Executive Summary. Statistics and Benchmarks

Transcription

1 Executive Summary Department/Division: Garage and Motor Pool services Mission: The mission of the garage and motor pool services is to repair, maintain and schedule vehicle reservations for department and motor pool vehicles. FTEs: Budget Mandated Discretionary Service Cost Service Cost Personnel Costs $135,961 Management/Support $44,035 Technicians $91,926 Operating Costs $93,044 Indirect Costs ~ $27,000* Capital Costs $44,033 TOTAL $300,038 *Indirect costs are based on 2007 data. The consultant has not completed the 2008 indirect costs study. Statistics and Benchmarks Average age of fleet: 5.5 yrs. Number of employees per fleet vehicle: Condition of garage facility: poor Number of lifts per employee:.5 Average mpg: mpg (2009 data) Percent of vehicles that are Sherriff s: 43% 1

2 Strengths Preventative maintenance is a priority Appointment system improvement Needs Improve communication with customers Improve customer service Implement preventative maintenance scheduling for departmental vehicles Increase accountability Use goal setting and create incentives Training customer service, performance, data tracking Develop a learning culture Incorporate environmental issues Recommendations No cost Low cost High cost Update fleet policy and circulate regularly Begin basic benchmarking Create individual productivity charts for technicians Conduct quarterly audits of technicians Training for excel, performance measurement, general computer skills Create and submit a green fleet policy (calculate fleet s greenhouse gas emissions, educated drivers about greenhouse gas reduction strategies) Join a professional organization (North American Fleet Assoc. NAFA) Need mechanic (ASE, EVT) and customer service training Purchase software FASTER (est. $65,000) or Manager Plus (est. $3,000) Purchase and install a new lift Build a new garage facility Obtain certified fleet manager certification (2 3 yr program) Develop an automated reminder system for preventative maintenance (could be included with software) Purchase and install new computer hardware and improve internet connection 2

3 Garage and Fleet Management Evaluation Methodology Data for this evaluation was collected from employee interviews, a site visit and internal documents. All internal document data are from FY 2008, except where otherwise noted. Employee interviews focused on the department s strengths, weaknesses and needs. Concord, NC was chosen for a site visit, based on a recommendation from the Director of the NC Benchmarking Project at the School of Government. The site visit included a facility tour and discussion of benchmarking data, best practices, technology, professional organizations and fleet policies. Internal documents include results from a 2008 customer service survey, the department s work plan, budget, etc. Benchmarks were determined using data from the School of Governments Municipal Benchmarking study. While comparing cities and counties is not a perfect match, it was deemed the most reliable source of data. Ideally, this process will identify and encourage departments to begin internal benchmarking, as internal data is the most reliable and accurate source of data. The data was compiled and analyzed to answer the following questions: Relevance 1. Is the service mandatory? Is the level of service mandatory? The garage and fleet services do not provide mandated services. 2. Do the discretionary services address a specific and existing problem, need or benefit? To what degree? SOURCE: customer survey Yes. The garage repairs and maintains department and fleet vehicles. Motor pool services provide reservation and management services for the motor pool. 3. Is the service aligned to the mission of the department? SOURCE: budget Yes. 4. Is the service aligned to a desired result on the department s work plan and 3 year strategic plan? SOURCE: 3 year strategic plan Yes. 3

4 Quality 1. How is the service s outcome measured? Is the service s outcome measure reliable? Is the target ambitious? Does the service meet its outcome measure target? In comparison to other counties, is this department providing a quality service? SOURCE: performance measures, benchmarks, best practices* The department will begin collecting performance measures in FY10. The performance measures below are reliable; however, the department will need help developing a collection and analysis process. In addition, tracking the number of preventative maintenance services per technician may be a better measure than the percent of time garage staff spends on preventative maintenance, since these services are often provided in conjunction with other services. The 2010 targets for repairs completed within 24 hrs are too low. A sample of 17 NC cities indicates that on average 75% of work orders are completed within 24 hrs. Performance Measure Est 2010 Target Hidden Percent of vehicle repairs completed within 24 hours 50% No Percent of garage staff time spent on preventive maintenance Percent of repairs due to failure of initial repair within 30 days Percent of vehicles receiving preventive maintenance on schedule 50% No <10% No 90% No In comparison with other NC cities, the garage does perform above average in the number of preventative maintenances per technician. Unfortunately, available data did not allow for comparison of other quality measures. Motor pool services will track the following quality performance measures. 4

