FY02 ASA Presentation Perform Master and Facilities Planning

1. Presented by Stella Serras-Fiotes (leader) Clarence Dukes Gerald Hines Cyrena Simons Ronald Wilson Office of Research Services National Institutes of Health 18 November 2002 FY02 ASA Presentation Perform Master and Facilities Planning • Team Members • Stella Serras-Fiotes (leader) • Carole Wharton (co-leader) • Clarence Dukes • Gerald Hines • Mehryar Ebrahimi • Ricardo Herring • Jennie Kirby • Melissa Richardson • Cyrena Simons • Ronald Wilson • George Williams

2. Table of Contents Main Presentation ASA Template………………………….………………….…………4 Scope and Range of Facilities Planning ………………………….5 Facilities Planning Continuum…………………………………… 6 Strategic Facilities Planning Process…………………...…………8 Customer Perspective……………………….……………………. 9 Block Diagram and Customers …………………………..…10 Customer Segmentation……………………………………. 11 Customer Satisfaction……………… .……………...………13 Internal Business Process Perspective…….………...…….........19 Umbrella Deployment Flowchart ………............................ 20 Process Measures……………………………..……………. 23 Learning and Growth Perspective………………………………. 26 Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data…........................................... 27 Analysis of Readiness Conclusions………….…………... 28 Financial Perspective………………………..…………………… 30 Unit Costs…………………………………..…………….…. .31 Asset Utilization……………………………….…………… . .32 Conclusions and Recommendations………………………..…. 33

3. Appendices • ASA Template……………………………………………………………46 • Facilities Planning Continuum………………………………………….47 • Customer Survey……………………………………………………….. 48 • Process Maps…………………………………………………………… 59 • Learning and Growth Graphs………………………………………….. 71 • Analysis of Readiness Information …………………………………… 78

5. Scope and Range of Facilities Planning

6. Facilities Planning Continuum: The Context Facilities planning activities fall along a continuum: -Long Range Planning (10-20 year planning horizon) -Mid-range Planning (5-10 year planning horizon) -Short-range Planning (1-5 year planning horizon) The continuum encompasses two related ASAs: -Perform Master and Facilities Planning -Provide Space Planning to Support IC Programs

7. Facilities Planning Continuum: The Context: Discrete Services Long Range • DS 1: Master Plan NIH facilities • DS 2: Performs Environmental Planning • DS 3: Coordinate Community and Agency Input • DS 8: Perform historic preservation review • DS 9: Plan [and design] campus infrastructure Mid-range • DS 5: Formulate 5 Year Federal Capital Improvement Program • DS 6: Formulate Annual Building and Space Program • DS 7: Develop Strategic Facilities Plan Short Range • DS 4: Site coordination

8. Strategic Facilities Planning Process FARB, NIH Leadership, and NIH Director NIH StrategicResearch Plan NIH Master Plan FPAC NIH StrategicFacilities Plan IC Building and Space Plans NIH Strategic Facilities FundingPlan NIH Strategic Lease Plan NIH Space Recommendation Board B & F FundingPlan IC Capital FundingPlan

9. Customer Perspective

10. Block Diagram and Customers

11. Customer Segmentation: Profile Primary CustomersN=85 • ICs: Heads of institutes, centers • SDs: Scientific directors • EOs: Executive officers • OD: Office of the Director

12. Function Intramural Extramural Support Organizations Geographic Location Bethesda campus Bethesda area off campus Outside Bethesda area: Bayview Research Triangle Rocky Mountain Frederick Poolesville Customer Segmentation: Location

13. Customer Satisfaction: The Survey 1. Customers were asked to rate satisfaction with the planning services along the continuum Scale of 1-10, (unsatisfactory to outstanding) with respect to • Quality • Timeliness • Responsiveness 2. Customers were asked three questions about value of service to their mission, its effectiveness, and their understanding of the process

14. Customer Survey: The Responses • Response Rate: 18% • Response Profile: Good cross section of respondents with respect to • Location: • Bethesda, Bethesda area, Outside area • Size: very large to very small ICs • Function: mix of intramural, extramural, both

15. Planning Continuum: Ratings

16. Planning Continuum: Analysis High Ratings for Long and Mid-range planning Lowest ratings were for the short term: the point in the continuum at which competition among priorities is greatest and most disappointments will occur • As NIH implements plans for Director’s Reserve and more space is available to meet more priorities, these rating should improve

17. Do the facilities planning services in ORS support your Institute’s mission planning efforts? Customer Survey: Responses to Questions Do you understand how to get your Institute’s needs into the strategic facilities planning process? Does the current process work effectively for your Institute to acquire the space you need?

