Change Management

Deming theorized that quality leadership must focus on improving how work gets done (the method or process) instead of simply focusing on what gets done (the results). Deming also theorized that the principles of quality leadership must include customer focus, obsession with quality, recognizing the structure in work processes, teamwork and unity in purpose, and continued training and education.

• Management by results often focuses on profit and losses or return on investment. Quality leadership starts with the customer. The organization’s goal should be to meet and exceed customer needs. Quality organizations recognize both internal and external customers.
• Obsession with quality must become part of an organization’s culture. Quality must be pursued through the services that delight customers, and efficient and effective processes.
• Work is not haphazard and always has some form or structure. The structure may not be readily evident and often can be hidden behind inefficiencies. For this reason, processes must be studied, measured, analyzed, and improved. Great people with a poor process may be able to provide good service, but great people using a great process can provide great service. Process measurements guide process improvement and are recognized as a means rather than an end.
• Quality organizations encourage teamwork and partnerships to foster a sense of unity in purpose. Providing quality service should be the goal of everyone in the organization. A clear and widely understood vision is necessary to create the sense of community and to reinforce the sense that we do excellent work. The notion of a common goal of quality also applies to the relationships with suppliers, regulatory agencies, and local communities.
• In a quality organization, everyone is constantly learning. Management should encourage employees to constantly elevate their level of technical skill and professional expertise. Employees should be encouraged to master their jobs and broaden their capabilities.

One approach to translating these theories into practice has been referred to as the Joiner Triangle. One corner of the triangle refers to quality as defined by the customer. A second corner represents the scientific or data-based approach to studying processes. The third corner represents employees working together as a united team to learn and apply these principles. These three elements must function together to ensure success.

Defining Quality

In process improvement, the concept of the customer and supplier takes on a slightly different aspect. In this process, people or organizations that precede the process being studied are the “suppliers,” and those who follow are the “customers.” The various campus stakeholders are indeed customers, and it is important to satisfy and even delight these people. Inside the organization, however, employees who pass on work to other employees are considered suppliers, with internal customers. Similarly, external suppliers who supply materials, information, or services are a critical part of the entire process. Therefore, each worker in an organization has suppliers and customers.

Once the concept of processes, including the concept of customer and supplier relationships, is understood, people will be in a better position to appreciate what quality means. If customers are those who are the recipients of services or products, then only the customers can determine what quality means to them. That is the basis of the phrase “quality begins with the customer.” Therefore, quality must be a part of the entire process, not just a part of the final product or service. Quality must be built into every step, process, and system to ensure a quality product or service. “Customers” and “suppliers” must be considered and collaborated with during every step.

It is critical to remember that the responsibility for quality ultimately lies with top management. Only they can establish the organization’s commitment to quality. They must make certain that the organization asks the questions: Are we doing the right things? And are we doing things right? Only top management has the ability and influence to provide employees with the support needed to deliver quality products and services to the ultimate stakeholders.

While the customer-supplier relationship is viewed from a different perspective in the process improvement environment, it is still critical to understand the ultimate reason for improving the facilities management service delivery to provide quality service to the various campus stakeholders. This requires the organization to develop a customer-driven focus. It requires listening to your customers, as well as identifying and anticipating their needs and concerns. Organizations should strive to go beyond customer satisfaction to customer delight. Competition from outsourcing is a constant threat to any university facilities organization. To remain competitive, the facilities organization must look for opportunities to improve service delivery. There is no room for mediocrity, and those who refuse to change with changing demands will soon disappear.

Christopher K. Ahoy states that superior services and relationships depend on knowing that customers are—

• The most important entities on the premises.
• Not dependent on the facilities organization. The facilities organization is dependent on them.
• Not interruptions to the facilities work, but the purpose of it.
• Not an outsider to the business, but a part of it.
• Doing the facilities organization a favor by giving them an opportunity to serve.

Therefore, it is critical to include the various facilities customers in any facilities change process. Customer focus is a key component of effective facilities management. Various stakeholders (faculty, students, staff, and other administrative departments) must feel that their needs are heard, understood, and acted upon. Tools must be in place to ensure customer communication, assess and assimilate what is said, and implement procedures to act on expressed needs.

The Scientific Method

People who view work as a series of processes understand how the quality of what comes out is largely determined by the quality of what goes in. Whole new insights develop when people see tasks as a related series of events. If people see how their role contributes to the entire process, then they have a better understanding of how their role contributes to the final product. Better processes lead to better quality, and often to better service delivery. With a common understanding, workers can define starting and ending points to a process, and figure out what has to happen in between to provide the desired service level. For example, consider the work request from the customer: If the desired goal is to provide regular and meaningful status reports, then those providing the front-line service delivery must understand their role. If the completed work orders do not include descriptions of the services provided, then the service center cannot adequately inform the customer. Or, if service delivery is delayed because of  the unavailability of parts , then the service desk cannot notify the customer of a delay. Therefore, the front-line service delivery staff must understand that their role includes more than just performing the work; they are a critical link in the customer communication process.

A series of tasks is called a process. A series of processes is referred to as a system. Sometimes if a project improvement team feels overwhelmed, they may be studying a system and not a process. Unless the team narrows its focus, it stands a good chance of getting mired down and will not make adequate progress. Teams should focus on one process at a time, unless two or three processes are closely related and would be difficult to study separately.

Information and analysis are essential to evaluate performance and drive future performance improvements. The scientific approach studies the quality improvement methods and helps answer the question: How well are we doing? Although it may sound complicated, the scientific method is simply a systematic approach to study processes. Although it can involve complicated formulas, data, and statistics, it is more often a simple means for teams to study the root cause of problems rather than relying on hunches or perceptions of superficial symptoms.

Dr. Joseph M. Juran conjectured that the concept that “organizations would have fewer problems if only employees would do their jobs properly” is incorrect. In fact, the potential to promote quality improvements lies more with improving the processes, not improving the workers. This concept has evolved into the 85/15 Rule: at least 85 percent of the problems can be corrected by improving the process (which is determined largely by management), and only 15 percent are under the employee’s control. In fact, if it appears that the problem does lie with the employee, the trouble often lies with poor instructions or inadequate training, which are both also system problems.

Once leaders understand that systems and processes create the majority of the problems, they will stop blaming individual workers. They will start focusing on improving systems, will start asking which processes are inefficient, and more likely will seek out solutions that will have long-term benefits.

The scientific method was first described by Francis Bacon around 1620. The scientific method can be described as hypothesis, experiment, and evaluation. Shewhart described manufacturing under statistical control as a three-step process of specification, production, and inspection. He specifically related this to the scientific method of hypothesis, experiment, and evaluation. Shewhart says that the statistician must improve the quality of goods by showing how to tighten the tolerance range. Deming later described this process as Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA). It is also known as the Deming Cycle, Shewhart Cycle, Deming Wheel, or Plan-Do-Study-Act.

