Work System Owner Ed Curry. Work System Enabling Leader Dane Theodore, Director. Priority Processes Owner Art Johnson, Project Mgr.

Transcription

1 Key Work Process (5): CREATE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS Process Owner: A. JOHNSON CREATE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS Work System Owner Ed Curry Work System Enabling Leader Dane Theodore, Director Priority Processes Owner Art Johnson, Project Mgr. April 22, 2009 Revision R E C I PI E T N GOVERNOR S STERLING AWARD

2 Key Work Process (5): CREATE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS Process Owner: A. JOHNSON REVISION LOG SECTION NUMBER REVISION DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION /22/09 4/22/09 DMAIC Lite Storyboard Lite Gap EZDMAIC 20 Checkpoint Review

3 Key Work Process (5): CREATE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS Process Owner: A. JOHNSON Table of Contents 1. Cover Sheet 2. Table of Contents 3. Internal and External Customers 4. Macro Flow Chart - Manage Resource Conservation 5. Key Work Process 5 Flow Chart - Identification of Facility and Behavioral Modification Improvements & Recommendations 6. DMAIC Lite Storyboard - Check Points Priority Process Selection Matrix Form 8. Key-In-Process Measures Determination Form System Form 9. BPS Process Management System 10. Macro Process Control System Form 11. Key Work Process 5 Process Control Form 12. Countermeasure Matrix 13. Countermeasure Action Plan Matrix 14. Root Cause Action Plans 15. Document Tree 16. Key Work Process Indicator Data 17. EZDMAIC 20 Checkpoint Review

4 Key Work Process (5): CREATE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS Process Owner: A. JOHNSON FACILITIES INTERNAL CUSTOMERS School Board Superintendent Area Superintendents District Administration School Administration FACILITIES EXTERNAL CUSTOMERS State of Florida Florida Department of Education Parents / Guardians Students Taxpayers

5 Macro Process: MANAGE DISTRICT RESOURCE CONSERVATION Process Owner: A. JOHNSON STEP WHO BPS SCHOOL BOARD FACILITIES RESOURCE CONSERVATION SCHOOL NEED MANAGE DISTRICT & SCHOOL RESOURCE CONSERVATION Identify district wide resource conservation initiatives to reduce facility operation costs related to electrical, water, and gas usage, trash disposal and facility efficiencies. KWP = Key Work Process PREPARE KWP1 PREPARE RESOURCE CONSERVATION DOCUMENTS P1 - # POLICIES, PROCEDURES, PLANS, TRAINING COURSES, CHECKLISTS, MANUALS, SURVEYS, HANDBOOKS AND PAMPHLETS DEVELOPED, REVIEWED & UPDATED IDENTIFY RECOMMEND QUESTION PERFORM QUESTION IMPLEMENT CREATE KWP2 IS THE RECOMMENDATION A FACILITY IMPROVEMENT? IS THE FACILITY RECOMMENDATION COMPLEX? Note: CBC Includes 5-Year Pay Back Analysis IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY & BEHAVIORAL MODIFICATION IMPROVEMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS YES KWP5 YES?? NO NO CREATE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS KWP3 KWP4 P2 - # OF UTILITY CONSUMPTION REPORTS / BILLS COLLECTED P3 - # OF MONTHLY FACILITY INSPECTIONS AND QUARTERLY AUDITS PERFORMED P4 - # OF MONTHLY INSPECTION REPORTS AND QUARTERLY AUDIT REPORTS PUBLISHED P5 - # OF MONTHLY CONSUMPTION DATA ANALYSIS PERFORMED P6 - # OF MONTHLY FACILITY INSPECTION AND QUARTERLY AUDIT DATA ANALYSIS PERFORMED P7 - # FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS ISSUED P8 -# OF BEHAVIORAL MODIFICATION IMPROVEMENTS ISSUED PERFORM BEHAVIORAL MODIFICATION TRAINING P9 - # OF SCHOOL RECEIVING A BEHAVIORAL MODIFICATION RATING SCORE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 90% IMPLEMENT NON-COMPLEX FACILITY IMPROVEMENT P10 - # NON-COMPLEX FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS COMPLETED. P11 - # OF COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS COMPLETED QUESTION ADD IS FUNDING AVAILABLE? YES? NO ADD TO UNFUNDED RC PROJECT LIST P12 - # COMPLEX FACILITY PROJECTS ADDED TO DEFERRED MAINTENANCE LIST P13 - # OF COMPLEX FACILITY DEFERRED MAINTENANCE PROJECTS THAT WERE COMPLETED QUESTION ADD SUBMIT CAPITAL PROJECT? P14 - # COMPLEX FACILITY PROJECTS ADDED TO THE CAPITAL PROJECT LIST P15 - # OF COMPLEX FACILITY PROJECTS THAT WERE COMPLETED.? ADD TO CAPITAL PROJECT LIST KWP6 YES NO SUBMIT WORK ORDER MONITOR ANALYZE P17 - # FACILITY IMPROVEMENT AND BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TRAINING ANALYSIS AFTER ACTION REPORTS PUBLISHED. MONITOR & ANALYZE FAC IMP PROJECTS & BM TRAINING RESULTS P16 - # OF WORK ORDERS SUBMITTED MANAGED NEED IS MET Deliverables: D1 - MONTHLY FACILITY AUDIT & INSPECTION REPORTS D2 - COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS REPORTS D3 - MONTHLY FACILITY AND BEHAVIORAL MODIFICATION IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS LIST D4 - MONTHLY SENIOR STAFF RESOURCE CONSERVATION BOX SCORE D5 - MONTHLY DISTRICT AND SCHOOL RESOURCE CONSERVATION BOX SCORE Q1 - REDUCE ELECTRICAL USAGE 10% BY END OF FY 08/09 Q2 - REDUCE WATER USAGE BY 10% BY END OF FY 09/10 Q3 - REDUCE GAS / HEATING OIL USAGE BY 10% BY END OF FY 09/10 Q4 - REDUCE THE VOLUME OF TRASH HAULED 10% BY END OF FY 09/10 Q5 - IMPROVE FACILITY EFFICIENCY 10% BY END OF FY 10/11 FACILITIES SERVICES: ROBERT J. WIEBEL / ART JOHNSON 12/16/08

