1 / 59

Performance Management Presentation (7) Manage and Administer Worksite Enrichment Program

Performance Management Presentation (7) Manage and Administer Worksite Enrichment Program. Lead: Timothy Tosten Members: Charly Abrew Joy Postell John Crawford Mary Ellen Savarese Christopher Gaines David Shea Carole Harman Kiana Timmons Pamela Jenkins

davidandrews
Télécharger la présentation

Performance Management Presentation (7) Manage and Administer Worksite Enrichment Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Performance Management Presentation(7) Manage and Administer Worksite Enrichment Program Lead: Timothy Tosten Members: Charly Abrew Joy Postell John Crawford Mary Ellen Savarese Christopher Gaines David Shea Carole Harman Kiana Timmons Pamela Jenkins Office of Research Services National Institutes of Health January 14, 2005

  2. Table of Contents PM Template ……………………………….………………………3 Customer Perspective……………………….……………………..7 Internal Business Process Perspective………………………………………………………34 Learning and Growth Perspective………………………………………………………45 Financial Perspective………………………………………………50 Conclusions and Recommendations………………………………………………58

  3. PMP Template- Page 2

  4. Relationship Among Performance Objectives

  5. High Impact Objectives

  6. Customer Perspective

  7. Customer Perspective

  8. Survey BackgroundPurpose • Use customer feedback to improve the work/life programs offered to the NIH community: • Child Care • Fitness Centers / Wellness Programs • Food Services (dining centers, coffee and snack bars, concession stands, vending machines) • Interpreting Services • Retail Programs (employee stores, banking services) • Assess importance of services offered, and their contribution to quality of work life. • Assess awareness of availability of NIH liaison (DoES staff) for work/life programs, and assess satisfaction with interactions with DoES staff. • Solicit comments on ideas for additional services and/or potential improvements to NIH employees’ quality of work life.

  9. Survey BackgroundMethodology • Original web-link for survey was made available for testing on Thursday, July 15, 2004 • Testing completed and survey e-mailed to NIH Staff-DC Area distribution list on Friday, August 27, 2004 • Survey initially became “unresponsive” when respondents entered comments that were over 255 characters or included a “special character” – Issue was resolved late Monday, August 30, 2004. During this time, over 1500 surveys were received despite the comment restriction. • Reminder sent on Thursday, September 9, 2004 • Respondents immediately began to experience a “database error “. On the same day, the server on which the survey was hosted was down for a few hours due to a network problem (presumably unrelated to the database error) – Issue was resolved later the same day. During this time, no surveys were received. • Survey closed on Monday, September 20, 2004 • Survey analysis completed on Monday, October 18, 2004

  10. Survey BackgroundDistribution Number of surveys distributed 26,731* Number of respondents 4,889 Response Rate 18 % *Census population estimates obtained from DFP effective May 15, 2004. Census number includes NIH employees, contractors, Postdocs, Visiting fellows, and Volunteers on-campus and in the local Bethesda area, but does not include students.

  11. FY04 Importance Ratings Mean Response N = 653 N = 3,212 N = 1,448 N = 2,394 N = 1,296 N = 2,790 N = 1,393 N = 2,561 N = 1,444 N = 2,583 N = 2,576 N = 239 N = 3,414 N = 285 N = 2,663 N = 227 Very Unimportant Very Important Note: ** Groups significantly different (p < .01)

  12. FY04 Quality of Work Life Ratings The work site enrichment programs (e.g., dining centers, concession stands, credit union, gift stores, child care, fitness centers) add to my quality of my work life here at NIH. N = 4,362 Mean = 4.11 Median = 4 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Note: 527 respondents skipped this question

  13. FY04 Quality of Work Life Ratings Did you know you have an NIH liaison for all of these programs? N = 4,392 15% 85% Number of Respondents Note: 497 respondents skipped this question

  14. FY04 Quality of Work Life Ratings Do you know how to contact an NIH liaison for these programs if you need to? N = 4,392 11% 89% Number of Respondents Note: 497 respondents skipped this question

  15. FY04 Quality of Work Life Ratings Have you contacted someone from the Division of Employee Services about any of the programs discussed in this survey during the past 6 months? N = 4,382 3% 92% 5% Number of Respondents Note: 507 respondents skipped this question

  16. FY04 Satisfaction RatingsInteraction with Division of Employee Services Staff Mean Response N = 220 N = 217 N = 219 N = 222 Note: Only answered by those who have contacted someone from the Division of Employee Services during the past six months.