A fundamental principle of the scientific method and PDCA is iteration: once a process is defined, measured, and analyzed, executing the cycle again will extend the knowledge further. Repeating the PDCA cycle can bring the process closer to the ultimate goal, usually a perfect operation or improved quality. One can envision an open coil spring, with each loop being one cycle of the PDCA cycle and each complete cycle indicating an increase in our knowledge of the system under study. PDCA provides feedback in spirals of increasing knowledge of the process to incrementally improve the next cycle.

PDCA is an iterative four-step problem-solving process typically used in quality control (see figure 1).

Figure 1. The Deming Cycle

• PLAN. Establish the processes necessary to deliver results in accordance with the objectives or specifications.
• DO. Implement the processes.
• CHECK. Monitor and evaluate the processes and results against objectives and specifications and report the outcome.
• ACT. Apply actions to the outcome for necessary improvement. This means reviewing all steps (Plan, Do, Check, Act) and modifying the process to improve it before its next implementation

Quality Management Methods

The check or study phase of the PDCA cycle makes use of a great many established quality management methods for analyzing and enhancing organizational performance. The following list provides an overview of the various methods used to measure and analyze processes:

• 5 Whys
• Analysis of variance
• ANOVA Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility (R&R)
• Axiomatic design
• Apollo Root Cause Analysis (ARCA)
• Business process mapping
• Catapult exercise on variability
• Cause-and-effects diagram (also known as fishbone or Ishikawa diagrams)
• Chi-square test of independence and fits
• Control chart
• Correlation
• Cost-benefit analysis
• Critical-to-Quality (CTQ) Tree
• Customer survey through use of Enterprise Feedback Management (EFM) systems
• Design of experiments
• Failure mode and effects analysis
• General linear model
• Histograms
• Homogeneity of variance
• Pareto charts
• Pick charts
• Process capability
• Regression analysis
• Run charts
• SIPOC analysis (Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, Customers)
• Stratification
• Taguchi methods
• Thought process map
• TRIZ (Russian acronym for “The theory of solving inventor’s problems”)

The following is a brief description of some of the more common tools used to analyze and enhance organizational performance.

Flowcharts

Flowcharts are simple tools that model each step in a process. Once the team can visually see the sequence of actions, it will have a common reference point for further analysis. There are a variety of formats for flowcharts.

A detailed in-line flowchart is one option, but can be time-consuming to create and generally is the least effective option (see figure 2). As the name implies, this type of flowchart contains a lot of information and describes in detail what happens at every step in the process. This type of chart would include everything, such as loops caused by rework or other steps that evolved over time to eliminate quality problems. Use detailed flowcharts sparingly. The detail they provide often includes unnecessary steps, and it can take weeks to develop one that everyone agrees on. By this time, the team may already be discouraged, and it has not even started on the more challenging step of analysis.

Figure 2. Detailed Flowchart

A top-down flowchart is a picture of the major steps involved in a process (see figure 3). To construct a top-down flowchart, first list the most basic steps across the top of a page or flip chart. This step should have no more than six or seven primary process steps. Then below each primary step list the major substeps (again, no more than six or seven). By limiting the amount of information on any single chart, the team is forced to narrow its focus to only those steps absolutely necessary for the completion of the process. Over time, invariably steps or complexities are added to a process to prevent rework or fix problems. The advantage of a top-down flowchart is that it eliminates the need to include tasks that are not essential for completion of the process, such as inspections, steps to prevent rework, or other steps that evolved over time to eliminate quality problems. Top-down flowcharts allow teams to focus on only the steps that need to happen, not what is actually happening. Once the team can see the major steps, it can take the time to ask questions, such as “Where do we go off track?” or “What causes us to go off track?” The answer to these questions points the team toward potential solutions, not just the problem itself. This process is typically faster and more efficient than developing detailed flowcharts that describe every step along the way.

Figure 3. Top-Down Flowchart

Deployment charts combine the two ideas: what happens in a process and who is responsible for each step in the process (see figure 4). This method is useful for teams to track what each person or work unit is supposed to do, where they fit into the sequence of the process, and how they relate to the other players at each stage. To construct a deployment chart, list the major steps of a process vertically on a page or flip chart. List each of the players (individuals or work units) across the top, and draw lines to create columns under each heading. Then mark the key action at each step in the appropriate box, denoting which players are involved in which steps. This format allows the team to visually see the major steps and the major players simultaneously.

Figure 4. Deployment Chart

A work flow diagram is a picture of the movement of people, materials, documents, or information in a process (see figure 5). It is developed by tracing the movements on a sketch of the floor plan or similar map of the work space. The power of these sketches lies in illustrating a system’s inefficiency in a clear picture. Places where work can be simplified often practically jump off the page. The interest lies in whether excessive or unnecessary movements can be eliminated by a more ideal layout, arrangement, flow path, or change in a process.

Figure 5. Work Flow Diagram

Pareto Charts

Pareto charts contain a series of bars whose heights reflect the frequency or impact of process problems (see figure 6). The bars are then rearranged in descending order in height from left to right. This format allows the team to identify the problems that have the most impact. The name of this chart derives from the Pareto Principle that 80 percent of the troubles are caused by 20 percent of the problems. This concept was first developed by the economist Vilfredo Pareto, later applied to the idea of management by Juran. Juran advises us to concentrate on the “vital few” sources of problems and not be distracted by those of lesser importance. Of course, in continuous improvement efforts, once a large problem is resolved, then lesser problems now show up as the next major cause of additional problems. The team can use tools such as brainstorming to identify the problems in a process or solutions to a problem, and use Pareto voting (also referred to as multi-voting) to rank them.

Figure 6. Sample Pareto Chart

Cause-and-Effect Diagrams

The cause-and-effect diagram, also referred to as a fishbone diagram because of its appearance, allows teams to map out a list of factors thought to affect a problem or desired outcome (see figure 7). This type of diagram was invented by Kaoru Ishikawa and is also referred to as an Ishikawa diagram. The concept behind the cause-and-effect diagram is to identify and organize possible causes of problems and factors needed to ensure the success of a particular effort or process. The problem, situation, or event is listed on the right of the chart. A central arrow is drawn to the left of the problem. Branches off the central arrow indicate main categories of factors that affect the problem. Each primary branch can include sub-branches that affect that particular primary branch. The advantage of this format is that it allows the team to visually see the relationship between the various factors that affect the process. Common factors that affect the process or solution typically include equipment, personnel, methods, materials, and environment. Because this format typically generates significant and detailed discussions, cause-and-effect diagrams are best used after the process has been described and the problem well defined. By this time, team members have a good idea of which factors to include on the diagram. It is important to remember that a cause-and-effect diagram will identify only possible causes to the problem. Only data can identify the actual causes.

Figure 7. Cause-and-Effect Diagram

Time Plots

Many factors that affect a process may change over time: Ingredients decay, new people are hired, tools and equipment wear down, and suppliers may change. Any of these changes can affect the data that are being collected to analyze a problem. Detecting these time-related shifts, trends, or patterns is an essential step in making long-lasting improvements. Time charts are a useful tool to track these process variables (see figure 8).