6 Key Work Process (5): CREATE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS Process Owner: A. JOHNSON STEP WHO BPS SCHOOL BOARD FACILITIES RESOURCE CONSERVATION NEED RESOURCE CONSERVATION NEED PERFORM A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS ON EACH RECOMMENDED COMPLEX FACILITIES PROJECT. QUESTION IS A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS REQUIRED FOR THE ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURE(ECM)?? NO COLLECT ANALYZE YES COLLECT DATA ANALYZE DATA NOTE: IN SOME CASES A CBA IS NOT NEEDED ON A RECOMMENDED COMPLEX FACILITY PROJECT(ECM). QUESTION DOES THE ECM ACHIEVE THE 5-YEAR OR SOONER PAYBACK?? NO GOTO YES IMPLEMENT IMPLEMENT ECM MACRO KWP2 MANAGED NEED IS MET P11.1 # COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS PERFORMED. P11.2 COST BENEFIT COMPLETION RATIO. IDENTIFICATION OF FACILITY & BEHAVIORAL MODIFICATION IMPROVEMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS MACRO Q MEASURES Q1 - REDUCE ELECTRICAL USAGE 10% BY END OF FY 08/09 Q2 - REDUCE WATER USAGE BY 10% BY END OF FY 09/10 Q4 - REDUCE THE VOLUME OF TRASH HAULED 10% BY END OF FY 09/10 Q3 - REDUCE GAS / HEATING OIL USAGE BY 10% BY END OF FY 09/10 FACILITIES SERVICES: ROBERT J. WIEBEL / ART JOHNSON 3/5/09

7 ATTACHMENT A INSTRUCTIONS: Please return your completed DMAIC Storyboard, along with your Process Control System (both flow chart and indicator information) and your completed Action Plan (see Improve checkpoint #10), via to rseemer@etsfl.com and copy Steve Muzzy on all s. Thank you, Bob Seemer, President & COO, Electronic Training Solutions, Inc. Priority Process Name: Resource Conservation Key Work Process: CREATE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS Work System / Leader: Art Johnson Revision : 1 Date: 2/26/09 DEFINE KWP5 DMAIC Lite Storyboard 1. Describe how the linkage between the process Q measures and the District s KPIs (or strategic objective measures) was established and confirmed. In order to meet 2008/2009 Strategic Plan Develop and Implement a district-wide energy reduction plan by October 1, 2008 to deal with rising statewide energy costs, a new department was formed called the Resource Conservation department. The new department was formed in July of 2008 and immediately started deploying six sigma methodologies and tools to reduce the resource consumption. In light of the need to reduce energy consumption, the following Q measures were created. Q1 - REDUCE ELECTRICAL USAGE 10% BY END OF FY 08/09 Q2 - REDUCE WATER USAGE BY 10% BY END OF FY 09/10 Q3 - REDUCE GAS / HEATING OIL USAGE BY 10% BY END OF FY 09/10 Q4 - REDUCE THE VOLUME OF TRASH HAULED 10% BY END OF FY 09/10 2. Explain which process Q measure(s) will be improved. In order to identify the Q measure(s) that should be focused on for improvement efforts, a Facilities Resource Conservation Priority Process Selection Matrix and a Key In-Process Measures Determination Form were created (see Pages 7 and 8). It was determined that Key Work Process (KWP) 5 CREATE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS was in need of improvement. After a preliminary analysis of this key process, it was noted that Q measures Q1 would be affected and improved. By increasing the number of cost benefit analyses performed, more conservation projects can be completed and Q measure Q1 would be improved thus resulting in an overall reduction in Kilowatt Hours (KWH) used at each school campus and District ancillary facility location. 3. Develop a theme statement which will focus your process improvement efforts. The theme statement must be consistent with the measure in checkpoint #2, above. In order to meet or exceed the FY 08/09 minimum 10% energy reduction target, energy reduction facility projects must be designed, constructed and deployed / operated as soon as possible after approval. ets, Inc. / CTi Page 1 RC KWP5