18. Customer Survey: Responses to Questions

19. Peer Group established Sponsors for benchmarking study: American Association of Medical Colleges, NIH, Society for College and University Planning Participants: CDC, Medical Schools from UNC-Chapel Hill, Stanford, University of Maryland. Others determined by AAMC Planning with AAMC, SCUP, CDC underway Measures of Success Reasonable Timeframe (cycle time) Responsiveness to need (customer satisfaction) Effectiveness and reasonableness of plan guidance (customers and A/Es who work with the plans) Relevance to issues (customers) Reasonable cost (unit costs) Evolving Process Measures for Facilities Planning Continuum: Benchmarking

20. Internal Business Process Perspective

21. Master and Facilities Planning LEGEND: PROCESS A = DS1 , PROCESS B = DS9, PROCESS C = DS3 PROCESS D = DS5-7 AND PROCESS E = DS4

22. Findings/Changes from 7 Flowcharts Covering all 9 Discrete Services • Team members learned about work of each other • Service Groups “Perform master and facilities planning” and ‘Provide space planning to support IC programs” inextricably linked in practice • Discrete services fall along a continuum. Some should be collapsed or relocated to other service groups: • DS 8, “Perform historic preservation review” -- a small part of DS 2 “Performs environmental planning” not requiring discrete service designation • DS 4, “Site coordination” -- a minor, but necessary, function more appropriately part of campus project delivery • DS 5-7, developed as a single process; should be combined • Ties between the SJD and B&SP processes were clarified during flowchart development • Scope and cost verification process with DES will be begun earlier for the Building and Space Plan development • Responsibility for environmental planning needs clarification

23. The Continuum: FPAC ProcessPresentations Required to Reach Decisions Example: Approval of NIH Rent Policies

24. Long Range Planning: Ideal vs. Interrupted Schedule NIH Bethesda Master Plan Update Schedule Pre - and Post - 9/11 “Pre-9/11” “Post-9/11” Task 1 - Executive Summary Task 2 - Program Reqts Master Plan Activities Pre - 9/11 Task 3 - Existing Conditions Master Plan Schedule Task 4 - Master Plan Text Post - 9/11 Master Plan Task 5 - EIS Schedule Master Plan Approval 02 03 01 02 02 03 03 01 02 02 03 01 02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Jul Jul Jul Sep Jan Sep Jan Mar Mar Nov May Nov May

25. Mid-range Planning: Development of Building and Space Plan: Ideal vs. Actual Schedule

26. Learning and Growth Perspective

27. Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data Data Show: Low turnover Low absence rate No EEO, other complaints Conclusions: No impact on service delivery from low morale Service area a good place to work Data Show: Ranks third highest in number of awards in a service area with 13 staff Observation shows: Awards prominently displayed Conclusions: Large number of awards correlates with high scores on customer survey Awards are viewed as meaningful

28. Analysis of Readiness & Conclusions Human Resources: Dedicated staff lacking Professional development and skills training to keep up Backup staff for functional areas: one person, one task Specialized skills, e.g., to develop presentation materials Corrective Action Steps Begun: Gap analysis of functional requirements and capacity to address them underway: to be completed by 1/1/03 Retreat to address staff and organizational issues by 3/31/03 Note: in important instances, corporate knowledge, technologies, records reside with contractors, not staff.

29. Analysis of Readiness & Conclusions Unmet Support Needs: Technology: up to date office suite; linked state of the art space, data management Space to interact with clients; lay out, display, and store drawings, house large pieces of equipment Equipment for scanning, reproduction ofdrawings Corrective Action Steps Planned: Alternatives: Service groups will explore alternatives for data management systems; means to provide connectivity by 6/1/03 Retreat to address issues of support capacity by 3/31/03

30. Financial Perspective

31. Unit Cost Measures Plan: Use the benchmarking process to establish reasonable costs for planning processes along the continuum. • Proposed units of measure include: • Cost of long range (master) plan for simple, moderate, or complex site • Cost of long range (master) plan per unit of predicted GSF • Cost per mid range plan through each cycle

32. Asset Utilization Measures Plan: • Use benchmarking process to establish reasonable lengths of time for activities along the continuum. • Use benchmarks for basis of future asset utilization calculations.