Figure 8. Time Plot

Control Charts

A control chart is a time chart that has an added feature; it includes the range of variation built into the system (see figure 9). This type of chart often includes upper and lower statistical control limits, which are calculated according to statistical formulas from data collected on the process. This type of chart allows the team to monitor a process to see whether it is in statistical control. Points that fall outside of the upper or lower control limits or fall into particular patterns indicate the presence of a special cause of variation, and they deserve investigation. The control chart gives the team information on variations that may come and go unpredictably. Data points that stay within the upper and lower control limits indicate that the process is performing as intended or that any slight variances are coming from common causes. It is important to note that control limits do not indicate what a process is supposed to do or what managers hope to achieve; they merely describe what the process is capable of doing. The only way to make improvements is to fundamentally change the process; however, the control chart will help monitor the impact or effectiveness of those changes. Once the team has identified and modified the root causes of the variations, the distance between the upper and lower control limits will narrow.

Figure 9. Control Chart

Dot Plots

Dot plots are simple graphs that show the frequency of various values or events (see figure 10). A dot is added to the plot above a particular factor or event each time that factor or event occurs. Dot plots are easily constructed and readily convey information. A quick look at the chart tells the team the range of measurements, the central values (mean, median, average), and how the data are distributed. These types of plots typically are used to get a quick look at the data before conducting further analysis. Sometimes the data will appear in the shape of a bell formed by the natural tendency of the data to cluster around a central value, such as the average or mean, and taper off on either end. Other times, the data may show abnormal patterns, such as those caused by errors or process variations.

Figure 10. Dot Plot

Scatter Diagram

Scatter diagrams differ from dot plots in that they show the relationship between two variables or characteristics (see figure 11). In fact, the most powerful aspect of a scatter diagram is its ability to visually show the relationship between variables. The control parameter or independent variable is customarily plotted along the horizontal axis. The measured or dependent variable is customarily plotted along the vertical axis. A scatter diagram can suggest various kinds of correlations between variables with a certain confidence level. Correlations may be positive (rising), negative (falling), or null (uncorrelated). If the pattern of dots slopes from lower left to upper right, it suggests a positive correlation between the variables being studied. If the pattern of dots slopes from upper left to lower right, it suggests a negative correlation. A line of best fit, or trend line, can be drawn to study the correlation between the variables. An equation for the correlation between the variables can be determined by established best-fit procedures. For a linear correlation, the best-fit procedure is known as a linear regression.

Figure 11. Scatter Diagram

Process Improvement Methodologies

Rate of change or the rate of improvement is a key competitive factor in today’s world. PDCA allows for major jumps in performance or transformational breakthroughs, as well as frequent small or incremental improvements. The PDCA cycle or improvement activities can be implemented in several methods. Some of the most popular include Lean, Six Sigma, Kaizen, and Business Process Improvement.

Lean

Lean production, which is often known simply as “Lean,” is the optimal way of producing goods or services through the removal of waste and implementing flow and value stream mapping. The theory is based on the concept that removing wasteful activities or non-value-added activities will improve productivity and improve the organization’s ability to provide quality products or services. The focus of Lean is to increase speed and information feedback. Two key components in the Lean process include the “pull” system and Value Stream Mapping.

The “pull” system is an important concept in Lean production and involves looking at the throughput or yield. Traditional manufacturing used the “push” concept, making large batches of product and “pushing” them to each downstream operation whether or not they are ready for them. The pull concept involves controlling cycle time, process time, lead time, touch time, and the rate of pace at which the customer expects to receive goods, products, or services. This leads to the concept of just-in-time delivery. The Lean process can lead to reduced inventory, quicker delivery and lower costs related to delivering the final product or service.

Value stream mapping is a Lean technique used to analyze the flow of materials and information currently required to bring a product or service to a consumer. It is also known as material and information flow mapping. The process includes the following steps:

1. Identify the target product, product family, or service.
2. Draw a current state value stream map, which includes the current steps, delays, and information flows required to deliver the target product or service. This may be a production flow (raw materials to consumer) or a design flow (concept to launch). Standard symbols typically are used to represent supply chain entities.
3. Assess the current state value stream map in terms of creating flow by eliminating waste.
4. Draw a future state value stream map.
5. Implement the future state.

Six Sigma

“Six Sigma” is a registered service mark and trademark of Motorola, Inc. It is a business management tool that seeks to identify and remove the causes of defects and errors in system processes. It uses a set of quality management methods, including statistical methods, and creates a special infrastructure of people within the organization who are experts in these methods. Each Six Sigma project follows a defined sequence of steps and has quantified targets.

Six Sigma was originally developed as a set of practices designed to improve manufacturing processes and eliminate defects, but its application was subsequently extended to other types of business processes as well. In Six Sigma, a defect is defined as anything that could lead to customer dissatisfaction. Six Sigma was heavily inspired by six preceding decades of quality improvement methodologies, such as quality control, Total Quality Management (TQM), and Zero Defects, based on the work of pioneers such as Shewhart, Deming, Juran, Ishikawa, Taguchi, and others.

The term “Six Sigma process” comes from the notion that if one has six standard deviations between the mean of a process and the nearest specification limit, practically no items will fail to meet the specifications. Processes that operate with “Six Sigma quality” over the short term are assumed to produce long-term defect levels below 3.4 defects per million opportunities (DPMO). Six Sigma’s implicit goal is to improve all processes to that level of quality or better (see figure 12).

Figure 12. Six Sigma Process

Like its predecessors, Six Sigma asserts that:

• Continuous efforts to achieve stable and predictable process results (i.e., reduce process variation) are of vital importance to business success.
• Business processes have characteristics that can be measured, analyzed, improved, and controlled.
• Achieving sustained quality improvement requires commitment from the entire organization, particularly from top-level management.
• A clear commitment to making decisions should be made on the basis of verifiable data, rather than assumptions and guesswork.

A feature that sets Six Sigma apart from previous quality improvement initiatives is a special infrastructure of experts to lead and implement the Six Sigma approach. Six Sigma borrows martial arts ranking terminology to define a hierarchy that includes several key roles for its successful implementation.

• Executive Leadership includes the chief executive officer and other members of top management. They are responsible for setting up a vision for Six Sigma implementation. These leaders also empower the other role holders, or players, with the freedom and resources to explore new ideas for breakthrough improvements.
• Champions are responsible for Six Sigma implementation across the organization in an integrated manner. The Executive Leadership typically selects them from upper management levels. Champions also act as mentors to Black Belts.
• Master Black Belts, identified by the Champions, act as in-house coaches. They devote 100 percent of their time to Six Sigma. They assist Champions and guide Black Belts and Green Belts. Apart from statistical tasks, their time is spent on ensuring consistent application of Six Sigma across various functions and departments.
• Black Belts operate under Master Black Belts to apply Six Sigma methodology to specific projects. They primarily focus on project execution, whereas Champions and Master Black Belts focus on identifying projects.
• Green Belts are the employees who take up Six Sigma implementation along with their other job responsibilities. They operate under the guidance of Black Belts.