  17. Customer Survey Summary • Importance of Services • Respondents were asked to rate the importance of services on a 10-point scale ranging from (1) Very Unimportant to (10) Very Important. • Respondents who have used service within past 6 months versus those who have not • There are significant differences between respondents who have used the services recently and those who have not. In all cases, respondents who have used the services recently find the services to be significantly more important than those who have not. • For those who have used the service, importance ratings range from a high of 9.04 (Fitness Center) and 9.01 (Child Care Services) to a low of 6.74 (Gift Store) and 7.16 (Vending Machines). All are above the midpoint of the scale. • For those who have not used the service, importance ratings range from a high of 5.61 (Fitness Center) and 5.16 (Dining Services) to a low of 4.08 (Vending Machines) and 4.13 (Gift Stores). • The fitness center seems to be rated highest in importance for both groups while vending machines and gift stores least important – regardless of use.

  18. Customer Survey Summary (cont.) • Importance of Services (cont.) • On- versus off-campus respondents • On and off campus respondent ratings differed significantly from each other. • In general, on campus respondents found services to be more important than off campus respondents with two exceptions. • Off campus respondents indicated that fitness centers were significantly more important to them than on campus respondents. • Vending machine importance did not differ significantly between respondents. • NIH Employees versus other respondents • NIH employee versus other respondents did not differ significantly with two exceptions. • NIH employees found concession stands to be more important to them than other respondents. • Other respondents found child care services to be more important to them than NIH employees.

  19. Customer Survey Summary (cont.) • Quality of Work Life Ratings • Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which the services offered by DoES contribute to the quality of the work life at NIH. The scale ranged from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. The mean rating of 4.11 indicates that respondents strongly agree that the services contribute to the quality of their work life. • Only 15% of respondents know that they have a NIH liaison for the services. • Only 11% of respondents know how to contact the NIH liaison. • Only 5% of respondents contacted someone from DoES during the past 6 months. Respondents (N = 225) who had contacted someone were asked to rate their satisfaction with their interaction on four dimensions. A 10-point scale ranging from (1) Unsatisfactory to (10) Outstanding was used. The following mean ratings were obtained: • Availability (7.43) • Responsiveness (7.46) • Competence (7.68) • Handling of Problems (7.09) • Their were no differences between on and off campus respondents or between NIH employees and others.

  20. Recommendations & Actions • Communicate the survey results to important stakeholder groups • ORS Senior Management • DoES staff • Survey respondent pool • DoES ACTIONS • Present results to ORS Director and staff • Have 15 minute portion of DoES staff meeting dedicated to results • Create a webpage for broadcasting our results

  21. Recommendations & Actions (cont.) • Communicate DoES services and capabilities to customers • Provide survey results to survey respondent pool • Consider ways to provide information on services to the NIH community (e.g., website, newsletters, emails, orientation for new employees, etc.) • DoES ACTIONS • Attend NIH Orientation Sessions every two weeks • Publish a series highlighting our results (News2Use, Catalyst) • Devise other “new” means of getting the word out • Create a webpage for broadcasting our results

  22. Recommendations & Actions (cont.) • Review comments in presentation for specific issues that can be tackled • DoES ACTIONS • Each service area will read through comments and determine which appear more frequently • By April 2005, each area will develop an action plan based on comments • Review specific questions with lowest mean ratings to determine priorities for improvement • DoES ACTIONS • By April 2005, each service area will take lowest mean rated services and develop action plan

  23. Recommendations & Actions (cont.) • Determine possible reasons for differences between NIH on campus and off campus service use and perceptions. If reasons for differences cannot be changed, consider ways to manage perceptions through education, awareness, etc. • DoES Senior Management brainstorming session • Focus group including employee representatives • DoES ACTIONS • Each service area will study this appearance • By April 2005, each area will develop an action plan • Conduct follow-up survey (within next 2 years) to check on improvements • DoES ACTIONS • DOES will work with OQM in early 2006 to develop a follow-up survey

