1 Performance Management Presentation Provide Basic Animal Life Support Team Members: Eileen Morgan, Dr. Charmaine Foltz, Jim Weed, Dennis Barnard, Andy Limerick, Alphie Cisar, Brent Morse, Wayne O'Brien, Sonia Love ORS National Institutes of Health 14 January, 2005
80
Embed
1 Performance Management Presentation Provide Basic Animal Life Support Team Members: Eileen Morgan, Dr. Charmaine Foltz, Jim Weed, Dennis Barnard, Andy.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Performance Management Presentation
Provide Basic Animal Life Support
Team Members:
Eileen Morgan, Dr. Charmaine Foltz, Jim Weed, Dennis Barnard, Andy Limerick, Alphie Cisar, Brent Morse, Wayne O'Brien, Sonia Love
ORS National Institutes of Health
14 January, 2005
2
Table of Contents
Main Presentation
Performance Management Plan
Customer PerspectiveC1a: AAALAC accreditation ratingsC1b: ACUC inspection ratings by typeC2c: Percentage of non-exempt animal census requiring socializationC2d: Percentage of attempted socializations that were successfulC3a: ORS Customer Scorecard ratings for animal husbandry and
clinical veterinary and technical services
Internal Business Process PerspectiveIB1a: Investigator response time to notifications of health statusIB1b: Percentage of holding agreements processed by beginning of
fiscal year
3
Table of Contents (cont.)
Main Presentation
Learning and Growth PerspectiveLG1a: Percentage of staff with desired credentials LG2a: Percentage of technicians fully trained on all procedures by
facilityLG2b: Percentage of facilities with one fully trained technician
Financial PerspectiveF1a: Unit cost of animal husbandry servicesF1b: Unit cost of clinical veterinary and technical servicesF1c: Unit cost of special environmental factors servicesF2a: Overall percentage of available housing utilizedF2b: Overall percentage increase in holding capacityF3a: Percentage dollar savings associated with caging purchase
strategy change
Conclusions
Appendix
4
Performance Management Plan
Eileen Morgan and Dr. Charmaine Foltz
Jim Weed, Dennis Barnard, Andy Smith, Alphie Cisar, Brent Morse, Wayne O'Brien, Sonia Love
Date: 1/10/05
Team Members
Service Strategy
Value PropositionBasic Life Support Services contributes to the advancement of NIH intramural research by providing reliable animal care and veterinary services as well as unique support services delivered by professional and credible personnel trusted to uphold AAALAC international standards.
Team Leaders
We will deliver to our customers a combination of high quality, cost-effective, and consistent reliable services. We will focus on enhancing the skills set of our workforce, streamlining business processes to improve timeliness and foster positive customer relationships.
Strategy Description
Performance Management Plan (PMP)
DS3: Control special environmental factors for animals
DS2: Perform clinical veterinary and technical services
DS1: Provide animal husbandry services
Discrete Services
Division Approval/Date: Associate Director Approval/Date:
Provide basic animal life support
Service Group
Operational Excellence
Customer Intimacy
Product Leadership
Growth
Sustain
Harvest
5
Relationship Among Performance Objectives
--- relationship between objectives in different perspectives
___ relationship between objectives within a perspective
most important objectives
C3: Increase Customer Satisfacton
CU
ST
OM
ER
FIN
AN
CIA
L
INT
ER
NA
L
BU
SIN
ES
S
LE
AR
NIN
G &
G
RO
WT
H
IB2: Ensure consistent reliable
services
F1: Minimize unit cost
LG2: Improve consistency of service
performance across facilities
LG1: Maintain and enhance staff competencies
PROVIDE BASIC ANIMAL LIFE SUPPORT
IB1: Improve timeliness of services
Date: December 19, 2003
C1: Maintain a high quality of animal care, veterinary
services and animal facilities with AALAC recommendations
C2: Demonstrate value of unique support services to
C3a: ORS Customer Scorecard ratings for animal husbandry and clinical veterinary and technical services
