from a studebaker to a ferrari - presentation 2007 09 28...

FROM A STUDEBAKER TO A FERRARI:

Managing by Standards and Performance Measures

presented by:

From a Studebaker to a Ferrari: Managing by Standards© PROS Consulting LLC, 2007 1

Leon Younger – Allen Mullins – B.G. Clark

The Studebaker…”TraditionalModel”The Studebaker… Traditional Model

W f d ti th bj ti f th We focused on meeting the objectives of the year that was established by the budget …

Getting along with what we have with limited Getting along with what we have with limited accountability and we were more focused on responsibility than accountabilityBudgets were compared to previous budgetsStaffing levels were tied to to previous staffing levelslevelsProgram, facility, and event attendance compared to previous attendanceEquating few complaints to customer satisfaction


The Ferrari…”High PerformanceThe Ferrari… High Performance Model”

G tti th i k d f t ith Getting there quicker and faster with more accuracy and efficiency…

Agencies are now more focused on outcomes that Agencies are now more focused on outcomes that are measurable than outputsTerms such as capacity management, demand, ff f fefficiency, frequency, retention, levels of service,

cost per experience or task are the mode of todayWe are now focused on market driven decision We are now focused on market driven decision making that is data driven not gut drivenData supported quantified results is the work

k f dspeak of todayFrom a Studebaker to a Ferrari: Managing by Standards© PROS Consulting LLC, 2007 4

Transitioning through Standards…Transitioning through Standards…

Getting there quicker and fasterGetting there quicker and faster…Change to meet customer demands and be accountable for resources StaffingEquipmentCapital budgetsCapital budgetsRevenues earned

Focus on outcomes that are measurable

Reporting ResultsReporting Results


Transitioning Through StandardsTransitioning Through Standards

M i f di i l d l Moving from traditional management model to high performance management models requiresrequires:

Clearly defined improved business processes Systematic and holistic shift in planning Systematic and holistic shift in planning, execution and monitoring


Transitioning ProcessTransitioning Process

Community focused based on values a Community focused based on values, a compelling vision and mission and what are the core businessesStrategies that are clearly stated Develop standards tied to time and resourcesTimely implementation Timely implementation Executed by change agents with proper authorityyFocus on the outcome Frequent, quantified reporting**Repeat Process**


Transitioning FunctionsTransitioning Functions

M j f i l f d dMajor functional areas for standards:Business Systems (Operations)M iMaintenanceProgrammingF ilitiFacilitiesCustomer service


BenefitsBenefits

Cl l d fi d t d d Clearly defined customer needs and expectations standards tied to needs with measurable outcomesmeasurable outcomesStandards and level of service drive budget

Sustainable system achieved by moving from a Susta ab e syste ac e ed by o g o a“traditional” management model to a “high performance management model”I d ffi i hi hli ht titl t d Improved efficiency highlights entitlement and demonstrates inefficiencyQuantifies resources required to support the q ppdesired changes and meet community needs


Business Systems


Business SystemsBusiness Systems

FinancialFinancialBudget, accounting, procurement, reporting

Customer InformationReservation/Scheduling, Web‐site

Work ManagementAsset Management Work Order Resource Asset Management, Work Order, Resource Management

Human Resource/PayrollPersonnel, Payroll, Benefits, Intranet

Planning, Design and ConstructionGeographic Information Systems (GIS) Capital Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Capital Improvement Program, Regulatory Tracking


Business Systems ‐ PlanningBusiness Systems Planning

Id if i i b i Identify existing business systemsAssess functionality of business systems b d d dbased on desired outcomesDefine gapsDevelop requirementsEvaluate available systemsyCreate implementation strategies


Business Systems ‐ ExecutionBusiness Systems Execution

C i i l i Communicate implementation systemTrain key staff/stakeholdersInstall systemTest systemVerify trainingGenerate reportsGenerate reportsAdditional training where needed


Business Systems ‐ ExampleWork Order Management SystemFunctional Requirements meeting

es

Rating formula = Low 1, medium 2, high 3, N/A 0 D

istr

ict 1

Dis

trict

2

Dis

tric

t 3

Dist

rict 4

Dis

tric

t 5

Dis

tric

t 6

Zoo

Fair

Park

Faci

lity

Serv

ice

Gol

f / T

enni

s

Gro

up

Criti

cal

Comments1 Inventory Management: x x x x x xx x

P t b d i ti 3Part number, description, cost (length of fields)