Six Sigma has two key methodologies: DMAIC and DMADV, which were both inspired by Deming’s PDCA Cycle. DMAIC is used to improve an existing business process, whereas DMADV is used to create new product or process designs.

DMAIC

The basic methodology consists of the following five steps:

• Define process improvement goals that are consistent with customer demands and the organization’s strategy.
• Measure key aspects of the current process and collect relevant data.
• Analyze the data to verify cause-and-effect relationships. Determine what the relationships are and attempt to ensure that all factors have been considered.
• Improve or optimize the process based on data analysis.
• Control to ensure that any deviations from target are corrected before they result in defects and continuously monitor the process.

Figure 13. DMAIC

With strategic goals in mind, an executive team identifies areas or processes on which to focus that are consistent with customer demands and the organization’s strategy. Based on that analysis, an improvement project is then initiated. Through a rigorous methodology, a project team determines customer needs (DEFINE) and gathers information on the current (as-is) process performance (MEASURE). This examination reveals issues and problems in the existing process. In ANALYZE, root causes of the issues or problems are identified and confirmed with data. Once the causes have been established, solutions are developed and implemented (IMPROVE), followed by actions to ensure that the improved process is standardized and resulting gains are maintained (CONTROL) (see figure 13).

DMADV

The basic methodology consists of the following five steps:

• Define design or process goals that are consistent with customer demands and the organization’s strategy.
• Measure and identify characteristics that are critical to quality and process capabilities.
• Analyze to develop and design or process alternatives to select the best alternative.
• Design details, optimize the design or process, and plan for design or process verification.
• Verify the design or process, set up pilot runs, and ultimately implement the process.

Figure 14. DMADV

In DEFINE, the purpose and scope of the project are established. In MEASURE, customer data are translated into critical-to-quality characteristics (i.e., design measurements) that the design must meet. Next, the project team generates and evaluates innovative concepts to determine the one that will best meet the design requirements (ANALYZE). High-level designs are then developed and tested (DESIGN). At this point, the design that has tested best is verified against the design requirements and validated against the intended use (VERIFY). Finally, the new design is transitioned to the process owners for rollout, implementation, and control, completing the DMADV methodology (see figure 14).

The difficulty of Six Sigma is that it was designed for manufacturing processes. The biggest variance in the service delivery arena is related to the nonstandard behaviors of people. The concepts can be effectively applied to facilities management, however, because every service is process driven. Leaders should guide the process to help resisters to change and should adopt new methodologies that remove non-value-added work. To provide Six Sigma service, an organization must be proficient at managing existing processes, committed to process improvement, and willing to adopt new processes.

Kaizen

Kaizen (Japanese for “improvement”) is a Japanese philosophy that focuses on continuous improvement throughout all aspects of life. When applied to the workplace, kaizen activities continually improve all functions of a business, from maintenance to management and from the chief executive officer to the front-line workers. By improving standardized activities and processes, kaizen aims to eliminate waste. Kaizen was first implemented in several Japanese businesses, including Toyota, during the country’s recovery after World War II, and has since spread to businesses throughout the world.

Kaizen is a daily activity, the purpose of which goes beyond simple productivity improvement. It is a process that, when done correctly, humanizes the workplace, eliminates overly hard work, and teaches people how to perform experiments on their work using the scientific method. With this philosophy, people learn to spot and eliminate waste in business processes.

To be most effective, kaizen must operate with three principles in place:

• Consider the process, and the results, so that actions to achieve effects are discovered.
• Think systemically about the whole process to avoid creating problems elsewhere in the process.
• Take a learning, nonjudgmental, nonblaming approach to the reexamination of the assumptions that resulted in the current process.

Although kaizen usually delivers small continuous improvements, the culture of continual aligned incremental improvements and standardization yields large results in the form of compound productivity or process improvement. Hence, the English usage of kaizen can be “continuous improvement.”

Business Process Improvement

Business Process Improvement (BPI) is a systematic approach to help an organization optimize its underlying processes to achieve more efficient results. Most BPI techniques were developed and refined for manufacturing, although many of the core principles and methodologies can be successfully adapted to work in the service-based environment.

Similar to other improvement methodologies, BPI works by:

• Defining the organization’s strategic goals and purposes: Who are we, what do we do, and why do we do it?
• Determining the organization’s customers (or stakeholders): Who do we serve?
• Aligning the business processes to realize the organization’s goals: How do we do it better?

Although BPI has similarities and uses many of the same tools as the other methodologies, the goal of BPI is a radical change in the performance of an organization, rather than a series of incremental changes (compared with TQM or kaizen). Hammer and Champy stated that the process was meant not to impose trivial changes, such as 10 percent improvements or 20 percent cost reductions, but was to be revolutionary.

Employees Working Together

Creating project teams is an important dimension of change management. A single person can make a significant difference in an organization. But rarely does a single person have enough knowledge or experience to understand everything that goes on in a process. Major gains in quality and productivity can be achieved through the use of teams. Pooling the skills, talents, knowledge, and perspectives of various individuals invariably produces better results than individual investment. With proper training, teams often can tackle complex and complicated problems with long-lasting and effective results. Besides the pooling of individual skills, the team also provides mutual support between team members. The synergistic energy created by an effective team can produce results that far exceed the original vision.

Therefore, it is important to understand where project teams fit into the overall quality effort and how to use them properly. Active involvement and high visibility of project teams can determine the success or failure of any quality effort. To ensure the team’s success, it is critical to consider certain aspects. The team needs to have a clear and precise mission. Leaders must meet regularly with the team to help the team stay focused, provide necessary resources, or tear down organizational cultural roadblocks. The team members need to understand how to blend teamwork and scientific methods. The team needs to be empowered to think outside of the traditional hierarchical boundaries. The team needs to understand that making improvements is not easy; patience and persistence are a necessity. Team members also need to understand team dynamics.

It is important that the leaders and the teams not get discouraged if during the middle of a three- to five-year plan they have not noticed immediate results. Too often an organization loses sight of where it intends to go and makes radical changes in mid-cycle. Patience and persistence are necessary virtues of any effective leader or quality improvement team. The ordinary project team is complicated. Team members must work out personal differences, find strengths on which to build, balance commitments, and learn how to improve. When a team runs smoothly, members can concentrate on the primary goal of improving a process. In contrast, a team that fails to build relationships will waste time on struggles for control and endless discussions that lead nowhere.

Knowing what to expect as the team progresses will enable leaders to anticipate and address difficulties. Leaders can help avoid many disruptions and be better prepared for those that cannot be avoided. On the surface, it would seem that managing the team efforts is simply related to improving the process. If, indeed, these were the team’s only concerns, progress would be easy. When people form into groups, however, something seems to get in the way of efficient progress. Team members bring in many personal aspects, including conflicting emotions like excitement and anxiety about being on the team, loyalty to their divisions or departments or previous processes, and nervousness about what they have to offer or their role on the team. If left unattended, these personal aspects can inhibit the team’s effectiveness.