5 Performance Measure Percent of time that reserved vehicles are ready by the designated pickup time Est 2010 Target Hidden 95% No In addition to these measures, motor pool services should begin tracking percent of vehicle up time to determine the level of vehicle availability. 2. Is the department providing high quality customer service? How is the service s customer satisfaction measured? Is the service s customer satisfaction measure reliable? Is the target for customer satisfaction ambitious? Does the service meet its target for customer satisfaction? SOURCE: customer survey, performance measures The garage received a 48% overall customer service score on the 2008 customer service survey. In 2009, the garage received a customer service rating of 75%, showing considerable improvement. Given the increase in customer service ratings, the customer service goal for 2010 is too low. Performance Measure Est 2010 Target Hidden Percent of customers who report satisfaction with the overall fleet maintenance customer service Percent of customers who report that they are satisfied with overall motor pool customer service Percent of customers who report that they are satisfied with motor pool vehicle cleanliness 68% 75% No 90% 90% 92% No 71% 75% No Motor pool services received a 90% overall customer service rating in In 2009, it received a 94% overall customer service rating, exceeding its 2009 goal. 3. Is there a process for soliciting regular feedback from customers? Has the service taken meaningful steps as a result of findings from self assessments, recommendations from other formal evaluations or previous program review results? SOURCE: departmental website, interviews Interviews indicated that the majority of feedback about the garage and is received through direct communication with customers and an annual customer satisfaction survey. There is no formal process for customers to provide regular feedback to technicians. Motor pool services provides a pre and post trip inspection form for customers. 5

6 Thirty eight percent of the suggestions from the 2008 survey were implemented and other improvements are being discussed. Completed suggestions include cleanliness improvements, updating software, centralized scheduling and preventative maintenance courtesy calls. 4. Is the department head formally held accountable for the achievement of performance goals? How does the department head ensure that the department builds a customer service culture? SOURCE: departmental website, interviews, observation, budget The 2008 customer service survey has increased accountability. The performance measures integrated into the 2010 budget may also increase accountability. The department head shared the results from the 2008 customer service survey with employees and initiated changes. However, there is still a need for customer service training for garage employees. 5. How does the department identify and innovate service offerings to meet the requirements and exceed the expectations of customers? How does the department attract new customers and provide opportunities for expanding relationships with existing customers? SOURCE: customer survey, interviews, departmental website, calendar The department has used the customer service survey to improve, however the department does not actively seek innovations. 6. Is there a process for anticipating customer needs and preparing for technological advancements? Have technology investments been implemented according to the timeline? Have technology investments been implemented within the approved budget allocation? Has the technology investment demonstrated the stated return on investment? SOURCE: customer survey, planning process, observation, interviews, budget The department is aware of their need for improved technology; however, no effort has been made to research potential technological solutions. New motor pool reservation software was purchased and installed in The County Manager s Office managed this process. 7. Are service outcome/impact measures aligned to the department s 3 year strategic plan? SOURCE: 3 year strategic plan 6

7 Yes. Efficiency 1. Compared to similar counties, does the department provide services efficiently? How is efficiency measured? Is the efficiency measure reliable? Is the target ambitious? Does the service meet its target for efficiency? SOURCE: performance measures, benchmarks, best practices The cost per vehicle equivalent units (VEU) benchmark shows that efficiency has improved, as the number of vehicles has increased. Currently, the cost per VEU measurement is slightly higher than average when compared with 17 other cities participating in the NC benchmarking project. The difference in size between cities and counties may explain why the cost per VEU benchmark is higher than average. Comparing this benchmark to Charlotte, instead of smaller cities, may portray a more accurate picture. For example, Charlotte s cost per VEU is $1353, while Concord s is $651. The department does not have efficiency performance measures. Measures, such as cost per vehicle, hours billed and VEU per technician should be added to the work plan. 2. Are resources allocated to reach the intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise directly address the purpose of the service? Is the staffing model optimal? SOURCE: performance measures, benchmarks, best practices, customer survey Benchmarks show that the garage had an average technician to vehicle ratio in Currently, 1.75 employees serve as technicians. Motor pool services employs a.75 FTE. An analysis of the motor pool costs compared to the revenues generated through the chargeback to departments, shows that the motor pool is covering costs. 7

8 3. Are there opportunities to leverage resources without diminishing service quality? SOURCE: performance measures, benchmarks, best practices The efficiency opportunities identified rely on capital investments, such as purchasing an additional lift, building a new garage facility and purchasing software. There may be an opportunity to contract out services. Go away costs were estimated to be $188,948 annually. 4. Does the customer perceive the service to be timely? SOURCE: customer survey While the new scheduling system has improved customer experience, there is still a one week wait time for services that require a lift. Currently, there is one lift for 1.75 technicians. The benchmark Hours billed as a percent of total technician hours shows that the technicians are not recording their time accurately and may also reflect inefficient use of time due to the lack of an additional lift. 5. Is the service delivery process optimally designed? SOURCE: best practices The work order and payment process could be improved. Currently, work orders and payments must pass through multiple hands before being closed. New software may help shorten this process. 6. Are efficiency measures aligned to the department s 3 year strategic plan? SOURCE: 3 year strategic plan Yes. * In order to determine benchmarks and best practices, the management analyst will a) ask department heads to provide benchmarking data or resources for benchmarking, b) consult with experts at the School of Government, c) gather data directly from comparison counties via phone interviews, website or site visits. 8