Manage Facilities Plant Operations and Maintenance. Process Improvements

Macro Process: Manage Facilities Plant Operations and Maintenance Process Owner: Manage Facilities Plant Operations and Maintenance Process Improvements Work System Owner Ed Curry Work System Enabling Leader Dane Theodore, Director Priority Processes Owner Walt Petters, Director February 26, 2009 Revision 2

Macro Process: Manage Facilities Plant Operations and Maintenance Process Owner: REVISION LOG SECTION NUMBER REVISION DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION 5 2/4/09 Update KWP3 Flow Chart 10 2/4/09 Update Macro PCS 11 2/4/09 Update KWP3 PCS Multiple 2/26/09 EZ DMAIC 20 Checkpoint Review

Key Work Process (3): MANAGE WORK ORDER PROCESSING Process Owner: Table of Contents 1. Cover Sheet 2. Table of Contents 3. Plant Operations and Maintenance Internal and External Customers 4. Macro Flow Chart - Manage Facilities Operations and Maintenance 5. Key Work Process 3 Flow Chart - Manage Work Order Processing 6. DMAIC Lite Storyboard - Check Points 1-18 7. Priority Process Selection Matrix Form 8. Key-In-Process Measures Determination System Form 9. BPS Process Management System 10. Macro Process Control System Form 11. Key Work Process 3 Process Control System Form 12. Countermeasure Matrix 13. Countermeasure Action Plan Matrix 14. Action Plan Root Cause #1 15. Action Plan Root Cause #2 16. Action Plan Root Cause #3 17. Key Work Process Indicator Data 18. EZ DMAIC 20 Checkpoint Review Document

Key Work Process (3): MANAGE WORK ORDER PROCESSING Process Owner: PO&M INTERNAL CUSTOMERS School Board Superintendent Area Superintendents District Administration School Administration School Support Staff Teachers PO&M EXTERNAL CUSTOMERS State of Florida Florida Department of Education Local Governments Parents / Guardians Students

Macro Process: MANAGE FACILITIES OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE( 9562) Process Owner: WALT PETTERS STEP WHO BPS SCHOOL BOARD FACILITIES OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BPS SCHOOLS AND DEPARTMENTS NEED NEED PROVIDE WELL MAINTAINED, SAFE AND COMFORTABLE FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE BPS EDUCATIONAL PROCESS. OPEN Note: This chart represents a typical daily operation process. The school principal operates the facility in conjunction with PO&M. OPEN FACILITY OPERATE OPERATE FACILITY MONITOR QUESTION QUESTION DELIVERABLES: D1- MONTHLY WORK ORDER REPORT D2 - ANNUAL FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT KWP1 MONITOR FACILITY OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS P1 - Operational Systems Monitoring Hours of Operation IS THE FACILITY OPERATING AS PLANNED? YES? NO QUESTION PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE (PM) WORK NEEDED?? NO PERFORM KWP2 YES CAN PROBLEM BE FIXED BY FACILITY S CUSTODIAL STAFF? YES? NO FIX P2 - PM Work Per Month PERFORM PM WORK FIX PROBLEM QUESTION PROBLEM FIXED?? NO QUESTION PROCESS P3 - School-Generated W/O Per Month P4 - Service W/O Per Month P5 - PO&M-Generated W/O Per Month P6 - # W/O Opened / Closed Per Month P7 - # Backlogged W/O Per Month P8 - Aging W/O Per Month P9 - Operations Cost Per Month P10 - Maintenance Cost Per Month KWP3 PROCESS WORK ORDER(S) YES QUESTION WORK ORDER CLOSED? YES? NO QUESTION END OF NORMAL FACILITY OPERATION?? NO YES QUESTION END OF EXTENDED FACILITY OPERATION?? NO YES CLOSE CLOSE FACILITY MANAGED NEED IS MET Q1 - Operations Cost Per GSF Q2 - Maintenance Cost Per GSF Q3 - Total (Operations + Maintenance) Cost Per GSF Q4 - PM and W/O Activity Per Year Q5 - W/O Backlog Per Year Q6 - PM / Service W/O Ratio Q7 - PO&M / Facility-Generated W/O Ratio Q8 - PM Work Order Backlog Per Year FACILITIES SERVICES / Robert J. Wiebel & Walt Petters 12/12/08