As the team members gradually learn to cope with the emotional and group pressures they face, the team goes through fairly predictable stages: forming, storming, norming, and performing. More experienced teams and team members will progress though these steps rather quickly. Less experienced teams may take longer to progress through these steps, and the leader must reinforce that these steps are to be expected.

During the forming stage, members cautiously explore the boundaries of acceptable group behavior. This is a stage of transition from individual to member status. Because there is so much going on to distract members’ focus in the beginning, little that concerns the specific goal is accomplished. This stage is perfectly normal, and leaders must allow time for the team to form.

Storming is probably the most difficult stage for the team. They begin to realize that the task is different, and more difficult than first imagined, so members can become testy, defensive, blameful, or overzealous. Impatient about the lack of progress, but still too underdeveloped as a team to know much about decision making or the scientific method, members can argue about just what actions the team should take. Team members try to rely solely on their personal and professional experience, resisting any need for collaboration. During this stage, team members may have little energy to spend on the task at hand; however, with guidance, they will begin to understand one another.

During the norming stage, members begin to reconcile competing loyalties and responsibilities. They begin to accept the team, team ground rules, their roles on the team, the individuality of other team members, and the individual qualifications that each member brings to the team. Emotional conflict is reduced as previous individual competitiveness is replaced with group cooperation. As team members begin to work out their differences, they now have more time and energy to focus on the primary goal. At this point, the team is able to start making significant progress.

During the performing stage, the team has resolved its many relationships and expectations. The team can start performing—that is, diagnosing and solving problems—and actually can have an impact on implementing changes. At this point, team members have discovered and accepted other members’ strengths and weaknesses and have discovered how they can contribute. Members begin to develop insights into personal and group processes, and they are better able to identify productive process changes. The leader will know when the team has reached this point because the team now is able to accomplish significant progress.

Understanding this normal pattern for maturing groups will keep the leaders from overreacting to normal problems and setting unrealistic expectations that only add to frustration. Many team efforts have failed because the leaders did not recognize this normal and necessary process. Teams have been dismantled because leaders were not seeing immediate results or were experiencing their own frustration with the process. It is often said that group decisions are far more effective than individual decisions, so leaders must allow the group to mature before the team concept can achieve its full potential. Abandoning a team approach to process improvement often can have far more detrimental effects than not having started the team in the first place. Abandoning a team during the maturity process can disillusion employees, squelch initiative, and create an atmosphere of distrust in the leadership.

Leaders must recognize that teams have a normal roller-coaster of emotional highs and lows. With every step forward, the future looks bright and team members are optimistic. No matter how well a team works together, however, progress is never smooth. As progress swings from forward to stalled, and then from stalled to backward, the mood of the team will swing as well. The positive feelings of hopefulness and optimism may last for a while, but they usually change to boredom and impatience as the project gets under way and the team realizes how much remains on the road to success. The elation that results from certain stages of the process often can change to despair if the team does not understand these highs and lows of team dynamics. For example, often the initial data collection and analysis process uncovers mistakes in data collection procedures, and the team has to go back and do it again.

At this point, the leaders need to provide encouragement. Improving each step of the change process is part of the process. If the data collection team determines that the process for gathering the data is flawed, the team needs to understand that this is a success. The flaw in the data-gathering process was not known until the data were gathered and analyzed. This step has pointed to a part of the process that needs to be improved to develop more meaningful measurement factors. Had the initial data not indicated a problem with the collection process, the problem would never have been uncovered—that is, the team cannot adjust something it is not aware of. The team occasionally will need the leader to reinforce this concept to respark the team’s emotional state.

The maturity pattern and emotional state of each team is different. Guidance leaders need to understand and accept that changes in attitude, just like growth stages, are normal. The leaders and the teams must develop patience and persistence. Too many process improvement efforts have been abandoned in mid-cycle because these concepts were not fully understood. Abandoning a change process, just like abandoning a team, in mid-cycle can create disillusionment, squelch initiative, and create an atmosphere of distrust. Once employees reach this state of mind, it is difficult to encourage them to participate in another change initiative. Deming notes that lack of constancy is one of several deadly diseases that will stand in the way of any effective quality transformation effort.

Tools for Making Team Decisions

Anyone who has any experience working with teams will appreciate the difficulty in developing creative ways to approach a task. It is sometimes even more difficult to select only one or two items to focus on from all of the available options. Three of the most common techniques used by teams to ease this effort are brainstorming, multivoting, and the nominal group technique.

Brainstorming is one of the easiest and most enjoyable ways to generate a list of ideas. A successful brainstorming process allows people to be as creative as possible and does not restrict their ideas in any way. This free-form approach can generate excitement in the group, equalize involvement, and result in original solutions to problems. The team needs to discuss the ground rules before starting the brainstorming process. Typical guidelines include the following: (1) there are no silly ideas, (2) think outside the box, (3) hitchhiking on someone else’s idea is perfectly acceptable, (4) no discounting of ideas, and (5) no discussion of ideas (there is plenty of time for that at the next stage). It is not uncommon for ideas that may seem totally unorthodox when first suggested to be the best solutions in the long run.

Multivoting, also known as Pareto voting, is an effective method of reducing a number of ideas to the most important or popular. This is accomplished through a series of votes; each cutting the list in half. Even an extensive list of 30 to 50 items can be reduced to a workable number in four to five votes. Multivoting often follows a brainstorming session to identify the few items worthy of immediate attention. The process involves generating a list of ideas. If two or more items seem to be related, they should be combined, but only if the group agrees. Once all related items have been combined, renumber the items if necessary. The team then begins the voting process.

The nominal group technique (NGT) is a more structured approach than brainstorming and multivoting to narrow down a list of options. This approach is called “nominal” because during the session the group does not engage in the usual amount of interaction typical of a real team. NGT is an effective tool when there are highly controversial issues or when the team is stuck in disagreement. The first step is formalized brainstorming, but this step is conducted in silence, with each member writing down their own ideas. When everyone is done, a facilitator goes around the table and allows each member to read aloud one idea off their list. Each idea is added to a flip chart. Discussion continues around the table until everyone has completed their list (or until a previously agreed-on time has expired). Once all of the ideas are listed, the facilitator asks if there are any questions about any of the listed ideas. This process is designed to allow the group to clarify and understand ideas on the list. Once this step is completed, the facilitator assists with combining similar ideas, but only with agreement from the originator of the idea. The next step is similar to multivoting, but again is more formalized and conducted by silent voting. Depending on the number of items to choose from, each member is allowed to select their top four to eight choices. These choices are then ranked in priority order. Once all members have voted, the votes are collected and tallied. The results of the tally will produce a Pareto-like chart that ranks the group’s results. The group can then discuss the results. If there is agreement, then the process is complete and the group can decide what to do next. If there is continued disagreement, the group can focus on investigating the top two or three items that received the highest scores.