Improvement in ratings on comparable discrete services surveyed in previous years
TBD TBD Conduct survey in FY04 Q3
Morgan and Foltz
14
Customer Scorecard Methodology
• In FY04, modified ORS Customer Scorecard for animal husbandry and clinical veterinary and technical services
15
C3a: Customer Scorecard Ratings for Animal Husbandry and Clinical Veterinary and Technical Services
• Survey was distributed via email to APDs and PIs.• Data Collection began May 28, 2004.• Reminder emails sent June 11, 2004 and July 1,
2004.• Data collection ended July 20, 2004.• 20% response rate (N = 18 out of 92)• 39% (N = 7) were APDs and 61% (N = 11) were
PIs
16
C3a: Overall Satisfaction ratings with Animal Husbandry Services during the past 12 months
7.39
6.89
7.61
7.72
7.5
7.11
7.72
7.33
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Handling of Problems
Competence
Convenience
Responsiveness
Availability
Reliability
Timeliness
Quality
Unsatisfactory Outstanding
N = 18
17
C3a: Overall Satisfaction ratings with Clinical Veterinary and Technical Services during the past 12 months
7.64
7.36
7.71
7.5
7.71
7.86
7.86
8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Handling of Problems
Competence
Convenience
Responsiveness
Availability
Reliability
Timeliness
Quality
Unsatisfactory Outstanding
N = 14
18
Customer Perspective Summary
• ACUC ratings included 46 commendations, 77 minor requests, and 15 major deficiencies
• Attempted socializations of non-human primates increased from 50% to 56% in FY04
• 81% of the attempted socializations were successful• Customer survey was completed in July, FY04. The
overall mean on customer satisfaction for animal husbandry is 7.4 and for clinical veterinary and technical is 7.7. These means are about 2 points above FY02 ratings for each of the services.
19
Customer Perspective Planned Actions
• ACUC semi-annual reviews of program and facilities ongoing; Strive to minimize major deficiencies
• Increase percentages of attempted and successful socializations for non-human primates
• Customer survey is currently planned to be repeated FY06 to maximize response
IB1a: Investigator response time to notifications of health status
N/A TBD TBD Track and monitor quarterly. Take action as dictated by results.
Morse, Love
IB1b: Percentage of holding agreements processed by beginning of fiscal year
100% 100% 100% Track and monitor annually. Take action as dictated by results.
Morgan
IB1c: Average number of days to receive quality assurance test results on feed
TBD TBD TBD Working Group will review results and gather benchmark information for presentation to Advisory Team for their consideration on how DVR should handle quality assurance of feed and bedding going forward.
Barnard
IB1: Improve timeliness of service
22
IB1a: Investigator Response Time to Notifications of Health Status
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
April
May
June Ju
ly
August
Septe
mber
Pe
rce
nta
ge
% Response in 24 hours % Responded
Note: Data gathered from building 14C
23
IB1b: Percentage of Holding Agreements Processed by Beginning of Fiscal Year (as of 30 Sept)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
* FY03 FY04 FY05
Note: Zero percentage of holding agreements were processed by beginning of fiscal year in FY03
24
Internal Business Process PerspectiveSummary
• Of Investigators who responded, 86% responded within 24 hours
• 56% of Investigators responded• Holding agreements processed by first day in
fiscal year continues to be 100%
25
Internal Business Process PerspectivePlanned Actions
• Response time by PI’s will continue to be monitored to ensure appropriate veterinary care
• Continue 100% success at processing holding agreements by beginning of FY
F3a: Percentage dollar savings associated with selected purchase strategy changes and implemented process improvements
Calculated dollar savings in rack purchases, feed and bedding
TBD TBD Identify improvements in purchase strategies. Implement change. Track and monitor annually.