Key Work Process (3): MANAGE WORK ORDER PROCESSING Process Owner: W. PETTERS STEP WHO SCHOOL SITE OR ANCILLARY PO&M LEAD FACILITY DISPATCHER SUPERVISOR TECH TECHNICIAN NEED NEED FACILITY MAINTENANCE TO EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY MAINTAIN DISTRICT FACILITIES QUESTION CALL SUBMIT PROCESS YES? SUBMIT A ROUTINE W/O REQUEST DOES THE MAINTENANCE REQUIRE A ROUTINE WORK ORDER? NO CALL DISPATCHER P1 - PHONE CALLS PER MONTH PROCESS CALL P3.1 - School-Generated W/O Per Month P4.1 - Service W/O Per Month P5.1 - PO&M-Generated W/O Per Month P6.1 - # W/O Opened / Closed Per Month P7.1 - # Backlogged W/O Per Month P8.1 - Aging W/O Per Month PERFORM P2 - ROUTINE WORK REQUEST PER MONTH KWP3.1 PERFORM WORK ORDER SCHEDULING P3 - WORK ORDERS OPENED PER MONTH KWP3.2 PERFORM PERFORM FACILITY MAINTENANCE UPDATE P4 - WORK ORDERS CLOSED PER MONTH UPDATE DATA BASE MANAGED NEED IS MET Q4 - WORK ORDERS PER YEAR Q5 - WORK ORDER BACKLOG PER YEAR Q6 - PM / SERVICE WORK ORDER RATIO Q7 - PO&M / FACILITY - GENERATED W/O RATIO Q8 - PM WORK ORDER BACKLOG PER MONTH

Key Work Process (3.2): PERFORM FACILITY MAINTENANCE Process Owner: W. PETTERS STEP WHO SCHOOL SITE OR ANCILLARY FACILITY PO&M DISPATCHER SUPERVISOR LEAD TECH TECHNICIAN NEED NEED FACILITY MAINTENANCE TO EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY MAINTAIN DISTRICT FACILITIES PRINT PRINT DAILY WORK ORDER LIST EVALUATE EVALUATE WORK ORDER LIST QUESTION ARE THERE ANY WORK ORDERS ON THE SCHEDULE LIST THAT NOW NEED IMMEDIATE ATTENTION? YES? NO YES? ARE THERE ANY WORK ORDERS ON THE LIST THAT NEED ADDITIONAL EVALUATION? NO EVALUATE QUESTION IS THE WORK TO BE COMPLETED BY THE FAST TEAM? YES? NO DISPATCH DISPATCH TECHNICIAN DISPATCH FAST TEAM EVALUATE Note: Identify repair work not associated with W/O. EVALUATE QUESTION NEED PARTS? YES? NO ORDER ORDER PARTS RECEIVE RECEIVE PARTS COMPLETE NEED MET COMPLETE MAINTENANCE MANAGED Q4 - WORK ORDERS PER YEAR Q5 - WORK ORDER BACKLOG PER YEAR Q6 - PM / SERVICE WORK ORDER RATIO Q7 - PO&M / FACILITY - GENERATED W/O RATIO Q8 - PM WORK ORDER BACKLOG PER MONTH FACILITIES SERVICES / ROBERT J. WIEBEL / WALT PETTERS 1/24/09