8 MEASURE DMAIC Lite Storyboard ATTACHMENT A 4. List up to five (5) potential problem areas as to why the projects are not being deployed / operated as soon as possible after approval. List associated P measure(s) for each. A. Insufficient money to fund energy reduction capital projects. B. The deployment of the project will occur until after the end of the 08/09 fiscal year. C. Cost Benefits Analysis not being completed in a timely manner. 5. Select the most significant problem or opportunity and develop a problem statement which answers the questions: What? When? Gap between actual and targeted values? Problem: In order to maximize the reduction of energy consumption, at each school and ancillary facility, to meet or exceed the minimum 10% energy reduction target, recommended facility project cost benefit analysis need to be completed as soon as possible. Problem Statement: At the beginning of July of 2008, the Resource Conservation Team (RCT) was formed. By the end of October 2008, all school sites had been inspected and audited. The RCT identified 623 complex facilities projects to reduce energy consumption at school and ancillary facilities. A Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), to include a 5-Year Payback Analysis, is required for each project. As of January 31 st, 2009 only 409 cost benefit analysis have been completed. Gap: Since October 2008, 409 out of 623 complex facility projects (65.65%) have completed cost benefit analysis. The gap is 34.35% ets, Inc. / CTi Page 2 RC KWP5

9 DMAIC Lite Storyboard ATTACHMENT A ANALYZE 6. List up to five (5) potential causes of the selected problem from checkpoint #5 in the Measure step. A. Inability to collect KWH usage data at the equipment level. B. The number of data loggers used to collect energy data at the equipment level is inadequate. C. Project cost estimating cycle times rely on field survey collection data. D. Subcontractor quotes take too long to get. E. Outside influences affect field data collection. 1. List the root causes and describe the approach used to select them from among the others. Root Causes A. Inability to collect KWH usage data at the equipment level. B. The number of data loggers used to collect energy data at the equipment level is inadequate. C. Project cost estimating cycle times rely on subcontractor quotes. Approach Used To Select Root Cause Team Consensus Team Consensus Team Consensus D. Subcontractor quotes take too long to get. Team Consensus E. School-site equipment data collection resources not adequate to provide timely data collection. Team Consensus ets, Inc. / CTi Page 3 RC K

10 IMPROVE DMAIC Lite Storyboard ATTACHMENT A 8. List the countermeasure(s) you considered for implementation for each selected root cause from the Analyze step. A&B. Purchase 2 additional data loggers to collect equipment level energy consumption data. C. Provide specific data collection instructions / requirements. D. Communicate more frequently with subcontractors. E. Hold more project specific meetings to identify project requirements. 9. Determine the effectiveness x feasibility score for each countermeasure, and note the highest scores. See attached countermeasure matrix. Countermeasure Effectiveness Feasibility Overall Action A &B Yes C Yes D No E Yes SCALE: 5 = Extreme 4 = High 3 = Moderate 2 = Low 1 = None (Hint: Refer to six sigma DMAIC course, checkpoint #18 of the Improve step.) 10. Develop an action plan for each countermeasure to be implemented which shows the following: What (description of countermeasure) When (projected start and end dates) Who (accountable person) Which organizations need to support you Estimated cost to implement See attachment. (Remember: your action plan(s) with this completed DMAIC Lite Storyboard, per instructions on page 1.) ets, Inc. / CTi Page 4 RC K

11 CONTROL DMAIC Lite Storyboard ATTACHMENT A 11. Briefly explain how you know the root causes were reduced or eliminated. New data loggers allow collection of kwh data at the equipment level (root causes A&B reduced). Having specific data collection instructions/procedures streamlines data collection at the school site and reduces cycle time for both ERC team members and subcontractors. 12. Briefly explain how you know the problem was reduced. Data is collected correctly the first time, allowing the majority of CBAs to be completed in a 30 day cycle. 13. Briefly explain how you know the theme measure was improved. Timely completion of CBAs allows projects to be initiated more quickly. 14. Explain how you will prevent this problem from recurring. ERC staff will be sure to get written procedures and meet to discuss project specifications before beginning data collection efforts. 15. Identify which other BPS locations should consider implementing your countermeasures. N/A 16. Identify what other BPS locations could learn from this project. N/A 17. List the remaining problem areas in this process. Obtaining timely quotes from subcontractors. 18. List the key lessons learned from this process improvement. Take the time to determine all needed inputs and to thoroughly gather data so that CBAs can be produced quickly and accurately. ets, Inc. / CTi Page 5 RC K