3

Fields for part categories and nomenclature

3

Markup 3 Warehouse--- to cover operating costs

Balance-on-hand 3YTD, MTD, Date last issued

3

Active / inactive 3Catalog listing 3B d i t f 3Barcode interface 3Quantity-on-hand, 3Quantity-on-order 3Expected date 3Re-order point 3Cycle counts 3yShrinkage Reports 3Point-of-sale system 0Multiple warehouses 3 other depts.Creation of pick lists 3Reference to purchase

d k d3 X

Maintenance


Maintenance ‐ BenefitsMaintenance Benefits

Li k t ti ith Links expectations with resourcesDocuments the levels of maintenanceDocuments the operational needs of your parksDocuments the operational needs of your parksEstablishes policy‐based decisions for maintenance

Links assets with resource requirementsTo document the new service/facility impacts on

i d i l b d b id l loperating and capital budgets, subsidy levelsEstablishes expected achievement of desired levels of servicelevels of service


Maintenance ‐ PlanningMaintenance Planning

Perform a site visit to assessPerform a site visit to assessMaintenance zones and areas (assets)Amenities and landscaping/planting

I Inventory system assetsAsset description; Units / quantitiesConditionCategorize and assess age/life cycle

Required maintenance activities (routine and preventative)p )Current maintenance practices

Current standards/frequencyLocate and assist in assessing the existing irrigation systemLocate and assist in assessing the existing irrigation system

Maintenance ‐ PlanningMaintenance Planning

Task 1

Task 2

Task 3Asset

Standard Units:TimeTask

Frequencies by Level of Service


Maintenance ‐ ExecutionMaintenance Execution

Match tasks to inventoryMatch tasks to inventoryMatch individual assets to desired level of serviceDevelop maintenance standards for each Develop maintenance standards for each maintenance zone and existing amenities in placeStandards include: Standards include:

FrequencyDurationTasks

EquipmentSuppliesLabor/skill requirements

Standards cover major elements from:TurfHard surfaces

Natural areasSignageHard surfaces SignageIrrigationMajor mechanical equipment


Maintenance ‐ ExamplesMaintenance Examples

Sample ResultsSa p e esu ts

Inventory Item

CurrentAverage Hours per Unit Current

Current Times Per Cur Labor

StandardAverage Hours per Level 1

Level 1 Times Per

Level 1 Labor

Item Quantity Item Unit Activity Unit Description Frequency Year Hours Unit Frequency Year Hours

Turf 40 Acres

Turf Trimout ‐ Spring and Summer 2.00 Acre Bi‐weekly 12.00 960.00 2.00 1/week 36.00 2,880.00Turf Mowing ‐ Spring and

Turf 40 Acres Summer 2.00 Acre 1/week 21.00 1,680.00 2.00 1/10 days 12.00 960.00



S l S d dSample Standards

Activity

Average Hours per

UnitUnit

DescriptionCurrent

FrequencyLevel 1

FrequencyLevel 2

FrequencyLevel 3

FrequencyActivity Unit Description Frequency Frequency Frequency FrequencyTurf Mowing ‐ Spring and Summer 2.00 Acre 1/week 1/10 days 1/14 days 1/18 daysTurf Mowing ‐ Fall and Winter 1.00 Acre 1/month 1/14 days 1/20 days 1/24 daysTurf Trimout ‐ Spring and Summer 2.00 Acre Bi‐weekly 1/week Bi‐weekly 1/monthTurf Trimout ‐ Fall and Winter 2.00 Acre 1/month 1/week Bi‐weekly 1/monthTurf Fertilization 1 00 Acre 1/year 2/year 1/year 1/yearTurf Fertilization 1.00 Acre 1/year 2/year 1/year 1/yearIrrigation (Watering Schedule) 1.00 Acre 3/week 3/week 2/week 1/weekLeaf Management 2.00 Acre 2/year 2/year 1/year 1/yearLitter Removal ‐ Peak 0.20 Acre 2/week 2/week 1/weekLitter Removal ‐ Non Peak 0.20 Acre 1/week 2/week 1/weekGarbage Pickup ‐ Trash Cans 0 04 Can 2/week 1/day 2/week 1/weekGarbage Pickup ‐ Trash Cans 0.04 Can 2/week 1/day 2/week 1/weekRestroom Servicing 1.00 Building 1/day 2/day 1/day 1/day Assets Infrastructure Inspections 1.00 Each 1/week 1/week biweekly 1/monthPlay Equipment Inspection 2.00 location 1/week 1/week biweekly 1/monthPlay Equipment Compliance Assessment 2.00 location 1/month 1/month Bi‐monthly 1/quarterLandscape Bed Maintenance 1 00 1 000 SF 2/year Bi monthly 1/quarter 2/yearLandscape Bed Maintenance 1.00 1,000 SF 2/year Bi‐monthly 1/quarter 2/yearSmall Trees or Shrubs Inspection 0.20 Each 4/year 4/year 1/2years 1/year