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 email to rseemer@etsfl.com and copy Steve Muzzy on all emails. Thank you, Bob Seemer, President & COO, Electronic Training Solutions, Inc. Priority Process Name: Work System / Leader: DEFINE PLANT OPERATION & MAINTENANCE WALT PETTERS 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 4.1.1 (KPI) to be ranked first in Florida in the percentage of classroom and school spending and last in district administration and 4.1.5 Improve and maintain control of fixed assets at all worksites by 2010 2011 school year, Plant Operations and Maintenance (PO&M) has deployed a computerized maintenance management system. This system monitors and collects district-wide plant operating data and creates reports. In light of need to improve PO&M efficiencies and reduce operating costs, seven (7) Q measures have been developed to collect data that can be monitored and evaluated on a pre-determined basis. Q1. Operational Cost Per GSF (Annual) Q2. Maintenance Cost Per GSF (Annual) Q3. Total O&M Cost Per GSF (Annual) Q4. PM and W.O Activity Per Year Q5. Work Order Backlog Per Year Q6. PM / Service W/O Ratio Q7. PO&M / Facility Generated W/O Ratio 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 PO&M Priority Process Selection Matrix and a Key In-Process Measures Determination Form were created (see Pages 7 and 8). It was determined that key process Processing Work Orders was in need of improvement. After a preliminary process analysis of the number of work orders opened / closed per month, preventative maintenance work orders to routine and the number of backlogged work orders per month, it was noted that Q measures Q4, Q5, Q6 and Q7 would be affected and improved. By improving work order processing, Q measures Q4, Q5, Q6, and Q7 would be improved thus resulting in an overall improvement of OP&M service. 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. Repair center routine aging work orders (backlog) have increased during the time period between July to October 2008 from the same period in 2007. See chart. ets, Inc. / CTi 1990-2008 Page 1

MEASURE DMAIC Lite Storyboard ATTACHMENT A 4. List up to five (5) potential problem areas in this process and the associated P measure(s) for each. Reduced PO&M and Capital budgets and Staffing restrictions. (P9) (P10) New added facilities constructed. Routine work order backlog increases because of continuous aging of buildings and equipment. (P3) (P4) (P5) Self generated work orders and / or PM activity backlogs increase because if increase in routine work orders. (P2) (P4) (P5) Increased use of our District and School facilities by outside occupants. Increased expanded use of facilities by District and Schools. 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: The same-month aging work orders for August 07& 08 through October 07 & 08 is 17,640 and 18,104 respectively. The same-month aging work orders for the period of August through October 2008/2009 school year is increasing. Problem Statement: As a result of the economic environment in Florida and Brevard County, the amount available total funds (revenues) coming into the Brevard Public School District has decreased $27.0M between school fiscal years 06/07 and 07/08 and $190.74M between fiscal years 07/08 and 08/08. This decrease in revenues has caused the operating budget between 06/07 and 07/08 to increase by $30.19M and drop by $20.46M between 07/08 and 08/09. This loss of operating funds, for the 08/09 school year, caused a freeze on staffing and a reduction of all vacant maintenance positions. From January to July 2008 the backlog of aged work orders dropped from 6042 to 4273 respectively. Starting in August the backlog of aged work orders climbed to 5,755, 6,154 in September and 6,195 in October. This upward trend is caused by the decrease in school district operating funds, the addition new facilities, and the aging of existing facilities and equipment without the addition of more resources. See aging work order, PO&M staffing and overtime charts. Gap: The gap between the amount of same-month aging work orders for August 07& 08 through October 07 & 08 is 17,640 and 18,104 respectively. There is a backlog gap of 464 between same-month repair center backlogs and it is increasing by an average of 641 per month. ets, Inc. / CTi 1990-2008 Page 2

ATTACHMENT A DMAIC Lite Storyboard ANALYZE 6. List up to five (5) potential causes of the selected problem from checkpoint #5 in the Measure step. A. Reduced operating budget B. Reduced staffing C. Reduced use of overtime. D. Reduced or elimination of filling vacant positions E. Increased service-call cycle time. F. Replacement equipment and parts availability. 7. List the root causes and describe the approach used to select them from among the others. Root Causes Approach Used To Select Root Cause A. Declining State Funding Operating & Capital Budget Reports B. Reduced PO&M Budget Operating & Capital Budget Reports C. Reduced PO&M Budget Operating & Capital Budget Reports D. Reduced PO&M Budget Operating & Capital Budget Reports E. Lack of service call time standards Work Order Tracking & Reporting System F. Equipment and parts purchasing cycle time Work Order Tracking & Reporting System ets, Inc. / CTi 1990-2008 Page 3