12 ATTACHMENT A FACILITIES OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PRIORITY PROCESS SELECTION MATRIX FORM Selection Factor Key Work Processes Importance x Gap = Point Score Priority Rank KWP1 Prepare Resource Conservation Documents KWP2 Identification of Facility & Behavioral Modification Improvements & Recommendations KWP3 Perform Behavioral Modification Training KWP4 Implement Non-Complex Facility Improvements KWP5 Create Cost Benefit Analysis Reports KWP6 Monitor & Analyze FAC Improvement Projects & Behavior Modification Training Results SCALE: 5 = Extreme 4 = High 3 = Moderate 2 = Low 1 = None ets, Inc. / CTi Page

13 ATTACHMENT A KEY IN-PROCESS MEASURES DETERMINATION FORM Outcome Measures In-Process Measures 1. P2 - # of Utility Consumption Reports / Bills Q1 Reduce Electrical Usage 10% By End of FY Collected 08/09 2. P5 - # of Consumption Data Analysis Performed 1. P2 - # of Utility Consumption Reports / Bills Q2 Reduce Water Usage 10% By End of FY Collected 09/ P5 - # of Consumption Data Analysis Performed 1. P2 - # of Utility Consumption Reports / Bills Q3 Reduce Gas Heating Oil Usage 10% By End of FY 09/010 Q4 Reduce The Volume of Trash Hauled 10% By End of FY 09/010 Collected 2. P5 - # of Consumption Data Analysis Performed 1. P2 - # of Utility Consumption Reports / Bills Collected 2. P5 - # of Consumption Data Analysis Performed ets, Inc. / CTi Page

14 Macro Process Control System Process Name: Facilities Resource Conservation Process Customer: The School Board of Brevard County, representing staff, students, parents and the community Process Purpose: Manage and Improve District and School Facilities Operating Resources Process and Quality Indicators Process Control Indicators Limits And Quality Indicators Targets / Baseline # Policies, Procedures, Plans, Training Courses, Checklists, Manuals, Surveys, Target: - 90 D after FY starts. P1 Handbooks And Pamphlets Developed, Baseline: 60 D Reviewed & Updated Target: Electrical Invoices # of Utility Consumption Reports / Bills P2 Received From Accounting Collected Baseline: 320 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 # Of Facility Quarterly Audits & Inspections Performed # of Quarterly Audit and Inspection Reports Published # of Consumption Data Analysis Performed # of Facilities Data Analysis Performed # Facilities Recommendations Issued # of Behavioral Modification Improvements Issued # of Schools receiving a Behavioral Modification Training Sessions Conducted # of Non-Complex Facilities Improvements Completed # of Cost Benefit Analysis Completed Target: Inspections / Audits Performed. Baseline: 92 Target: Inspection / Audit Reports Published Baseline: 92 Target: 101 Consumption Analysis Performed Baseline: 101 Target: 34 Facilities Audit Data Analysis Performed. Baseline: 34 Target: Reduce Cycle Time by 5 Days Baseline: 15 Day Cycle Time Target: Reduce Cycle Time by 5 Days Baseline: 15 Day Cycle Time Target: 174 Per Year (2 per School Site) Baseline: 22 Target: Complete Non-Complex Improvements in 30 Days Baseline: 20 Target: Complete CBA in 30 Days Baseline: 2 Process Owner: Art Johnson Critical Customer Requirements: Current Sigma Level: TBD Outcome Indicators: Q1 Q5 Checking / Indicator Monitoring Timeframe Data to Collect (Frequency) What is Checking Item When to or Indicator Calculation Collect Data? Activity Report Responsibility Who will Check? Resource Team Contingency Plans / Miscellaneous Actions Required for Exceptions Procedure References Mandate additional department resources to complete the development, review, additions or deletions as soon as possible. Activity Report Brian Blenis Contact utility company directly for data. Activity Report Activity Report Activity Report Activity Report Activity Report Activity Report Activity Report Activity Report Activity Report Jim Varney Jim Varney Team Team Art Johnson Art Johnson Team Brian Blenis Brian Blenis Reschedule Inspections and Audits Mandate additional department resources to complete the development, review, additions or deletions as soon as possible. Evaluate the data analysis and increase department resources to complete the data analysis as soon as possible. Evaluate the data analysis and increase department resources to complete the data analysis as soon as possible. Evaluate the recommendation process and increase department resources to complete the recommendations as soon as possible. Evaluate the BM improvement issuing process and increase department resources to complete the issuing of BM improvements as soon as possible. Evaluate BM training and discuss improvements with Site-Based Manager Evaluate the Non-Complex facilities improvement process and revise. Mandate additional department resources to complete CBA.

