Measuring In Project Processes with Team-Driven Feedback: Holly Hill Hospital

Transcription

1 Measuring In Project Processes with Team-Driven Feedback: Holly Hill Hospital Ryan Suydam Houston Brown Christian Pikel Mark Spies Client Feedback Tool Brasfield & Gorrie UHS Stengel Hill Architecture

2 Agenda Team Introductions and Perspectives The Project: Holly Hill Hospital Overview and Initial Goals Early Results and Refinement Quantifying Work Hand-Off Tracking Conditions of Satisfaction Wrap up, Lessons Learned, Q&A

3 Team Introduction & Perspectives Ryan Suydam, Client Feedback Tool, Feedback Guru Houston Brown, Brasfield & Gorrie, GC / Estimator Christian Pikel, UHS, Owner Mark Spies, Stengel Hill Architecture, Architect

4 The Project: Holly Hill Hospital 80 Bed Child Behavioral Expansion Hospital greenfield project 14 month duration: Validation through First Patient Day High expectations to set new benchmark and push innovation on smaller/quicker projects Expect ground breaking 1 st Week November Designated as test case ILPD project for demonstrating potential of feedback tool

5 Overview and Initial Goals Client Feedback A process in which the results of a service as evaluated by the recipient of the service affect the service delivery while the service is being performed PLAN DO CHECK ACT

6 Overview and Initial Goals You Can t Manage What You Don t Measure (Drucker) What s Measured Tends to Improve (Hawthorne) Provides Practical Benefits Quality, Risk, Bottom Line Responds to Basic Human Needs Respect, Appreciation, Loyalty

7 Overview and Initial Goals Kickoff Meeting Meeting End of Phase Key Deliverable Meeting End of Phase Final Deliverable Project Start Project Closeout Low High FB FB FB FB Unresolved Issues Erode Relational Equity FB FB FB Identify Issues + Discover Successes = Improved Relational Equity Start Finish FB = Send Survey & Collect Feedback

8 Overview and Initial Goals Client Your Team Partners Leader Leader Leader Manager Manager Manager Staff Staff Staff

9 Overview and Initial Goals Follow-up: Shows respect Demonstrates expertise Builds lasting value When surveyed again: Acceptance increases 83%

10 Overview and Initial Goals Automatic Centering Starts at Met Expectations Scale promotes process questions Intuitive to use 2 seconds to score Fast & Easy Capture Detail 60 level answer scale Respondents can nudge the scores

11 Overview and Initial Goals

12 Overview and Initial Goals Background: Explore opportunities within ILPD Conditions: Cultural adoption of ILPD challenged Hypothesis: Tracking team member perceptions will surface successes and accelerate resolution of issues. Open sharing of feedback will increase team effectiveness and communication. Experimental Methods: Survey Big Room attendees Survey work hand-off interactions Survey overall team success

13 Early Results and Refinement 390 surveys sent in 33 batches 184 replies for a 47% response rate Includes 32 people from 12 trade partners over a six-month period

14 Early Results and Refinement Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 1: Generic surveys few useful results Phase 2: Targeted surveys but no followup Phase 3: Targeted surveys with purposeful follow-up discussions

15 Early Results and Refinement Plan (how to measure perceptions) Asked standard questions After Big Rooms, Handoffs, and Monthly B&G to distribute results Do (how we measured) Completed two Big Room cycles Check (what did measuring accomplish) Not much happened lots of data, minimal usefulness. Act (what do we change) Changed survey design (CoS) Improved usefulness of data Still didn t use the data PDCA phase II added 15 minutes at start of Big Room to review Big Rooms now begin with critical conversations!

16 Early Results and Refinement 1. Survey sent by feedback sponsor (B&G) after Big Room to all attendees 2. Survey sent by B&G to recipients of each work hand-off, about the team partner who performed the work 3. Results routed to B&G in real-time urgent issues are routed to team 4. B&G (with Client Feedback Tool) prepare results reports for start of next Big Room 5. Team members discuss anomalies (high scores, low scores, and comments) 6. Side-bars, if needed, occur during breaks to resolve intra-team issues

17 Early Results and Refinement Big Room Survey Long format takes ~ 3 minutes to complete Tracks five KPI s based around the Conditions of Satisfaction

18 Early Results and Refinement Work Hand-Off Survey Short format takes 30 seconds to complete Tracks five KPI s based around the Conditions of Satisfaction Tracks three KPI s based on Quality, Schedule, and Budget

19 Early Results and Refinement Surveys versus Plus/Delta: Yes they ARE different +/ Δ quick visual of value-adds Survey is DATA, focused on project performance The Contractor s Perspective: Stories how feedback has helped the GC role

20 Quantifying Work Hand-Off Identify Key Deliverables to Track: Design Development Floor Plan Example Choosing by Advantages Quiet Partner Gains a Voice Validating Lean Processes Focus on the Process: Processes can be improved People are hard to change

21 Quantifying Work Hand-Off Design Development Floor Plan: From a designer: From the owner: (two weeks later)

22 Quantifying Work Hand-Off Example Choosing by Advantages: Specific process improvements noted

23 Quantifying Work Hand-Off Example: A quiet voice is heard Responded to 6 out of 6 surveys Commented every time, raising issues 4 times

24 Quantifying Work Hand-Off Validating a Lean Practice: Making choices in the light of evidence

25 Quantifying Work Hand-Off And now, for something completely different:

26 Tracking Conditions of Satisfaction Definition The criteria by which the outcome of a project is measured Conditions of Satisfaction - HHH On-going surveys of team performance against stated CoS Visual indicator to facilitate big room discussion Has identified low scores need for improvement CoS Has identified team disparity resulting in realignment efforts Aided in identifying incomplete understanding of CoS Increased visibility of individual scores facilitates team dialog on issues & misalignment

27 Tracking Conditions of Satisfaction The Conditions of Satisfaction (current draft) Child Friendly Environment Non-Institutional Safe & Low Stress Admissions Promote Activity Support Staff Comforts Parents Pre-Fab Bathroom Value Demonstration Reset BH Benchmarks Better Handoffs Minimize Docs Better Permitting High Trust QC Ethic Production Efficiency Safe but Fast

28 Tracking Conditions of Satisfaction CoS Results - Overall

29 Tracking Conditions of Satisfaction Example Centered Average, with High Deviation How effectively are we minimizing design documentation, yet conveying rich understanding of preconstruction decisions, all while minimizing team risk?

30 Tracking Conditions of Satisfaction Example Averages, with high/low deviation 50% of team responded at or near Met Expectations 50% split from Unacceptable to Excellent Indicated need to determine cause of unbalance How effectively are we minimizing design documentation, yet conveying rich understanding of preconstruction decisions, all while minimizing team risk? Countermeasure: Deeper dive to determine Why (5-why) of Both Low and High Scores; Immediate Action

31 Further Exploration Expand use of visual feedback to team End User Retrospectives Measure hand-offs from design to field ops? Measure deviation over time team alignment? Enable real-time alerts to all Designate survey events at pull plan

32 Wrap up, Lessons Learned, Q&A Final Notes from the Team What did YOU hear? Questions?