IMPROVE DMAIC Lite Storyboard ATTACHMENT A 8. List the countermeasure(s) you considered for implementation for each selected root cause from the Analyze steps A D. A. The PO&M department has no control over the amount of the annual budget. The department has control over how the budget is spread over department activities. If funding shortfalls continue the 2 nd half of 2008/ 2009 and 2009 / 2010 school years, then the budget allocation may have to be allocated to critical operation and maintenance functions. In addition to shifting budget to high priority process, use the DMAIC process to improve the cycle time and reduce waste of each repair center. As a last resort, move staff from less-important processes to repair center teams. If that does not work, request that more funding be shifted from other operations accounts to plant operations and maintenance and remove the hiring freeze and lift the restrictions for the use of over time. B. Develop service standards for completing work orders based upon health and safety priorities. Train, council and / or terminate PO&M employees. C. Analyze history of work order types and repair center activities. Analyze work order process flow to reduce work order processing cycle times. D. Work with Purchasing department to reduce the time it takes to purchase equipment and parts. 9. Determine the effectiveness x feasibility score for each countermeasure, and note the highest scores. See attached countermeasure matrix. Root Cause Effectiveness Feasibility Overall Action A 5 5 25 Yes B 5 5 25 Yes C 5 5 25 Yes (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 attached countermeasure action plan matrix and action plans. (Remember: Email your action plan(s) with this completed DMAIC Lite Storyboard, per instructions on page 1.) ets, Inc. / CTi 1990-2008 Page 4

CONTROL DMAIC Lite Storyboard ATTACHMENT A 11. Briefly explain how you know the root causes were reduced or eliminated. Cannot reduce or eliminate budget shortfalls because the budget is controlled by the District. One will know that the root causes have been reduced or eliminated when a plan has been developed to redeploy maintenance staff to high priority health and safety work orders, a service standard is published, and the purchasing cycle time improvement project is complete. 12. Briefly explain how you know the problem was reduced. When the number of backlog work orders per month shows a downward trend over a three month period. 13. Briefly explain how you know the theme measure was improved. When the number of backlog work orders per month shows a downward trend over a three month period. 14. Explain how you will prevent this problem from recurring. Consistently monitor monthly backlog reports and re-deploy maintenance staff as soon as possible. 15. Identify which other BPS locations should consider implementing your countermeasures. The countermeasures used in this project are being applied to all types of work orders. 16. Identify what other BPS locations could learn from this project. N/A 17. List the remaining problem areas in this process. Reduced budgets and resources are a problem. 18. List the key lessons learned from this process improvement. To develop a flexible maintenance organization that can be easily re-organized to meet an ever changing budgetary ets, Inc. / CTi 1990-2008 Page 5

ATTACHMENT A FACILITIES OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PRIORITY PROCESS SELECTION MATRIX FORM Selection Factor Key Work Processes Importance x Gap = Point Score Priority Rank Monitor Facility Operational Systems 5 3 15 3 Perform Preventative Maintenance 5 4 20 2 Process Work Orders 5 5 25 1 SCALE: 5 = Extreme 4 = High 3 = Moderate 2 = Low 1 = None ets, Inc. / CTi 1990-2008 Page 6

ATTACHMENT A KEY IN-PROCESS MEASURES DETERMINATION FORM Outcome Measures In-Process Measures Q1. Operational Cost Per GSF (Annual). 1. Operational Cost Per Month (P9) Q2. Maintenance Cost Per GSF (Annual) 1. Maintenance Cost Per Month (P10) Q3. Total O&M Cost Per GSF (Annual) Q4. PM and W/O Activity Per Year Q5. Work Order Backlog Per Year Q6. PM / Service W/O Ration Q7. PO&M / Facility Generated W/O Ration 1. Operational Cost Per Month (P9) 2. Maintenance Cost Per Month (P10) 1. PM Work Performed Per Month (P2) 2. School Generated W/O Per Month (P3) 3. Misc Facility Generated W/O Per Month (P4) 4. PO&M Generated W/O Per Month (P5) 1. School Generated W/O Per Month (P3) 2. Misc Facility Generated W/O Per Month (P4) 3. PO&M Generated W/O Per Month (P5) 1. PM Work Performed Per Month (P2) 2. School Generated W/O Per Month (P3) 3. Misc Facility Generated W/O Per Month (P4) 4. PO&M Generated W/O Per Month (P5) 1. Misc Facility Generated W/O Per Month (P4) 2. PO&M Generated W/O Per Month (P5) ets, Inc. / CTi 1990-2008 Page 7