15 Process and Quality Indicators Process Indicators And Quality Indicators # of Complex Facilities Projects Added to P12 Deferred Maintenance List P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 # of Complex Facilities Deferred Maintenance Projects Completed # of Complex Facilities Projects Added to Capital Project List # of Complex Facilities Projects Completed # of Work Orders Submitted In 60D # Facility Improvement and Behavior Modification Training Analysis After Action Reports Published Reduce Electrical Usage Reduce Water Usage 10% by End of FY 09/10 Reduce Gas / Heating Oil Usage 10% By End of FY 09/10 Reduce the Volume of Trash Hauled 10% By the End of FY 09/10 Target: Zero Baseline: Zero Target: Zero Baseline: Zero Control Limits Specs/ Targets Target: None Baseline: 2 Target: Complete Complex Facilities Projects in 12 months. Baseline: 1 Target: 19 Baseline: 19 Target: Publish 101 After Action Reports. Baseline: 92 Target: 10% KWH Reduction by end of FY 08/09 Baseline: 147,322,517 KWH Target: 10% Cost Savings by end of FY 09/10 Baseline: 08 Annual Water Usage Target: 10% Cost Savings by end of FY 09/10 Baseline: 08 Annual Gas / Oil Usage Target: 10% Cost Savings by end of FY 09/10 Baseline: 08 Annual Trash Volume Hauled Checking / Indicator Monitoring Timeframe Data to Collect (Frequency) Responsibility What is Checking Item When to or Indicator Calculation Collect Data? Who will Check? Activity Report Brian Blenis Activity Report Activity Report Activity Report Activity Report Activity Report FPL Invoices & School District Monitoring System Water Invoices Gas and Heating Oil Invoices Solid Waste Invoices Brian Blenis Art Johnson Art Johnson Art Johnson Art Johnson Brian Blenis Art Johnson Brian Blenis Art Johnson Contingency Plans / Miscellaneous Actions Required for Exceptions Procedure References Evaluate the process and revise. Evaluate the Complex Facilities Deferred Maintenance improvement process and revise. Evaluate the process and revise. Evaluate the Complex facilities improvement process and revise. Evaluate the process and revise. Mandate additional department resources to complete and publish training analysis after action reports. Refer to contingency plans and miscellaneous information above related to individual submittals. Refer to contingency plans and miscellaneous information above related to individual submittals. Refer to contingency plans and miscellaneous information above related to individual submittals. Refer to contingency plans and miscellaneous information above related to individual submittals. Approved: Date: Rev # Rev Date:

16 Process Name: Create Cost Benefit Analysis KWP5 Process Control System Process Customer: The School Board of Brevard County, representing staff, students, parents and the community Process Purpose: To assess the 5-Year Payback for Each Complex Project Recommendation. Process Owner: Art Johnson Critical Customer Requirements: Reduce Energy Costs by 10% During 08/09 Fiscal Year. Current Sigma Level: TBD Outcome Indicators: Q1-Q4 Process and Quality Indicators Process Control Indicators Limits And Quality Specs/ Indicators Targets Target: None (One CBA will be done for P11.1 # of Cost Benefit Analysis Completed each complex improvement recommendation.) Baseline: 68 P11.2 Cost Benefit Analysis Completion Ratio Target: 90% Baseline: 66% Target: 10% KWH Cost Avoidance by Q1 Reduce Electrical Usage end of FY 08/09 Baseline: 77,928,833 KWH Q2 Target: 10% Cost Savings by end of FY Reduce Water Usage 10% by End of FY 09/10 09/10 Baseline: 08 Annual Water Usage Q3 Target: 10% Cost Savings by end of FY Reduce Gas / Heating Oil Usage 10% By 09/10 End of FY 09/10 Baseline: 08 Annual Gas / Oil Usage Target: 10% Cost Savings by end of FY Q4 Reduce the Volume of Trash Hauled 09/10 10% By the End of FY 09/10 Baseline: 08 Annual Trash Volume Hauled Checking / Indicator Monitoring Timeframe Data to Collect (Frequency) What is Checking Item When to or Indicator Calculation Collect Data? Activity Report Activity Report FPL Invoices & School District Monitoring System Water Invoices Gas and Heating Oil Invoices Solid Waste Invoices Responsibility Who will Check? Brian Blenis Brian Blenis Brian Blenis Art Johnson Brian Blenis Art Johnson Contingency Plans / Miscellaneous Actions Required for Exceptions Procedure References Mandate additional department resources to complete CBA. Mandate additional department resources to complete CBA. Refer to contingency plans and miscellaneous information above related to individual submittals. Refer to contingency plans and miscellaneous information above related to individual submittals. Refer to contingency plans and miscellaneous information above related to individual submittals. Refer to contingency plans and miscellaneous information above related to individual submittals. Approved: Date: Rev # Rev Date:

17 Countermeasures Matrix: KWP5 - Perform Cost Benefit Analysis ROOT CAUSE COUNTER- MEASURE PRACTICAL METHODS EFFECTIVENESS X FEASIBILITY = OVERALL ACTION Inability to collect KWH usage data at the equipment level. Purchase additional data loggers to collect equipment level energy consumption data. RC Manager to complete purchase order request Yes The number of data loggers used to collect energy data at the equipment level is inadequate. Purchase four (4) additional data loggers at $2, each. RC Manager to complete purchase order request Yes PROBLEM In order to maximize the reduction of energy consumption, at each school and ancillary facility, to meet or exceed the minimum 10% energy reduction target, recommended facility project cost benefit analysis need to be completed as soon as possible Project cost estimating cycle times rely on field survey collection data. Provide specific data collection instructions / requirements. RC Project Managers to Develop instructions / requirements Yes Subcontractor quotes take too long to get. Communicate more frequently with subcontractors. RC Project Manager to communicate with their subcontractors No Outside influences affects field data Collection. Hold more project specific meetings to identify project requirements. RC Team to create a formal agenda and have a special section for projects Yes Scale: 1 = Negligble 2= Somewhat 3= Moderate 4= Very 5 = Extreme