Morgan
42
F3a: Percentage Dollar Savings in Caging and Equipment Purchases
• In FY02, identified bulk purchasing as potential improvement to streamline purchasing process
27%
23% 22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
FY02 FY03 FY04
Pe
rce
nta
ge
% Dollar Savings
43
Financial PerspectiveSummary
• Unit Cost • Animal Husbandry Unit Cost is $1.82/animal cage
day • Veterinary and Technical Unit Cost is
$11.25/animal census• Special Environmental Factors combined are
$14.36/unit• Housing Utilized and Holding Capacity
continued to increase across DVR
• Bulk purchasing of caging resulted in 22% percent savings to DRV in FY04
44
Financial PerspectivePlanned Actions
• Unit Costs will continue to be calculated in future FY’s for cost containment purposes
• Housing Utilized • Maintain or increase leasing agreements
• Housing Capacities continue to grow • Use of new caging schemes, i.e., ventilated rodent
racks• Assess need to renovate areas in light of
budgetary constraints
45
Financial PerspectivePlanned Actions
• Savings in Caging Purchases • Continue to purchase bulk caging and equipment
to obtain best pricing
46
Conclusions
47
Conclusions from PMP
• Full AAALAC Accreditation was maintained• Continued monitoring ACUC semi annual reviews• Socializations were increased over FY02 and FY03• Investigator’s who respond, do so within 24 hours • Maintained Leasing Agreement Process consistent
with FY03 – 100% completed by first day of new FY• Identified an upward trend in Veterinary Certifications
48
Conclusions from PMP
• Tracking of Technician Proficiencies • 56% of small animal facilities were evaluated• 80% of technicians are fully trained on all proficiencies in
sample facilities• Of the 5 facilities evaluated, each identified one fully trained
technician
• Housing Utilized and Capacity• Continued to be innovative in use of animal housing space
utilizing new technology and transforming space to meet demand for housing different species
49
Conclusions from PMP
• Highlight initiatives for FY05• To successfully complete FY05 AAALAC program review and
site visit. • Strive to continue to increase socializations • Review response time data and process to ensure appropriate
veterinary care• Complete technician proficiencies for each veterinary
technician; implement large animal proficiency tracking; strive for increased percentage of fully trained technicians
• (Use Initiative Roadmap here) – should be the same.
50
Appendix
Appendix
Pages 2 – 9 of Performance Management Plan
Customer Perspective
C1c: ACUC inspection ratings by facilityC1d: ACUC inspection ratings by discrete serviceC2a: For control special environmental factors, number of
consultations, presentations and trainingsC2b: For control special environmental factors, number of
publications and abstracts C3b: ORS Customer Scorecard Ratings for overall DVR services
C3c: Number of commendations, minor requests/complaints, and major defects by type
C3d: Number of commendations, minor requests/complaints, and major defects by facility
C3e: Number of commendations, minor requests/complaints, and major defects by discrete service
51
Appendix (cont.)
Appendix
Internal Business Process PerspectiveIB1c: Average number of days to receive quality assurance test results on feed
IB1c1: Control chart analysis of feed quality test assurance results turnaround time by month
Learning and Growth Perspective
52
Appendix (cont.)
Appendix
Financial PerspectiveF2c: Percentage increase in holding capacity and housing utilized for building 10A rodents
F2d: Percentage increase in holding capacity and housing utilized for building 14B rodents
F2e: Percentage increase in holding capacity and housing utilized for building 14C rodents
F2f: Percentage increase in housing utilized for building 14B non- human primates
F2g: Percentage increase in housing utilized for buildings 103 and 104 non-human primates
IB1a: Investigator response time to notifications of health status
Comparison to FY02 results
TBD TBD Track and monitor quarterly. Take action as dictated by results.
Tenace
IB1b: Percentage of holding agreements processed by beginning of fiscal year
Comparison to FY02 results
100% 100% Track and monitor yearly. Take action as dictated by results.
Smith
IB1c: Average number of days to receive quality assurance test results on feed
Significantly improve FY02 turnaround time
TBD TBD Working Group will review results and gather benchmark information for presentation to Advisory Team for their consideration on how DVR should handle quality assurance of feed and bedding going forward.
Barnard
IB1c1: Control chart analysis of feed quality test assurance results turnaround time by month
Monitor Monitor Monitor Track and monitor periodically
Barnard
IB2: Ensure consistent reliable services
IB2a: Percentage of new projects holding an orientation meeting.
Approved orientation meeting definition and guidelines
95% 100% Projects will begin implementing guidelines in FY04. Track and monitor quarterly. Take action as dictated by results.