Maintenance ‐MonitoringMaintenance Monitoring

D b d i d l l f Document gaps between desired level of service and actual level of service achieved

l dDocument planned resource requirements to achieve desired level of service to actual

li dresources appliedDemonstrate resources, results, needs Communicate resources, results, needs


Programming


Programming ‐ BenefitsProgramming Benefits

M t h t t dMatches programs to customer needsEstablishes expected achievement of desired levels of servicelevels of serviceHelps define facility development requirements requirements

Programs drive design Guides consistency in program deliveryGuides consistency in program deliveryContinuous refinement of program offerings to customer feedback and changing demandsg g


Programming ‐ PlanningProgramming Planning

F id d i d i i f Factors considered in determining future directions for recreation programs

IInventoryOther service providersO ll tOverall assessmentIdentify opportunities Market size/trendsMarket size/trendsPrioritize and define core offeringsAlign resources to core services and strategiesAlign resources to core services and strategies


Select Program StandardsSelect Program Standards

Instructor or program coordinators’ qualificationsInstructor or program coordinators’ qualificationsInstructor‐to‐participant ratiosBackground checksBackground checksAppropriate recreation space (safety, cleanliness)Minimum and maximum numbers of participantsp pRecreation equipment or suppliesLength of the programSafetyCustomer feedback methods

fPricing of services From a Studebaker to a Ferrari: Managing by Standards© PROS Consulting LLC, 2007 27

Programming ‐ ExecutionProgramming Execution

S d d i d d l Standards review and development processConduct focus groups to test viabilityModify programs based on inputAdjust to changing demands


Programming ‐MonitoringProgramming Monitoring

C l d d / lCompare program results to standards/planParticipationP l d/h ld/ ll dPrograms planned/held/cancelledCost recoveryC t ti f tiCustomer satisfaction

Participant surveysCustomer retention


Facilities


Facilities ‐ BenefitsFacilities Benefits

Facility Standards are guidelines that define Facility Standards are guidelines that define service areas based on population and/or capacity

d l d f l dSupports investment decisions related to facilities and amenitiesRelates recreation needs to spatial analysis within a

i id f k f ili i d community‐wide system of park facilities and amenitiesBecomes a major structuring element that can be used t id d i t f ilit d l tto guide and assist facility development

Does not represent a guarantee to schedule or fund projects in Department’s capital p j p pimprovement plan


Facilities ‐ PlanningFacilities Planning

Quantify customer needs Quantify customer needs Document facilities inventory

Construction type (engineered, non‐engineered)Primary usage

Document usage of each facilitySports including participant ages and gender)p g p p g g )Frequencies of useSeasonsIntensity of useIntensity of use

Document capacity of each facility to maintain desired facility condition

Develop and apply facility usage guidelines that are tied to Develop and apply facility usage guidelines that are tied to maintenance and operational standards


Capacity and DemandCapacity and Demand

Capacity: Capacity of an asset is defined as the maximum number of events (i.e. games, practices, special events), and corresponding hours and persons, that an individual asset can service

Demand: Defined as actual usage and organized by representative age segment and activity (e.g. 6 to 18 year ld f l h f b ll)old females; youth softball)


Facilities – Sample Standards

Sample Standards


Facilities – Sample Standards

Sample StandardsAmenity Drive Time Standard Circular Distance Population Density

Based on EstablishedBased on Established Design Standards

Regional/Interpretive Center

45 minutes 30 miles 1/150,000

Outdoor Pools 15 minutes 2 miles 1/25,000 Playgrounds Walking distance 1 mile 1/1,250yg g ,Softball Field\s (youth)


Softball Fields (adult)


Recreation Center 15 minutes 2 miles 1 sf/personpGolf Course 20 minutes 3 miles 1 hole/1,000 Sports Courts (tennis)


Sports Courts (outdoor basketball)


Indoor Gym 10 minutes 2 miles 1sf/person Neighborhood Park Walking distance 1 mile 1/5,000 Soccer Complex (4 to 10 fields)


Youth Baseball Field 15 minutes 2 miles 1/4,000 Adult Baseball Field 20 minutes 3 miles 1/25,000Community Park 15 minutes 2 miles 1/20,000