18 ATTACHMENT A DMAIC LITE STORYBOARD IMPROVE CHECKPOINT 10 Countermeasure Action Plans COUNTERMEASURE Purchase four additional data loggers. PROJECTED START DATE PROJECTED END DATE ACCOUNTABLE PERSON SUPPORT ORGANIZATION ESTIMATED COST 2/26/09 4/7/09 Brian Blenis purchasing $10, hours labor Provide specific data collection instructions/requirements Hold more project specific meetings 2/25/09 ongoing Jim Varney facilities leadership, maintenance, contractors 2/27/09 ongoing Art Johnson Facilities leadership Labor, varies per project 1 hour labor for 10 people per week (meeting time) ets, Inc. / CTi Page

19 Action Plan - Resource Conservation Inability to collect KWH usage data at the equipment level, the number of data loggers used to collect energy Root Cause: data at the equipment level is inadequate. Purchase four (4) additional data loggers at $2, each to collect equipment level energy consumption Countermeasure: data. Date: 25-Feb-09 Owners: Ed Curry, Art Johnson Practical Method: Provide purchasing with information to obtain data loggers and approve purchase. No. Task Accountable Person Week Comments 1 BB to send cut sheet to purchasing BB Scheduled Completed 2/26/09 2 Purchasing to obtain pricing BB Scheduled 3/2/2009 Completed 3 AJ to authorize procurement AJ Scheduled 4/2/09 Completed

20 Action Plan - Resource Conservation Project cost estimating cycle times rely on subcontractor quotes. School-site equipment data collection Root Cause: resources not adequate to provide timely data collection. Provide specific data collection instructions / requirements; Hold more project specific meetings to identify Countermeasure: project requirements. Date: 25-Feb-09 Owners: Ed Curry, Art Johnson No Provide data gathering team with complete specifications of data needed for subcontractor quotes with written Practical Method: instructions and in organized meetings. Task AJ to develop standard meeting agenda JV to develop scope of work for data collection tasks JV to develop data collection form Accountable Person AJ JV JV Scheduled Completed Scheduled Completed Scheduled Completed Comments 2/26/09 2/26/09 2/26/09 Week

21 Macro MANAGE RESOURCE Process: CONSERVATION Process Owner: A. Johnson Document Title: Process Improvement Document Tree MANAGE RESOURCE CONSERVATION MACRO FLOW CHART Key Work Processes 1-9 MACRO PCS MACRO DMAIC LITE STORYBOARD KWP2 IDENTIFICATION & RECOMMENDATION OF F&BM MODS AND IMPROVEMENTS FLOW CHART MACRO DMAIC LITE STORYBOARD MACRO PRIORITY PROCESS SELECTION MATRIX FORM KWP6 MONITOR & ANALYZE FAC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS & BM TRAINING RESULTS FLOW CHART KWP6 DMAIC LITE STORYBOARD Note 1 KWP6 PRIORITY PROCESS SELECTION MATRIX FORM KWP5 CREATE COST BENIFIT ANALYSIS FLOW CHART KWP5 DMAIC LITE STORYBOARD Note 1 KWP5 PRIORITY PROCESS SELECTION MATRIX FORM MACRO PRIORITY PROCESS SELECTION MATRIX FORM KWP2 ACTION PLAN(s) KWP6 ACTION PLAN(s) KWP5 ACTION PLAN(s) MACRO KEY IN-PROCESS MEASURES DETERMINATION SYSTEMS FORM KWP2 COUNTERMEASURE MATRIX KWP6 COUNTERMEASURE MATRIX KWP5 COUNTERMEASURE MATRIX KWP2 INDICATOR DATA KWP6 INDICATOR DATA KWP5 INDICATOR DATA 1st DMAIC Lite Storyboard 2nd DMAIC Lite Storyboard 3rd DMAIC Lite Storyboard Note 1: May be required if flow chart has internal work process in addition to individual steps.