33. Conclusions and Recommendations

34. Findings and Conclusions: Customer Perspective • Low response rate to survey • Based on survey, customers rate services high • Customer understanding of process improved over 2000 directors’ retreat discussions • Satisfaction with short range planning can be improved

35. Recommendations: Customer Perspective • To improve response rates, conduct surveys in subsequent ASA cycles earlier than August/September • Service Groups continue with customer education about facilities planning processes • Creating adequate Director’s reserve will alleviate negative responses to short range facilities planning services

36. Findings and Conclusions: Internal Business Perspective • Service Groups “Perform master planning…” and “Provide space…” and their respective discrete services inextricably linked along a continuum • For external review agencies, discrete service 8, “historic preservation review” is part of DS 2, “environmental planning review” • Responsibility for discrete service 9, “plan and design campus infrastructure” has been clarified • Responsibility for segments of DS 2, “environmental planning” is not clear • DS 4, “Site coordination” is a part of project delivery; not facilities planning • DS 5-7 are part of the same process

37. Recommendations: Internal Business Perspective • Combine the Service Groups: “perform master and facilities planning” and “provide space planning to support IC programs” • Collapse discrete services for the two groups into three units: Long range, mid-range, and short range planning • Appropriate managers clarify responsibilities for environmental review process • Include DES representation for infrastructure planning in master planning process • Clarify responsibilities for acquisition of leased space

38. Findings and Conclusions: Learning and Growth Perspective • Service Groups a good place to work • Staff needs technical skills and professional development • Office lacks space, state of the art equipment and technologies • No back up for staff; heavy relianceon contractors

39. Recommendations: Learning and Growth Perspective • OFP undertake analysis of gap between office responsibilities and staff capacity • OFP plan a retreat to evaluate gap analysis and develop strategic plan to address gaps • OFP consider alternatives for stabilizing and improving technologies, databases • OFP undertake benchmarking with selected set of peers

40. Findings and Conclusions: Financial Perspective • None to date • Will use results from benchmarking project to establish measures

41. Recommendations: Financial Perspective • Use benchmarking project to establish and measure the financial perspective

42. All Perspectives Conclusions and Findings • Continuum worked well for 2 Service Groups • as framework for customer segmentation and survey • for examining business processes • for considerations of staff capacity and technological support • for consideration of financial measures using benchmarking as tool Recommendation Combine Service Groups and use the continuum as basis for analysis in future ASA processes

43. Long Range Discrete Services 1 Master plan NIH facilities 2 Performs Environmental Planning 3 Coordinate Community & Agency Input 8 Perform historic preservation review 9 Plan [and design] campus infrastructure Mid-range Discrete Services 5 Formulate 5 Yr FCIP 6 Formulate Annual B&SP 7 Develop Strategic Facilities Plan Short Range Discrete Services 4 Site coordination From “Provide Space Planning:” Develop Facilities Options Manage SJD Process Manage NIH Director’s Reserve Long Range Discrete Services 1 Master plan NIH facilities 2 Performs Environmental Planning (includes Perform historic preservation review and plan campus infrastructure ) 3 Coordinate Community and Agency Input Mid-range Discrete Services 4 Develop Strategic Facilities Plans (includes Formulate 5 Yr FCIP and Formulate Annual B&SP) Short Range Discrete Services Move Site coordination to DES 5 Manage NIH Director’s Reserve (from SG “Provide Space Planning…) 6 Manage SJD process (from SG “Provide Space Planning DS 1 & 2) Recommended Changes to Discrete Services

44. Improvements Underway • Streamlining from FY 01 facilities planning (including FPAC), environmental planning, community and agency input ongoing • Relationship between DES and OFP for infrastructure planning and design clarified • DES will be brought in earlier in B&F process in FY 05 budget cycle • Ongoing discussions with NSF, CDC, medical schools and universities on benchmarking for master and facilities planning • Gap analysis of OPF capacity • Planning for staff retreat

45. Appendices

46. ASA Template 2002

47. Facilities Planning Continuum • Long Range, Master Planning • 10-20 years, Facilities Planning Advisory Committee (FPAC), Master Plans, Off Campus Strategic Facilities Plan • Overall planning framework for IC projections, updated every 5 years • Medium Range, Acquisition Planning • 5-10 years, FPAC, Buildings and Space Plan (B&SP), Strategic Facilities Plan (SFP) • Conceptual plan for major construction and lease actions, updated annually • Short Range, Requests for Space • 1-3 or 5 years, Space Recommendation Board (SRB), Space Justification Document (SJD) • Requests for space in facilities already conceptually approved and in acquisition, submitted as needed

48. CustomerSurveyPage 1

49. CustomerSurveyPage 1

50. Survey RespondentsFY02 Respondents by IC