  24. C1. Improve Quality of Worklife Initiative Customer Feedback Boxes Implementation Date – February 2005 Purpose and expected outcome: • To actively solicit customer feedback at service locations Measurements of success: • C1 a. Results of Customer satisfaction survey • C1 b. Usage/Demand for services (customer counts) for each service • I2 a. Percent of customer suggestions/complaints and vendor inputs with follow through

  25. C1b: Customer Counts Per Program Total customers served in F04 = 2,478,958 12% increase from FY03 (2,185,797) Note: Interpreting Services shows total number of requests, not total people served.

  26. C1b: Usage/Demand for Child Care Services Total = 290 Available Spaces Total = 943 Children on the Wait List = 10Children

  27. C1b: Usage/ Demand for Food Services Total Number of Customers Served

  28. C1b: Usage/ Demand for Food ServicesPercentage of Actual Customer Participation by Dining Center Notes: Based on ORF/DFP census data for the actual buildings and those surrounding them Average customer participation for FY04 - 34.11%

  29. C1b: Usage/ Demand for Food ServicesPercentage of Total Customers by Dining Center

  30. C1b: Usage/Demand for Interpreting Services Note: Interpreting Services usage has increased by 52% over the past 5 years.

  31. C1b: Usage/Demand for Interpreting Services

  32. C1b: Usage/Demand for Fitness Membership

  33. Internal Business Process Perspective

  34. Internal Business Process Perspective

  35. I1. Hold Vendors Accountable Initiative Vendor Auditing System Implemented - October 2004 Purpose and expected outcome • The purpose is to create a system to evaluate vendors during inspections. • While the criteria for evaluating vendors will vary for the different programs, the scoring scale will be the same thus allowing the evaluation across programs. • The theory is diligent and systematic vendor auditing will improve compliance to contracts and ultimately increased customer satisfaction. Measurements of success • I1 a. Results of Audits (difference between actual performance and standards in contract/use agreement) • I1 b. Percent of follow-through by vendors (based on inspections)

  36. I1. Hold Vendors Accountable Initiative Customer Comment Log Implemented – August 2004 Purpose and expected outcome • Track customer comments, suggestions, and complaints to ensure that they are being addressed in a timely manner. • Keeping a log in Excel will allow statistics to be gathered and reported on response time to issues by DoES staff. Measurements of success • C1a: Results of Customer Satisfaction survey.

  37. Internal Business Process Perspective (cont.)

  38. I2a. Percent of customer suggestions/complaints and vendor inputs with follow through Note: 78.6% of issue were resolved in less than a week.

  39. IB3b. Advertising and Promotion Volume

  40. IB3a. Percent of customers that can put our name with our program

  41. I3. Educate Employees to Services and Service Standards Initiative Include DoES message in HR welcome package Implemented - October 2004 Purpose and expected outcome • Including advertisement in HR package distributed during orientation would be an effective way of informing new employees of DoES services. Measurements of success • I3 a. Percent of customers that can put our name with our program

  42. Internal Business Process PerspectiveWhat the data tells us • We have made a good start in increasing our vendor monitoring • We are working more closely with our vendors to hold them more accountable • We are marketing our services, but still there are a number of people who do not know who we are and what we do

  43. Internal Business Process PerspectiveActions • We need to incorporate standard performance-based information into all of our contracts and use agreements • We need to do more in marketing our services to the NIH

  44. Learning and Growth Perspective

  45. Learning and Growth Perspective

  46. L2a. Results of Previous Internal Climate Survey N = 9 Unsatisfactory Outstanding

  47. L2b. Results of Previous Vendor Survey N = 112 Unsatisfactory Outstanding

  48. Learning and Growth PerspectiveWhat we have done since surveys • We instituted a newsletter to our vendors • We are meeting on a more regular basis with our vendors and their staff • We brought in consultants to work on team building with DoES staff, both as a Division, but also in teams • We have restructured staff meetings to become more efficient and effective • We did not have another climate or vendor survey in FY04, we plan to have one in FY05

  49. Financial Perspective

More Related