Facilities ‐ ExecutionFacilities Execution

St d d A li ti S i A A l i Standards Application – Service Area Analysis Overlaps and gaps are graphically identified based on population densities within the service area of on population densities within the service area of a specific facility or amenityFacility standards should be viewed as a guideThey address goals to be achievedStandards are to be coupled with conventional wisdom and judgment related to the particular wisdom and judgment related to the particular situation and needs of the communityDevelop recommended improvements – drives Capital Improvement Plan


Facilities – Sample Capacity‐Demand Service Area AnalysisService Area Analysis

District6

Pool Capacity and AttendanceSan Francisco Recreation and Park Department

N

Total Capac ityTotal AttendanceCapac ity Over 55

Attendance Over 55

Pool Capacity vs AttendanceNorth Beach Pool - 9,495 SF

23,73713,4407,858

770

#LombardHwy 101

District 2 Di t i t

6Fiscal Year 2002-2003


Attendance Over 55 Capac ity Ages 19-54

Attendance Age 19-54Capac ity Under 18

Pool Capacity vs Attendance

43,15042,70510,9082,803

27,45718,2954,785

Hamilton Pool - 17,260 SF

Capac ity Ages 19-54Attendance Age 19-54

Capac ity Under 18Attendance Under 18

Number of People (1000's)2520151050

56.6% Capacity

13,1196,1022,7606,568

Closed for Renovation

Total Capac ityT t l Att d

Pool Capacity vs AttendanceBalboa Pool - 16,215 SF

40,537




Attendance Under 18



118.2% Capacity

Rossi Pool - 15,018 SF

37,54544,3967,6104,639

24,94218,5694,993

21,188 North Beach Pool

#

#

Van Ness

Park Presidio I-80

Geary

Market

District1

2 District3

District5

District6




Attendance Under 18



14.3% Capacity

Mission Pool - 8,541 SF

8,5411,2251,259

23

6,170982

1,112220

Outdoor Seasonal Pool

Attendance Under 18

Number of People (1000's)

454035302520151050

98.9% Capacity

21,607


Attendance Over 55 Capac ity Ages 19 54

Pool Capacity vs AttendanceSava Pool - 15,372 SF

38,43046,006

10,8645,208

20 430

Total AttendanceCapac ity Over 55



Attendance Under 18


64.8% Capacity

26,2779,7511,247

22,1008,2268,686

16,804 Rossi Pool

Hamilton Pool

#

#

19th

I-280

M

Mission

Sunset

District4

District

District8

Total Capac ity

Pool Capacity vs AttendanceMartin Luther King Pool - 27,587 SF

68 967




Attendance Under 18


Pool Capacity vs AttendanceGarfield Pool - 3,600 SF

9,00025,6421,1281,3785,828

14,1932,044

10,071

284.9% Capacity

14.3% CapacityCapac ity Ages 19-54Attendance Age 19-54

Capac ity Under 18Attendance Under 18


119.7% Capacity

20,43019,3907,136

21,408




Attendance Under 18

Pool Capacity vs AttendanceCoffman Pool - 15,215 SF

38,03719,088

8,6532,277

20,0987,8789,2868,933

Sava P l

Mission Pool

Garfield Pool

#

##

Sloat

Sk

I-280

Hwy 1 01

District7

District11

District10

District9

Population (2000 Census)01 - 5051 100

Non S.F. Managed Park AreasS.F. Managed Park AreasWaterStreets & HighwaysSupervisorial Districts

# S.F. Pool LocationsPool Capacity (2000 Census)Annual Attendance (FY2002-03)

Legend


Attendance Over 55Capac ity Ages 19-54


Attendance Under 18


9,106

18,5907,995

99214,322

18,09368,967

36,055

26.2% Capacity

Attendance Under 18


50.2% Capacity

8,933

DATA SOURCES:All data is provided by San Francisco Recreation and Park Department. Pool Capacity is caculated by Leon Younger & PROS using the national standard for capacity from NRPA of 2.5 Persons per S.F. - Indoor Pool and 1 Person per S.F - Outdoor Pool. Population data: 2000 US Census, SF1 Data Set by Census Block. Pool Attendance data from San Francisco Recreation and Parks,

Pool

Balboa Pool

Coffman Pool

Martin LutherKing Pool

SPECIAL NOTES:Pool Capacity was calculated by multiplying thepool's square footage by the NRPA national guideline for pools. The result is a number of people that a facility should serve. (The population capacity is represented by the blue circle).Pool Attendance was provided to the consultant by the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department from fiscal year 2002-03 records.(The attendance number is represented by thered circle).Based on using the national guideline, the capacity of 3 pools sites are under utilized (Martin Luther King Pool Coffman Pool and

#k y lin e

kfv - May 05, 2004

51 - 100101 - 200201 - 400401 - 600601 - 10001001 - 2476

0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 Miles

data from San Francisco Recreation and Parks, Fiscal Year 2002-2003. All GIS shapefiles are courtesy of the San Francisco Recreation and Parks, San Francisco Department of Telecommunication and Information Services, with input from the Neighborhood Parks Council on citywide open space layer. All data are in California Zone III,State Plane Projection, NAD 1983.

