Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAO-09-014 - Facilities Management Audit Review J db KITCHENER Chief Administrator's Office Report To: Mayor Carl Zehr, Chair and Members of the Audit Committee April 6, 2009 Date of Meeti ng : Submitted By: Loretta Alonzo, Performance Measurement and Internal Auditor Kathryn Dever, Organizational Development Facilitator Prepared By: Ward(s) Involved: Date of Report: Report No.: Subject: All March 18, 2009 CAO-09-014 Facilities Management Organizational and Functional Review RECOMMENDATION: That the Audit Committee receive Report CAO-09-014 as information. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In November 2007 an organizational and functional review of the City's Facilities Management (FM) division was completed. Report CAO-09-014 serves to inform the audit committee of the completion of this review and the key findings and recommendations that emerged from the review. REPORT: A brief summary of the Review objectives, scope, findings and recommendations are included. Review Objectives The review was undertaken at the request of the General Manager of Corporate Services, the Department in which FM is housed. The situation driving the request was the high staff-to- supervisor ratio in the Division. At the time of the review two of the three Division Supervisors had a large number of staff reports, and budgeted funds were available to hire another Supervisor. Before doing so, however, it was deemed prudent to analyze the work processes and organizational structure and to determine the best alignment in order to achieve the strategic goals of the Division and the needs of the Corporation. The main objectives of the review were: 1. Identify best role for approved Supervisor position 2. Address staff-to-supervisor ratio 3. Gain understanding of Division evolution over time - roles/responsibilities, scope, facilities and staffing 4. Document and analyze work processes 5. Determine best alignment of functions 6. Identify areas of success and areas for improvement Review Scope and Methodology The scope of the review included analysis of the process flows, customer satisfaction levels and organizational structure for the division, with main recommendations focusing on the optimal organizational structure, and additional recommendations for improvements to also be included in the final report. The review did not include a detailed financial, cost effectiveness or controls review. Key Findings The organizational and functional review of the Facilities Management Division included various methods of data collections and analysis including interviews, surveys, research, benchmarking and process mapping. It was found that the Division has grown significantly in terms of scope, portfolio of assets, resources including budget and staff, and demand for service. The Division is a valued centralized service to other Departments, and FM staff are dedicated, knowledgeable, friendly and provide quality work. One key finding related to the high staff-to-supervisor ratios is that supervisors don't provide enough guidance, supervision or support to their staff. This has led to the necessity of front- line staff making decisions they are not necessarily qualified to make, a lack of appreciation for supervisors, and in some instances poor quality workmanship. The current organizational structure has the supervisors responsible for too many functions, making it impossible for them to devote enough proactive focus to anyone area. In particular, preventative maintenance has always taken a back-seat to ongoing repairs and emergencies. This leads to higher and more frequent repair costs and shortens the life of some assets. Several other key functions are not being given enough priority and warrant further review as to the causes and potential solutions. From a customer service perspective, customers would like to see more communications from FM regarding the status of their work orders, cost estimates, and final costing breakdowns. The lack of these communications causes customers to become frustrated when they have no idea when their project will be complete, how much it will cost, or how the charges are allocated. These findings are addressed in the recommendations. Recommendations Organizational Recommendations: 1. Make the following changes to the organizational structure: a. Create a new Custodial section b. Fill the approved Supervisory FTE as Custodial Supervisor of this new section c. Plan to create a second Custodial Supervisor through the 2009 budget process and split the two roles into day and afternoon shifts d. Move Locksmith, Alarms, and Corporate Emergency Preparedness to Security e. Move roof and A V equipment duties from Corporate Emergency Preparedness role to the appropriate area f. Make Security and Custodial report to the Director, instead of the Manager g. Group the administrative roles together and have them all report to the Director h. Create a new Mechanical/Aquatics section (Plumbers, Electricians, HV AC, Pool Operators) i. Create a new Maintenance section (Building Maintenance, Carpentry, Cabinetry) 2. Review Asset Management role and where it best fits 3. Review Property Management function and roles and responsibilities 4. Review custodial coverage and levels of service by facility 5. Review part time custodial positions to determine if any could be made full time 6. Review need for night shift custodial staff 7. Evaluate the transfer of Aquatics facilities to FM from CSD including levels of service 8. Continue to include adequate Security and Maintenance resources in future budgets for new facilities Process Recommendations: 9. Review process mapping with frontline staff to identify actual processes taking place, and identify gaps, means to improve, and best practices 10. Establish a process for documenting all outsourced jobs to track causes for outsourcing and monitor costs over time 11. Assess the cost effectiveness of providing services in-house Customer Service Recommendations: 12. Proactively provide customers information on work order/service request status, scheduling, progress, and closure, including an intermediate measure prior to implementation of the new work order management system 13. Provide cost estimates for facility maintenance, repair or renovation work, and consult with customers on various means and costs to carry out work, to allow for collaborative decision making on how to proceed 14. Provide clear and detailed information to Departments on costs charged back for work 15. Improve lead time and planning for annual Budget coordination with user Departments 16. Provide better quality control over the work of outside contractors including the involvement of frontline staff who will later maintain/repair the work done 17. Provide and better utilize energy management costs and savings information with individual facility users including more collaboration and consultation 18. Clarify roles and responsibilities for capital projects administration between FM and user Departments 19. Improve communications and linkages between FM sections and staff working out of different locations, for instance through the use of more cross-functional teams 20. Create customized custodial service agreements or checklists for each facility 21. Clearly define roles, responsibilities, accountabilities and improve communications on projects both within FM and for cross-Departmental work between FM and others 22. Work to improve in the 6 areas identified that have significant gaps between staff and customer perception of performance, namely: understanding the customer's business, listening/analyzing needs, follow-up with customer, being cost-effective/providing value for money, clear consistent policies/processes, and education of customer by FM FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None. Although some recommendations may require additional funds or staff resources, it will be left to the discretion of the Director of Facilities Management to bring those items through the budget process should they decide to implement them. COMMUNICATIONS: None. Kathryn Dever Organizational Development Facilitator Loretta Alonzo Performance Measurement and Internal Auditor