ATTACHMENT A Work System: Plant Operations and Maintenance BPS Process Management System Leader: Walt Petters Owner Members Priority Processes Name Email Name Email 1. Jim Varney varney.jim@brevard.k 12.fl.us 1. Monitor Operational Systems Walt Petters pettersw@brevard. k12.fl.us 2. Angelo Thomas 3. thomas.angelo@breva rd.k12.fl.us 4. 2. Perform Preventative Maintenance (PM) Work Walt Petters pettersw@brevar d.k12.fl.us 1. Jim Varney 2. Angelo Thomas 3. varney.jim@brevard. k12.fl.us thomas.angelo@brev ard.k12.fl.us 4. 1. Jim Varney varney.jim@brevard. k12.fl.us 3. Process Work Orders Walt Petters pettersw@brevar d.k12.fl.us 2. Angelo Thomas 3. thomas.angelo@brev ard.k12.fl.us 4. ets, Inc. / CTi 1990-2008 Page 9

Macro Process Control System Process Name: Facilities Operations and Maintenance Process Customer: The School Board of Brevard County, representing staff, students, parents and the community Process Purpose: Provide cost effective operation and maintenance of clean, healthy and safe educational facilities P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Process and Quality Indicators Process Control Indicators Limits And Quality Specs/ Indicators Targets Target: 99% Uptime Operational Systems Monitoring Baseline: 100% Preventative Maintenance (PM) Work Target: Reduce Backlog by 20% Orders per Month Baseline: 128 School-Generated Work Orders Target: Reduce # 30D by 10% per Month Baseline: 875 Target: Reduce # by 10% Service W/O Per Month Baseline: 398 PO&M-Generated Work Orders Target: Increase # by 20% per Month Baseline: 458 # of Work Orders Opened / Closed Target: Reduce Cycle Time by 10% per Month Baseline: 23D Target: Reduce Backlog by 10% # Backlogged Work Orders per Month Baseline: 6500 Target: Reduce Backlog > 30D by 20% Aging W/O Per Month Baseline: CY 2007 = 3354 W/O Target: Below state average and Plant Operations Cost Per Month 25 th percentile of peer districts Baseline: $159,441 Target: Below state average and Maintenance Cost Per Month 25 th percentile of peer districts Baseline: $419,176 Target: Below state average and Plant Operational Cost Per GSF (Annual) 25 th percentile of peer districts Baseline: $0.16 Target: Below state average and Maintenance Cost Per GSF (Annual) 25 th percentile of peer districts Baseline: $0.43 Target: Below state average and Total PO&M Cost Per GSF (Annual) 25 th percentile of peer districts Baseline: $0.59 Target: Below state average and PM and W/O Activity Per Year 25 th percentile of peer districts Baseline: 10,960 / 46,132 Process Owner: Walt Petters Critical Customer Requirements: Current Sigma Level: TBD Outcome Indicators: Q1 Q7 Checking / Indicator Monitoring Timeframe Data to Collect (Frequency) What is Checking Item When to or Indicator Calculation Collect Data? Responsibility Who will Check? Contingency Plans / Miscellaneous Actions Required for Exceptions Procedure References Energy Management Systems Daily EMS Personnel Transfer more FTE to this task. Monthly Activity Report Monthly Activity Report Monthly Activity Report Monthly Activity Report Monthly Activity Report Monthly Activity Report Monthly Activity Report Statewide Ops. & Maint. Cost Data from FDOE; Budget Data from Peer Districts Statewide Ops. & Maint. Cost Data from FDOE; Budget Data from Peer Districts Statewide Ops. & Maint. Cost Data from FDOE; Budget Data from Peer Districts Statewide Ops. & Maint. Cost Data from FDOE; Budget Data from Peer Districts Statewide Ops. & Maint. Cost Data from FDOE; Budget Data from Peer Districts Yearly Summary Report Monthly End of month Monthly End of month Monthly End of month Monthly End of month Monthly End of month Monthly End of month Monthly End of month Monthly End of month Monthly End of month Yearly June 30 Yearly June 30 Yearly April 1 Yearly April 1 J. Hudson J. Hudson J. Hudson J. Hudson J. Hudson J. Hudson J. Hudson W.Petters Managers W.Petters Managers W.Petters Managers W.Petters Managers W.Petters Managers J. Hudson Transfer more FTE to this task. Transfer more FTE to this task. Transfer more FTE to this task. Transfer more FTE to this task. Transfer more FTE to this task. Transfer more FTE to this task. Transfer more FTE to this task. Analyze the distribution of the operations budget across all cost centers and look for opportunities for process improvements. Analyze the distribution of the maintenance budget across all cost centers and look for opportunities for process improvements Analyze the distribution of the operations budget per GSF for all schools and look for opportunities for process improvements Analyze the distribution of the maintenance budget per GSF for all schools and look for opportunities for process improvements See contingency plans for P9 & P10 and Q1 and Q2. See contingency plans for P2 P8.