Pool(Martin Luther King Pool, Coffman Pool andBalboa Pool), 2 sites are servicing at capacity (Hamilton Pool and Mission Pool), and 3 sites are exceeding capacity ( Garfield Pool, Rossi Pool, and Sava Pool). Note - North Beach was under capacity due to renovation project.


Facilities ‐MonitoringFacilities Monitoring

A ll d b d d d Annually compare needs based on standards to facilitiesd d l b lAdjust usage guidelines to balance system

demand


Facilities ‐Monitoring


Customer service


Customer Service ‐ BenefitsCustomer Service Benefits

Happy customers/visitors/employeesIncreased participation and retentionC t l l lif l tCreate loyal, lifelong customersImproved morale and performance of employees

Informed customers/visitors/employeesInformed customers/visitors/employeesIncreased advocacy Increased participation and spending powerIncreased participation and spending powerImproved decision‐makingTargeted customer needs


Customer Service ‐ PlanningCustomer Service Planning

C i d lCurrent customer service processes and toolsEvaluation of retention and satisfactionFrequency of use/participationCustomize approach to specific age segmentsDevelopment of customer service plan for each park and facilityp yDevelopment of customer toolkits


Customer Service ‐ ExecutionCustomer Service Execution

Customer service standardsCustomer service standardsKnowledge of system and servicesConsistent greetingsIntroduction to programs/facilitiesSafetySignage and wayfindingSignage and wayfindingCleanlinessStaff and volunteer image and trainingConflict resolutionConflict resolutionChain of communicationCustomer feedback process – intercept surveys,

t d l ti fcomment cards, evaluation forms


Performance Measures –Beyond the Numbers

Using Performance MeasurementsUsing Performance MeasurementsEfficiency management toolCompare results to standards and desired outcomesDocument factors that resulted in gaps/shortfallsAdjust resources and process to meet standards Communicate resource needs for planned levels of Communicate resource needs for planned levels of service

Develop measurements to communicate results and resource needsand resource needsEliminate measurements that do not help you plan and/or communicateContinuous improvement process


PerformanceMeasures – Top TenPerformance Measures Top Ten

Customer retention and satisfactionCustomer retention and satisfactionProgram cancelation ratesAge segments served and satisfactiong gCost of service levels metRevenue to expense targetsC it tili tiCapacity utilizationLife‐cycle management (programs, facilities, parks)Consistency in standards metConsistency in standards metStaffing levels for park acreage maintainedStaff productivity (work orders, initiatives, time‐

t)management)


The Ferrari…”High PerformanceThe Ferrari… High Performance Model”

F d t th t blFocused on outcomes that are measurable

Market driven decision making that is data driven

Data supported quantified resultsData supported quantified results

Change to meet customer demands and be accountable for resources

Clearly defined, improved business processes

Systematic and holistic shift in planning, execution and monitoring

Performance measurements that demonstrate success

G tti th i k d f t ith d Getting there quicker and faster with more accuracy and efficiency…


Transitioning through Standards…Transitioning through Standards…

Getting there quicker and fasterGetting there quicker and faster…Change to meet customer demands and be accountable for resources StaffingEquipmentCapital budgetsCapital budgetsRevenues earned

Focus on outcomes that are measurable

Reporting ResultsReporting Results


Transitioning Through StandardsTransitioning Through Standards

M i f di i l d l Moving from traditional management model to high performance management models requiresrequires:

Clearly defined improved business processes Systematic and holistic shift in planning Systematic and holistic shift in planning, execution and monitoring


BenefitsBenefits

Cl l d fi d t d d Clearly defined customer needs and expectations standards tied to needs with measurable outcomesmeasurable outcomesStandards and level of service drive budget

Sustainable system achieved by moving from a Susta ab e syste ac e ed by o g o a“traditional” management model to a “high performance management model”I d ffi i hi hli ht titl t d Improved efficiency highlights entitlement and demonstrates inefficiencyQuantifies resources required to support the q ppdesired changes and meet community needs


QUESTIONS?Q