It is important that team members understand the concept of consensus building. Consensus building is the process of finding a proposal acceptable to enough of the members that all can support it; no member opposes it. Consensus building is not a majority vote. Consensus building requires time; active participation by all team members; skills in communication, listening, conflict resolution, and discussion facilitation; creative thinking; and open-mindedness. To reach consensus, the team must allow each member to participate equally, and this may require several rounds of discussion and solution modification. Not all decisions require consensus, and it is probably impossible to have such agreement in any group, so the team should agree in advance as to when to push for consensus. When consensus building is required, the three techniques—brainstorming, multivoting, and NTG—can be effective structured ways to reach consensus.

Basic Steps in Using the Scientific Method to Solve Problems

When teams are formed to assist with the change management process, they need to be aware of basic strategies of the scientific approach to problem solving. These steps include: understanding the process, collecting meaningful data, identifying root causes of problems, developing appropriate solutions, and making effective changes.

The first step in any team process improvement effort is to understand the process. The team should understand how it operates, who is involved with what steps, what it is supposed to accomplish, who the customers are, and what the customers expect. Discussing these issues generally will help the team come to a common understanding of the process and its goal, identify any inconsistencies, and highlight any glaring problems. With this knowledge, the team will almost always be able to develop better procedures. Many mistakes or errors are related to the process, and these errors can be eliminated by making simple changes to a process. The team should take time to evaluate where the most common mistakes occur. The team can identify procedures that are less error prone by asking such questions as: Would changing the order of the steps prevent mistakes? Would changing a form prevent mistakes? Would using a checklist prevent mistakes? Or, would providing clear instructions that are graphically illustrated and prominently displayed prevent mistakes? The team should discuss whether changes in the work environment would be beneficial, such as changing the work layout or using a device that checks the completion of a procedure. The team should take time to be creative and think of entirely new procedures that are less error prone.

Collecting meaningful data may be one of the most important strategies teams will use. Collecting unreliable data or developing poor collection methods can lead teams in the wrong direction, bring teams to the wrong conclusion, or fail to bring about the desired results. Collecting too much data can lead to analysis paralysis. Therefore, teams should take time to discuss why they are collecting data, what data will be the most meaningful, how the measured data will improve the process, and what process is the most effective for collecting the data. Meaningful data must be both consistent and stable. Data are consistent if two people who measure the same thing get essentially the same results. Data are considered stable when the results do not show signs of variation due to special causes. Ignoring these two concepts usually leads to wasted effort.

Identifying the root cause of problems is essential for developing permanent solutions to problems. Sometimes it is easy to tell when a problem is first observed, but it is hard to know when it first occurs. At other times, employees may think a particular problem happens all the time, when in fact the specific cause of the problem is isolated. Jumping to conclusions without identifying the root cause of problems often leads to wasted time and resources. The team should spend time discussing the definition of the problem and studying the cause of the problem. The team may invite other people who have specific knowledge of the process to provide input. The more time spent understanding the cause and effect of the problem, the better the team will be at identifying the root cause. Statistical methods often are useful in this step of the improvement process.

The crux of the scientific method is to develop solutions that really solve the problem. The only way to truly solve problems is to eliminate their causes. To develop effective solutions, the team may need to investigate various alternative solutions. The team should avoid jumping to conclusions, because it is common for people to assume they know the cause of the problem and the solution before they even start the process. All hunches must be supported by data, or they are not data-based decisions. There is value in having a “gut” feeling; however, if the gut feeling evolved based on erroneous data, it can lead to erroneous conclusions. In that case, meaningful and lasting solutions generally will not be developed. If the hunch turns out to be correct and is supported by data, the team invariably learns something about the process. More often, the best solution turns out to be something different than what was originally anticipated. The team should be patient and collect data on a variety of alternative strategies, and it should avoid simply charging ahead with what appears to be the best solution. Once special causes of variance are eliminated and the process becomes closer to statistical control, the team can discuss how it might make fundamental changes to the process to tighten the variance.

After the team has identified the root cause of a problem and an effective solution, the next step is to implement the change. This may sound easy; however, the organization’s culture often can be the biggest roadblock to making effective change. The team should make certain to include the organization’s leadership in the plan, and identify the major sequence of events that are required to implement that plan. The team should look ahead, anticipate resources and training if necessary, discuss the best method to communicate and sell the proposed changes, and think about what to do if problems arise.

By this time, the team should have a solid understanding of the process and should have eliminated the sources of problems from the process. Before bringing the project to an end, the team should develop a plan to make continuous improvement—a constant, never-ending part of the process. This may include keeping records up-to-date, monitoring key performance indicators (KPIs), and benchmarking.

Identifying Trends

It is well known that it is difficult to manage something that cannot be measured. So how does the change leader identify current trends or areas that need improvement? What is available to help the leaders answer questions such as: Are we making adequate investments in our infrastructures to remain competitive? Are we making adequate investments in our resources to sustain excellence? Are we providing quality service? Are we providing an environment that creates employee satisfaction? Are we addressing the changes that drive actual or perceived performance excellence? Are we effectively utilizing available technologies? Are we changing with the times and doing so fast enough to keep pace?

Various aspects of the facilities management organization can be measured to provide feedback to the change leader. Some of the relevant measures and indicators include facilities inspections and audits, financial and expenditure reports, operating costs, staffing ratios, and utility data. Other pertinent measurements include process KPIs, such as work order utilization, planned versus unplanned labor hours, schedule compliance, PM versus breakdown labor hours, storeroom turnover, and percentage of work order backlog.

One way to stay current is to remain active, listen, and network. Active involvement with national and regional professional organizations, such as APPA, and attendance at education forums can provide valuable trend information. Participation in the APPA Thought Leader Series can provide invaluable insight into current and emerging trends. Networking with peers provides information on what others are doing, or how they are doing it. Reading trade journals, such as the Facilities Manager, or publications, such as Educational Facilities and the Impact of Technology, Expectations and Competition, an APPA Thought Leaders Series publication that includes the top 10 critical facilities issues, can provide information on current and progressive industry changes.

More formal tools are available to the change manager as well. The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is a tool that can be used to measure progress in various key areas and to ensure that change efforts align with the organization’s strategic plan. Measurements using KPIs and benchmarks can provide both internal and external assessment of progress and status.

Balanced Scorecard

An organization’s strategic goals should provide the key direction for any change management effort. This alignment can be brought about by integrating programs like the BSC into the change initiative. For example, when deploying BPI or Six Sigma, projects can be identified on the basis of how they fit into the organization’s BSC agenda.

The BSC is a performance planning and measurement framework designed to execute and monitor the organizational strategy by using a combination of financial and nonfinancial measures. It is designed to translate vision and strategy into objectives and measures across four balanced perspectives: financial, customers, internal business process, and learning and growth. It provides a framework ensuring that the strategy is translated into a coherent set of performance measures.