KWP3 Process Control System Process Name: Manage Work Order Processing Process Customer: The School Board of Brevard County, representing staff, students, parents and the community Process Purpose: Provide cost effective processing of school and ancillary work orders. Process and Quality Indicators Process Control Indicators Limits And Quality Specs/ Indicators Targets School Generated (Type 4) W/O per Target: Reduce by 10% P3.1 Month Baseline: 1,593 per Month P4.1 Service ( Type 1) W/O Per Month P5.1 PO&M (Type 9) W/O Per Month P6.1 # Of W/O Opened / Closed Per Month P7.1 # Backlog W/O Per Month Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 PM and W/O Activity Per Year Target: Reduce by 10% Baseline: 85 per Month Target: Reduce # by 10% Baseline: 1775 per Month Target: Reduce # by 10% Baseline: 3,844 per Month Target: Reduce # by 10% Baseline: 5,360 per Month Target: Increase PM W/O By 20% and Reduce Routine and Service W/O By 20% Baseline: PM 10,960 / All Others 46,132 Work Order Backlog Per Year Target: Reduce Mo Backlog By 20% Baseline: 53,602 PM / Service W/O Ratio Target: Ratio 3 Baseline: 2.268 PO&M / Service W/O Ratio Target: Ratio 100% Baseline: 75.51% PM Work Order Backlog Target: EOFY Backlog 150 Baseline: 128 Process Owner: Walt Petters Critical Customer Requirements: Current Sigma Level: TBD Outcome Indicators: Macro Q4 Q5 Q7 Checking / Indicator Monitoring Timeframe Data to Collect (Frequency) What is Checking Item When to or Indicator Calculation Collect Data? Responsibility Who will Check? Contingency Plans / Miscellaneous Actions Required for Exceptions Procedure References TMA Data Base Daily EMS Personnel Transfer more FTE to this task. Tracking the number of W/O Requests that are submitted and rejected after evaluation. TMA Data Base TMA Data Base TMA Data Base TMA Data Base Yearly Summary Report Yearly Activity Report Yearly Activity Report Yearly Activity Report Monthly End of month Monthly End of month Monthly End of month Monthly End of month Yearly April 1 Yearly April 1 Monthly End of month Monthly End of month Monthly End of month J. Hudson J. Hudson J. Hudson J. Hudson J. Hudson J. Hudson J. Hudson J. Hudson J. Hudson Transfer more FTE to this task. Transfer more FTE to this task. Transfer more FTE to this task. Transfer more FTE to this task. See contingency plans for P1 P4 See contingency plans for P2 P8. See contingency plans for P2 P8. See contingency plans for P2 P8. See contingency plans for P2 P8. Approved: Date: Rev #: Rev Date:

