Holly Hill Hospital• 80 Bed Child Behavioral Expansion Hospital

greenfield project• 14 month duration: Validation through First

Patient Day• High expectations to set new benchmark and

push innovation on smaller/quicker projects• Expect ground breaking 1st Week November• Designated as test case

ILPD project for demonstrating potential of feedback tool

Overview and Initial Goals

“Client” Feedback

A process in which the results of a service

as evaluated by the recipient of the service

affect the service delivery

while the service is being performed

PLAN DO CHECK ACT


• You Can’t Manage What You Don’t Measure (Drucker)

• What’s Measured Tends to Improve (Hawthorne)

• Provides Practical Benefits Quality, Risk, Bottom Line

• Responds to Basic Human NeedsRespect, Appreciation, Loyalty

Project Start

Low

Hig

h

Project Closeout

FBFB FBFBFBFB FB

MeetingKey

Deliverable

Start Finish

MeetingEnd of Phase

End of Phase

FB = Send Survey & Collect Feedback

Kickoff Meeting

Final Deliverable

Unresolved Issues Erode Relational Equity

Identify Issues+ Discover Successes

= Improved Relational Equity


Your Team

Leader

Manager

Staff

Partners

Leader

Manager

Staff

Client

Leader

Manager

Staff



Follow-up:Shows respect

Demonstrates expertiseBuilds lasting value

When surveyed again:

“Acceptance” increases 83%

Automatic Centering•Starts at “Met Expectations”•Scale promotes “process” questions

Fast & Easy•Intuitive to use•2 seconds to score

Capture Detail•60 level answer scale•Respondents can “nudge” the scores


Overview and Initial GoalsBackground:

• Explore opportunities within ILPD

Conditions: • Cultural adoption of ILPD challenged

Hypothesis: • Tracking team member perceptions will surface

successes and accelerate resolution of issues. • Open sharing of feedback will increase team

effectiveness and communication.

Experimental Methods: • Survey Big Room attendees• Survey work hand-off interactions• Survey overall team success

Early Results and Refinement

390 surveys sent in 33 batches

184 replies for a 47% response

rate

Includes 32 people from 12 trade partners

over a six-month period

Early Results and RefinementPhase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Phase 1:“Generic”

surveys – few useful results

Phase 2:Targeted surveys – but no follow-

up

Phase 3:Targeted surveys with purposeful

follow-up discussions


Plan (how to measure perceptions)• Asked “standard” questions• After Big Rooms, Handoffs, and Monthly• B&G to distribute results

Do (how we measured)• Completed two Big Room cycles

Check (what did measuring accomplish)• Not much happened – lots of data,

minimal usefulness.

Act (what do we change)• Changed survey design (CoS) – Improved usefulness of data• Still didn’t “use” the data• PDCA phase II – added 15 minutes at start of Big Room to review• Big Rooms now begin with critical conversations!


1. Survey sent by feedback sponsor (B&G) after Big Room to all attendees

2. Survey sent by B&G to recipients of each work hand-off, about the team partner who performed the work

3. Results routed to B&G in real-time – urgent issues are routed to team

4. B&G (with Client Feedback Tool) prepare results reports for start of next Big Room

5. Team members discuss anomalies (high scores, low scores, and comments)

6. Side-bars, if needed, occur during breaks to resolve intra-team issues

Early Results and RefinementBig Room Survey

“Long” format –takes ~ 3 minutes

to complete

Tracks five KPI’s based around the

“Conditions of Satisfaction”

Early Results and RefinementWork Hand-Off Survey

Short format – takes 30 seconds to

complete

Tracks five KPI’s based around the

“Conditions of Satisfaction”

Tracks three KPI’s based on

Quality, Schedule, and Budget


Surveys versus Plus/Delta: • Yes – they ARE different• +/ Δ quick visual of value-adds• Survey is DATA, focused on project performance

The Contractor’s Perspective: • Stories how feedback

has helped the GC role

Quantifying Work Hand-Off

Identify Key Deliverables to Track: • Design Development Floor Plan• Example Choosing by Advantages• Quiet Partner Gains a Voice• Validating Lean Processes

Focus on the Process: • Processes can be improved• People are hard to change


Design Development Floor Plan: • From a designer:

• From the owner: (two weeks later)


Example Choosing by Advantages:

• Specific process improvements noted


Example: A quiet voice is heard

• Responded to 6 out of 6 surveys

• Commented every time, raising issues 4 times


Validating a Lean Practice:

• Making choices in the light of evidence


And now, for something completely different:

Tracking Conditions of Satisfaction

Definition• The criteria by which the outcome of a project is measured

Conditions of Satisfaction - HHH• On-going surveys of team performance against stated CoS• Visual indicator to facilitate big room discussion• Has identified low scores – need for improvement CoS• Has identified team disparity resulting in realignment efforts• Aided in identifying incomplete understanding of CoS• Increased visibility of individual scores facilitates team dialog

on issues & misalignment


The Conditions of Satisfaction (current draft)

Non-Institutional

Safe & Low Stress Admissions

Child Friendly Environment

Promote ActivitySupport Staff

Comforts Parents

Reset BH Benchmarks

Pre-Fab Bathroom Value Demonstration

QC Ethic

Production Efficiency

High Trust

Minimize DocsBetter Permitting

Better Handoffs Safe but Fast


CoS Results - Overall


Example – Centered Average, with High Deviation

How effectively are we minimizing design documentation, yet conveying rich understanding of preconstruction decisions, all while minimizing team risk?


Example – Averages, with high/low deviation

How effectively are we minimizing design documentation, yet conveying rich understanding of preconstruction decisions, all while minimizing team risk?

• 50% of team responded at or near “Met Expectations”• 50% split from Unacceptable to Excellent• Indicated need to determine cause of unbalance

Countermeasure: Deeper dive to determine Why (5-why) of Both Low and High Scores; Immediate Action

Further Exploration

• Expand use of visual feedback to team

• End User Retrospectives• Measure hand-offs from design

to field ops?• Measure deviation over time –

team alignment?• Enable real-time alerts to all• Designate survey events at pull

plan

Wrap up, Lessons Learned, Q&A

Final Notes from the Team

What did YOU hear?

Questions?

measuring in project processes with team-driven … with team-driven feedback: holly hill hospital...

Documents