The BSC complements financial measures with operational measures on customer satisfaction, internal processes, and the organization’s innovation and learning activities. It allows management to look at the organization from various perspectives such as the following:

• How is the department viewed by its customers?
• What must the department do to excel?
• Can the department continue to improve, change, and create value to remain effective?
• Is the department effectively utilizing its resources?

Implementing BSCs typically includes four processes:

• Translating the vision into operational goals
• Communicating the vision and linking it to individual performance
• Business planning
• Providing feedback and learning, and adjusting the strategy accordingly

These four stages should be representative of the organization’s shared vision. Ultimately, these measures should help to communicate the organization’s strategies and goals, motivate actions, and provide guidance and feedback for their attainment. Thus, for an organization to reap the full potential of the BSC process, it must first define its mission, determine major departmental objectives, and select strategic initiatives. The entire BSC design and implementation process easily can take up to two years or more, so it is critical for the organization’s leaders to remain patient and persistent. Utilizing effective change management skills will help to guide the process.

Grouping performance measures into general categories (perspectives) can aid in the gathering and selection of appropriate performance measures for the enterprise. Four general perspectives have been proposed by the BSC:

• Financial perspective
• Customer perspective
• Internal process perspective
• Learning and growth perspective

The financial perspective examines whether the organization’s implementation and execution of its strategy are contributing to bottom-line improvement. This perspective can be used to evaluate the ability of the organization to manage its operations and costs.

The customer perspective defines the value that the organization will apply to satisfy customers. The measures that are selected for the customer perspective should measure the value that is delivered to the customer, which may involve time, quality, performance and service, and cost. Fast-changing customer needs underscore the importance of aligning business processes to achieve higher customer satisfaction. It is imperative in any change initiative that the “voice of the customer” be heard, and factored in, when reviewing or redesigning any process.

The internal process perspective is concerned with the processes that create and deliver value to the customer. It focuses on all the activities and key processes required for the organization to excel at providing the value expected by the customers both productively and efficiently. These can include both short-term and long-term objectives as well as incorporating innovative process development to stimulate improvement. This perspective measures internal processes for functions, such as operations management (improving asset utilization, supply chain management, etc.), customer management (expanding and deepening relations), innovation (new products or services), regulatory (effective control and compliance), and social (establishing good relations with the external stakeholders).

The learning and growth perspective is the foundation required for sustaining an organizational change culture. It focuses on the intangible assets of an organization that are required to support the value-creating processes. The learning and growth perspective is concerned with the jobs (human capital), the systems (information capital), and the climate (organization capital) of the enterprise.

Christopher K. Ahoy suggested adding two additional perspectives: information technology and knowledge management.

The information technology perspective is concerned with the all aspects of managing and processing information in an organization. It includes hardware and software, and internal and external applications.

The knowledge management perspective is concerned with how everyone in the organization collects, disseminates, and analyzes pertinent data, information, and knowledge in a timely fashion for the benefit of the organization as a whole.

It is important for the organization to understand that these various perspectives are not independent of each other. Performance drivers in one perspective may affect outcomes in other perspectives.

An effective BSC can be the catalyst for stimulating and sustaining continuous improvement. It can serve as the starting point for an organization-wide performance improvement system that pinpoints each division’s key contributions to the overall strategy. When used effectively, the BSC provides the framework for an organization to change its culture and the way it goes about doing business systematically and fundamentally.

Benchmarking and Key Performance Indicators

Change management tools place emphasis on measurable results. Accordingly, benchmarks and KPIs assume an important role in any change initiative. Depending on the life cycle of the process in question, benchmarks may be internal from within the organization, external from competing or noncompeting organizations, or dictated by the senior management of the organization as an aspirational target. KPIs are financial and nonfinancial metrics used to help an organization define and measure progress toward organizational goals.

Benchmarking

The key to organizational survival is to stay current by actively seeking and implementing best practices, both internal and external to the organization. Benchmarking can contribute directly toward this effort. Benchmarking is a process in which organizations evaluate various aspects of their processes in relation to best practice. This process allows organizations to develop plans on how to adopt such best practices. Used effectively, benchmarking can help organizations pursue continuous improvement by allowing them to continually challenge their practices.

Benchmarking can help set realistic goals and strategic targets, while also creating a sense of urgency. It can help increase sensitivity toward the changes in the expectations or industry practices. Benchmarking differs from comparative cost studies, because comparative cost studies tend to measure against averages, not best practice.

There are various kinds of benchmarking. Some of the most common ones include process benchmarking, performance benchmarking, and strategic benchmarking. In process benchmarking, the focus is on improving process capability, effectiveness, efficiency, or cost to enhance the final output. Performance benchmarking emphasizes the competitive position of an organization within its own industry, with a focus on metrics such as cost or quality. Strategic benchmarking seeks to identify the approaches that make high-performing organizations successful. This form of benchmarking is the most advanced and may require considerable resources and time, yet most breakthrough ideas come from this effort.

Benchmarking can be accomplished internally or industry-wide. Internal benchmarking is the most basic level of benchmarking, and it analyzes the areas that are most successful within the organization with the goal of establishing similar factors in other internal processes. Industry benchmarking can be accomplished on an individual basis or in collaboration with other organizations.

One challenge that benchmarking presents to the change leader is to prepare the organization for the fact that others may perform better. It is critical to communicate the message that because other organizations may be superior in some processes, it is not a negative reflection on the organization’s ability, knowledge, or dedication. To improve, even an organization that is performing well must be able to come to terms with the fact that it will need to emulate best practices.

Key Performance Indicators

KPIs frequently are tied to an organization’s strategy (as exemplified through techniques such as the BSC). They are used to measure the performance or progress of various steps in work processes. The key elements to be considered when identifying KPIs are as follows:

• Have a predefined business process.
• Have clear goals or performance requirements for the process.
• Have a quantitative or qualitative measurement of the results and comparison with set goals.
• Investigate variances and adjust processes or resources to achieve the desired goals.

When identifying KPIs, the acronym SMART is often applied. KPIs need to be:

• Specific
• Measurable
• Achievable
• Result-oriented or Relevant
• Time-bound

The typical off-the-shelf computer maintenance management systems (CMMS) come with more than 200 standard reports under the broad heading of asset management. Although these technologies have become tremendous tools to manage work, provide information for decision making, and measure performance, they need to be carefully managed. The BSC approach can be used to determine what outcomes need to measured and relevant KPIs. For example, each perspective of the BSC may include such KPIs as:

• Financial: facilities condition index (FCI), facility operating index (FOI), and facility renewal index (FRI)
• Processes: preventive maintenance (PM) versus breakdown maintenance and system reliability
• Employee: training and productivity
• Customer: response time and qualitative impressions of facilities by various stakeholders

APPA Facilities Performance Indicators

The APPA Facilities Performance Indicators (FPIs) survey is an annual collection and reporting of data (KPIs), creating a baseline for performance evaluation across education facilities. The FPI survey and resulting FPI reports take a comprehensive look at facilities’ operating costs, staffing levels and expenses, building and space costs and usage, strategic financial measures, and much more to provide a benchmark by which related institutions can compare, contrast, measure, and elevate their facilities’ performance.