Countermeasures Matrix Facilities PO&M COUNTER- MEASURE PRACTICAL METHODS EFFECTIVENESS X FEASIBILITY = OVERALL ACTION ROOT CAUSE Declining Budget, Staffing & Overtime Reallocate PO&M Budget Meet with Assistant Superintendent of Facilities to develop plan. 5 5 25 Yes Reallocate Staff to High Priority Repair Centers Reorganize PO&M Department to Facilitate High Priority Work 5 5 25 Yes PROBLEM A growing backlog gap of 464 between 07/08 same-month repair centers. Increased Service Call Cycle Time Analyze Repair Center Work Load Establish Service Standards Conduct Weekly Repair Center Meetings with Supervisors Conduct Weekly Repair Center Meetings with Supervisors 5 5 5 5 25 25 Yes Yes Replacement parts purchasing cycle time. Work with Purchasing department to reduce the time it takes to purchase equipment and parts. Meet with Purchasing Department to Develop Plan. 5 5 25 Yes Scale: 1 = Negligble 2= Somewhat 3= Moderate 4= Very 5 = Extreme

DMAIC LITE STORYBOARD IMPROVE CHECKPOINT 10 Countermeasure Action Plan Matrix COUNTERMEASURE If funding shortfalls continue the 2 nd half of 2008/ 2009 and 2009 / 2010 school years, then the budget allocation may have to be allocated to critical operation and maintenance functions. In addition to shifting budget to high priority process, use the DMAIC process to improve the cycle time and reduce waste of each repair center. As a last resort, move staff from lessimportant processes to repair center teams. If that does not work, request that more funding be shifted from other operations accounts to plant operations and maintenance and remove the hiring freeze and lift the restrictions for the use of over time. (Action Plan #1) PROJECTED START DATE PROJECTED END DATE ACCOUNTABLE PERSON SUPPORT ORGANIZATION 01/12/09 02/09/09 Walt Petters None ESTIMATED COST The cost of staff time analyze budget and reallocate / shift work from low priority to high priority health and safety work. This is a monthly process. Develop service standards for completing work orders based upon health and safety priorities. Train, council and / or terminate PO&M employees. (No Action Plan Required) Analyze history of work order types and repair center activities. Analyze work order process flow to reduce work order processing cycle times. (Action Plan 2) 01/05/09 07/31/09 Walt Petters None 01/12/08 03/16/09 Walt Petters None The cost of staff time to develop new service standards. The cost of staff time to analyze W/O type and W/O processing cycle time activities. This is a monthly process. Work with Purchasing department to reduce the time it takes to purchase equipment and parts. (Action Plan #3) 01/12/09 03/09/09 Walt Petters Purchasing Department The cost of staff time to work with Purchasing Dept.

Action Plan #1 - Facilities PO&M Root Cause: Declining Budget, Staffing and Overtime Date: 24-Nov-08 Countermeasure: Reallocate PO&M Budget & Staff To High Priority Repair Centers Owners: Walt Petters Practical Method: Meeting scheduling No. Task Accountable Person 1/12/2009 1/19/2009 1/26/2009 2/2/2009 2/9/2009 2/16/2009 2/23/2009 3/2/2009 3/9/2009 3/16/2009 3/23/2009 3/30/2009 Comments Week 1 Conduct meeting with Supervisors to plan for work shifting. Director Scheduled Completed 2 Conduct Meeting With Assistant Superintendent to present work shifting methodology. Director Scheduled Completed 3 Develop New Work Shifting Procedure Director Scheduled Completed 4 Present New Work Shifting Procedure Assistant Superintendent Director Scheduled Completed Deploy New Work Shifting 5 Director Budget. Scheduled Completed

Action Plan #2 - Facilities PO&M Root Cause: Increased Service Call Cycle Time Date: 24-Nov-08 Countermeasure: Analyze Repair Center Work Load and Establish New Service Standards Owners: Walt Petters Practical Method: Meeting scheduling No. 1 2 Task Repair Center Supervisor Kick Off Meeting. Define Task(s). Analyze Work Order Type & Repair Center Work Load. Accountable Person Director Director Scheduled Completed Scheduled Completed 1/12/2009 1/19/2009 1/26/2009 2/2/2009 2/9/2009 2/16/2009 2/23/2009 3/2/2009 3/9/2009 3/16/2009 3/23/2009 3/30/2009 Comments Started 07/1/08 Started 07/1/08 Week 3 Develop Process Flow and Value Stream Charts for each Repair Center. Director Scheduled Completed 4 Analyze Repair Center Flow and Value Stream Charts. Director Scheduled Completed 5 Develop alternate Repair Center Process Flows to reduce cycle time. Director Scheduled Completed 6 Update Repair Center Flow Charts Team Scheduled Completed