22 RC CREATE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS PROCESS MAP 1. CONSUMPTION DATA a.meter Level b.calculations c.data Logger 2. COST DATA a. Project Cost b. Utility Cost 3. SOLUTION TECHNOLOGIES INPUT FEEDBACK LOOP COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS PROCESS NEW TECHNOLOGY ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE FLEXIBILITY IN DESIGN VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER OUTPUT ELECTRICAL USAGE FORECAST ELECTRICAL COST FORECAST 5-YEAR PAYBACK ANALYSIS GO/NO-GO DECISION CYCLE TIME PRODUCTIVITY COST CONTROL EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVITY Facilities Department - Robert J. Wiebel / Art Johnson 2/13/09

23 Total CBA Completed Analysis Total CBA Completed Baseline Target Total CBA Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 October-08 January-09 February-09 April-09 May-09 June-09 Total CBA Completed Baseline Target Reporting Months

24 EZ DMAIC 20 CHECKPOINTS DEFINE MEASURE ANALYZE IMPROVE CONTROL Macro Process Name: Manage Resource Conservation Key Work Process: KWP5 Create Cost Benefit Analysis Work System / Leader: Ed Curry DMAIC Status: Improve Cycle: Yes Plan Do Check Act Process Owner: Art Johnson Revision Status: N/C 4/21/09 Refine Cycle: No DEFINE 1. The stakeholder and need were identified. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: Internal and external customers were identified. 2. An indicator measuring our performance in meeting the need was developed. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: An indicator to measure Q1 Reduce Electrical Usage 10% by the end of FY 08/09 was developed. By increasing the number of cost benefit analyses performed, more conservation projects can be completed and Q measure Q1 would be improved thus resulting in an overall reduction in Kilowatt Hours (KWH) used at each school campus and District ancillary facility location. See checkpoint A theme statement consistent with the indicator was selected. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: Yes, the theme statement is consistent with Q1 to reduce the District-wide KWH usage. Theme Statement: In order to meet or exceed the FY 08/09 minimum 10% energy reduction target, energy reduction facility projects must be designed, constructed and deployed/operated as soon as possible. Rating Legend: 5 = Checkpoint Fully Satisfied / 4 = Meets Most Criteria of Checkpoint / 3 = Meets Minimal Requirement of Checkpoint 2 = Checkpoint Somewhat/Partially Satisfied / 1 = Checkpoint Not Addressed EZDMAIC SM is a registered Service Mark of ets Inc. ~ Copyright 2009, ets Inc. Page 1

25 EZ DMAIC 20 CHECKPOINTS DEFINE MEASURE ANALYZE IMPROVE CONTROL Plan Do Check Act MEASURE 4. The theme was stratified from various viewpoints and a significant problem was chosen. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: The theme was stratified into three problems: 1) Insufficient money to fund energy reduction capital projects; 2) The deployment of the project will occur after the end of the 08/09 fiscal year; 3) Cost Benefit Analysis not being completed in a timely manner. Problem #3 was selected as the most significant. 5. A target for improvement was established based on the stakeholder's need and its impact on the theme indicator was determined. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: A target has been established to reduce the District s electrical usage in KWH. The target is a 10% reduction in KWH used. 6. A problem statement that addressed the gap between the actual and target values was developed. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: Actual and target gap values have been identified.. In July of 2008 the Resource Conservation Team (RCT) was formed. By the end of October 2008, all school sites had been inspected and audited. The RCT identified 623 complex facility projects to reduce energy consumption at school and ancillary facilities. A cost benefit analysis (CBA), to include a 5 year payback analysis is required for each project. As of January 1 st, 2009, only 409 cost benefit analyses have been completed. Gap: As of December 31, 2008, a cost benefit analysis has been completed for 409 out of 623 complex facility projects (65.65%). Rating Legend: 5 = Checkpoint Fully Satisfied / 4 = Meets Most Criteria of Checkpoint / 3 = Meets Minimal Requirement of Checkpoint 2 = Checkpoint Somewhat/Partially Satisfied / 1 = Checkpoint Not Addressed EZDMAIC SM is a registered Service Mark of ets Inc. ~ Copyright 2009, ets Inc. Page 2

26 EZ DMAIC 20 CHECKPOINTS DEFINE MEASURE ANALYZE IMPROVE CONTROL Plan Do Check Act ANALYZE 7. Potential causes most likely to have the greatest impact on the problem were selected. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: Five potential causes were selected: 1) Inability to collect kwh usage data at the equipment level; 2) The number of data loggers used to collect energy data at the equipment level is inadequate; 3) Project cost estimating cycle times rely on field survey data; 4) Subcontractor quotes take too long to get; and 5) Outside influences affect field data collection. 8. A relationship between the root causes and the problem was verified with data. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: The relationship between root causes and the problem was verified by conducting field inspections and audits from previous experience with determinations of project cost. This relationship was not verified by quantifiable data. 9. Root causes were selected and the impact of each root cause on the gap was determined. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: The impact of the root cause was determined. During fact finding inspections and audits, the following root cause impact on the gap was noted. A. Inability to collect KWH usage data at the equipment level. B. The number of data loggers used to collect energy data at the equipment level is inadequate. C. Project cost estimating cycle times rely on subcontractor quotes. D. Subcontractor quotes take too long to get. E. School-site equipment data collection resources not adequate to provide timely data collection. All of the above root causes impacted to increase cycle time for producing a cost benefit analysis. Rating Legend: 5 = Checkpoint Fully Satisfied / 4 = Meets Most Criteria of Checkpoint / 3 = Meets Minimal Requirement of Checkpoint 2 = Checkpoint Somewhat/Partially Satisfied / 1 = Checkpoint Not Addressed EZDMAIC SM is a registered Service Mark of ets Inc. ~ Copyright 2009, ets Inc. Page 3