The FPI report can depict statistics in three views: statistical reports, bar charts, and dashboard dials. The information is organized around eight main facilities functions: administration, construction/architecture and engineering, custodial services, energy/utilities, landscaping/grounds keeping, maintenance/trades, public safety, and other functions. Detailed reports are available for key indicators in areas such as the following:

• General Data: covers statistics that provides a broad profile of the participating institutions
• Operating Costs Report: covers basic statistics on daily facilities operations
• Strategic Financial Measures Report: covers key financial indicators such as the Facility Operating Current Replacement Value (CRV) Index, the Facility Operating Gross Square Foot (GSF) Index, the Facility Operating Gross Institutional Expenditures (GIE) Index, the Capital Renewal Index, the Facilities Condition Index, and the Capital Renewal/Deferred Maintenance/Renovation/Modernization Needs Index
• Building and Space Report: explores statistics on these topics; these ratios provide essential information on characteristics of educational facilities
• Personnel Data and Costs Report: looks at trends in salary levels, staffing of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions by position plus ratios, and measures that can be used for staffing and analysis of personnel costs
• Internal Processes Report: measures important, select facilities business processes
• Evaluations Report: displays the institution’s four performance self-evaluations in the survey and the results of their campus-based customer and employee satisfaction surveys; includes statistics on training and positions filled by internal candidates

The dashboard feature (see figure 15) is a flexible tool for setting goals at various levels within an organization and organizing dashboards into BSC perspectives. The dashboards overlay an institution’s measurement scores onto dials with visual comparisons to overall averages. Goals can be inserted to show the future desired performance positions.

Figure 15. Sample APPA FPI Dashboard

The FPI report is an essential tool that can be used to achieve organizational excellence through continuous improvement. The FPI survey and report enable the facilities professional to assess an organization’s financial performance, the effectiveness of its primary processes, the readiness of its employees to embrace the challenges of the future, and its ability to delight customers. The FPI report enhances the facilities professional’s ability to develop and analyze solid information supporting organizational planning, reporting, operating, and change efforts.

Assessment Programs

A number of assessment programs are designed specifically for the facilities management organization to guide the change process. Three specific ones are the (1) APPA Facilities Management Evaluation Program, (2) Reliability Management Group, and (3) Sightlines.

Facilities Management Evaluation Program

The APPA Facilities Management Evaluation Program (FMEP) represents a leadership tool designed to serve organizations looking for a proven and successful approach to performance management and improvement. Jack Hug, Past APPA President, states, “It is made to order for the facilities management profession.”

The FMEP takes a system approach that includes seven section criteria and 57 subsections that are all part of a system that must be integrated to optimize organizational performance. The seven FMEP sections are Leadership, Strategic and Operational Planning, Customer Focus, Information and Analysis, Development and Management of Human Resources, Process Management, and Performance Results.

Patterned after the Baldrige National Quality Program Criteria for Performance Excellence, the FMEP criteria provide a framework for continuous improvement. The criteria are designed to help facility management organizations use a comprehensive and integrated approach to organizational performance management, and provide a profile of strengths and opportunities for improvement.

It is important to recognize that the work required to prepare for the FMEP is not an individual task. The best method is to involve a team or teams of people who have an interest in better understanding and using the FMEP criteria as a template for improving the organization. A team should consist of three to five members who represent employees from different levels throughout the organization.

The team composition will vary depending on the particular criteria category. Large facilities organizations may have multiple teams, each evaluating different FMEP criteria. Smaller institutions may have only a single team to assess all seven FMEP criteria categories.

The benefit of going through an FMEP is that the leadership of a facilities organization is required to review current practices. The process allows the organization to identify and make appropriate adjustment and improvements to overall effectiveness and efficiency. The result is an organization that improves quality and productivity, and ultimately provides improved customer service.

Reliability Management Group

The Reliability Management Group (RMG) offers a framework to guide the organization’s change process. The work management process consists of six steps on what the organization refers to as “The Wheel.” The Wheel is RMG’s graphic view of good reliability management. The sections of The Wheel are the Pain Zone, the Productivity Zone, Joint Prioritization, Daily Schedule Compliance, Collect and Utilize Data, the Proactivity Zone, Problem Solving, and Work Culture.

The Pain Zone is emergency work that is the most expensive type of maintenance. The Productivity Zone is where productivity is created by planning and scheduling work. Joint Prioritization is teamwork between departments such as Operations, Maintenance, Engineering, and Materials that together decide the order in which work should be accomplished. Daily Schedule Compliance is the most important measure in maintenance because it identifies both equipment reliability and work process reliability. Collect and Utilize Data is a critical step in the improvement process. The Proactivity Zone consists of various technologies or procedures that identify work early to skip the Pain Zone. Some of the most common processes include preventative maintenance (PM), predictive maintenance (PDM), condition-based maintenance (CBM), reliability-centered maintenance (RCM), and total productive maintenance (TPM). Problem Solving consists of work documentation, work measurement, and work analysis. Work Culture surrounds and affects every part of the entire process. The RMG Wheel correlates directly with the Deming Cycle of PDCA.

RMG’s Reliability Grid is a detailed, comprehensive framework for assessing the Reliability Process. The grid parallels the work management process and “The Wheel.” The grid has 88 cells and 491 criteria that comprehensively describe the characteristics of a low-cost, reliable work management process. The grid is a useful tool that brings objectivity and order to an often subjective and chaotic process. If used to its full potential, the grid leads to a thorough understanding of the work management process and the organization’s work culture. This can be a useful tool to guide the change process by defining what is, what can be, and how to get there.

Sightlines

Sightlines also uses a process that follows the PDCA cycle. Sightlines states that its goal is to enable colleges and university business officers and facilities leaders to manage the physical assets of a campus with the same analytical rigor with which they manage their financial assets. Sightlines has created a proprietary process to measure and monitor the performance of physical assets on college and university campuses to guide the change process. The firm refers to the process as the Return on Physical Assets (ROPA). The ROPA process was developed to illustrate the interrelationships among four key aspects of facilities management: asset reinvestment, annual stewardship, operating effectiveness, and customer service. Using the Sightlines measurement approach, an organization can transform data into action items. They transform data on 170 indicators into information by applying a QVQ (Quantify, Verify, Qualify) process. This information is transformed into knowledge by applying the ROPA model along with benchmarking to illustrate trends and opportunities. The knowledge gained from the ROPA model is then integrated with institutional long-range program and financial planning to identify action items. The Sightlines model can provide independent validation of organizational strengths and weaknesses and can discover the root causes for under-performing areas.

---