27 EZ DMAIC 20 CHECKPOINTS DEFINE MEASURE ANALYZE IMPROVE CONTROL Plan Do Check Act IMPROVE 10. Countermeasures were selected to address verified root causes. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: Four countermeasures were developed. 1. Purchase 2 additional data loggers to collect equipment level energy consumption data. 2. Provide specific data collection instructions / requirements. 3. Communicate more frequently with subcontractors. 4. Hold more project specific meetings to identify project requirements. 11. The method for selecting the appropriate practical methods was clear and considered effectiveness and feasibility. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: An effectiveness and feasibility matrix was used to select which countermeasures to deploy. Practical methods were developed for each countermeasure by using a brainstorming session. See Storyboard package for effectiveness and feasibility matrix. Countermeasures 1,2 and 4 were deployed. It was determined by benchmarking that countermeasure 3 was only moderately effective and not feasible because of the lack of control over subcontractors. IMPROVE 12. The action plan reflected accountability, schedule, and cost, and was implemented. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: An overall action plan was developed that incorporated selected countermeasures. A countermeasure action plan matrix was developed which shows deployment accountability, schedule and associated cost. See Storyboard. Rating Legend: 5 = Checkpoint Fully Satisfied / 4 = Meets Most Criteria of Checkpoint / 3 = Meets Minimal Requirement of Checkpoint 2 = Checkpoint Somewhat/Partially Satisfied / 1 = Checkpoint Not Addressed EZDMAIC SM is a registered Service Mark of ets Inc. ~ Copyright 2009, ets Inc. Page 4

28 EZ DMAIC 20 CHECKPOINTS DEFINE MEASURE ANALYZE IMPROVE CONTROL Plan Do Check Act CONTROL 13. [Results] The effect of countermeasure on the root causes was demonstrated. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: The effect of the countermeasure on the root cause was demonstrated. As of April 7, 2009, all countermeasures were fully deployed. 14. [Results] The effect of countermeasures on the problem was demonstrated. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: The effect of the countermeasure on the problem was demonstrated. As of April 13, 2009, the number of completed Cost Benefit Analyses has increased from 409 to 476. The gap has been improved by 10.76% from 34.35% to 23.59%. 15. [Results] The improvement target was achieved and causes of significant variation were addressed. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: As of February 28, 2009, the deployment of the countermeasures to increase the number of energy projects completed and decrease energy usage reduced the District energy usage by 14% exceeding the 10% target. Schools not achieving savings were targeted for investigation and additional projects. See Macro charts. 16. [Results] The effect of countermeasures on the theme indicator representing the stakeholder s need was demonstrated. Yes: X No: Rating: Comment: Theme Statement: In order to meet or exceed the FY 08/09 minimum 10% energy reduction target, energy reduction facility projects must be designed, constructed and deployed / operated as soon as possible. The chart in the Macro clearly shows that the countermeasure is having an effect on the theme statement. CONTROL 17. [Standardization] A method was established to document, permanently change, and communicate the revised process or standard, and was implemented. Yes: No: X Rating: 3 Comment: The countermeasures have been instituted. A Cost Benefit Analysis data gathering procedure has been developed. The use of the data collection form and project specific meetings has become standard operating procedure. 18. [Standardization] Specific areas for replication were identified, and an action plan was developed to promote organizational learning. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: This checkpoint was analyzed. The developed countermeasures will be utilized as resource conservation is focused on water, gas and heating oil and trash removal. 19. [Future Plans] Any remaining problems of the theme were addressed. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: There are no remaining problems associated with the theme at this time. The problem of subcontractor quotes taking too long has been reduced with countermeasures designed to assist in more rapid data collection. EZDMAIC SM is a registered Service Mark of ets Inc. ~ Copyright 2009, ets Inc. Page 5

29 EZ DMAIC 20 CHECKPOINTS DEFINE MEASURE ANALYZE IMPROVE CONTROL Plan Do Check Act CONTROL 20. [Future Plans] Lessons learned, P-D-C-A of the ets Six Sigma DMAIC Method, and team growth were assessed and documented. Yes: X No: Rating: 4 Comment: The problem solving activity to improve the theme occurred over numerous brainstorming and data analysis sessions. Data was examined from varying view points to understand the problem and gap. Lessons learned were discussed and documented. Rating Legend: 5 = Checkpoint Fully Satisfied / 4 = Meets Most Criteria of Checkpoint / 3 = Meets Minimal Requirement of Checkpoint 2 = Checkpoint Somewhat/Partially Satisfied / 1 = Checkpoint Not Addressed EZDMAIC SM is a registered Service Mark of ets Inc. ~ Copyright 2009, ets Inc. Page 6