Action Plan #3 - Facilities PO&M Root Cause: Replacement Parts Purchasing Cycle Time Date: 24-Nov-08 Countermeasure: Work with Purchasing Department To Reduce Time to Purchase Parts and Equipment Owners: Walt Petters Practical Method: Meeting scheduling No. Task Accountable Person 1/12/2009 1/19/2009 1/26/2009 2/2/2009 2/9/2009 2/16/2009 2/23/2009 3/2/2009 3/9/2009 3/16/2009 3/23/2009 3/30/2009 Comments Week 1 Conduct Kick Off Meeting Director(s) Scheduled Completed 2 Form Joint PO&M & Purchasing Process Improvement Team. Director(s) Scheduled Completed 3 Develop Project Charter Director(s) Scheduled Completed 4 Develop Process Flow and Value Stream Charts. Team Scheduled Completed 5 Develop DMAIC Lite Storyboard Team Scheduled Completed 6 Develop alternate Process Flows to reduce cycle time. Team Scheduled Completed 7 Update Flow Charts Team Scheduled Completed 8 Present Solution to Senior Management. Team Scheduled Completed 9 Deploy Countermeasures Team Scheduled Completed

SPENDING BY SCHOOL BOARD ON OPERATIONS 1998-2009 Amended Budget Operating Budget $1,400,000,000 $1,200,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $$ PER YEAR $800,000,000 $600,000,000 $400,000,000 $200,000,000 $0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 REPORTING MONTHS

OPERATIONS AS % OF AMENDED BUDGET OB % of AB 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% % PER MONTH 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 REPORTING MONTHS

BPS Amended Budget 1998-2008 Amended Budget $1,400,000,000 $1,200,000,000 $1,000,000,000 TOTAL FUNDS PER YEAR $800,000,000 $600,000,000 $400,000,000 $200,000,000 $0 97=98 98=99 99=00 00=01 01=02 02=03 03=04 04=05 05=06 06=07 07=08 08=09* REPORTING YEARS

OPERATING BUDGET 1997 to 2008 $625,000,000 $600,000,000 $575,000,000 $550,000,000 $525,000,000 $500,000,000 $475,000,000 $450,000,000 Operating Budget $425,000,000 $400,000,000 $375,000,000 $350,000,000 $325,000,000 $300,000,000 97=98 98=99 99=00 00=01 01=02 02=03 03=04 04=05 05=06 06=07 07=08 08=09* REPORTING YEARS

SBBC District Enrollment Total District Minus Charter Schools 73,000 72,000 71,000 70,000 Students Per Year 69,000 68,000 67,000 66,000 65,000 64,000 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Total District Minus Charter Schools 66,930 67,516 68,438 69,359 70,217 71,493 72,046 71,957 71,170 70,717 Reporting Yeara

Total Aging Work Order Chart TOTAL AGING WORK ORDERS Total Aging W/O Aging W/O < 31D Aging W/O > 30 D WORK ORDERS PER MONTH 7000 6500 6000 5500 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 REPORTING MONTHS Page 1

AGING WORK ORDER PROFILE JAN 08 - Jun 09 Total Aging W/O Total Aging W/O Baseline Total Aging W/O Target 7000 6500 6000 5500 Baseline = 5337 WORK ORDERS PER MONTH 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 REPORTING MONTHS Target = 4302

Type 1 W/O Closed JAN - NOV 2008 Type 1 W/O Closed Type 1 W/O Baseline Type 1 W/O Target 700 600 582 # CLOSED W/O PER MONTH 500 400 300 200 402 Target = 476 503 332 415 404 275 243 267 470 472 Baseline = 397 100 0 Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 REPORTING MONTHS

JULY - AUGUST 2007 AGING WORK ORDERS Series1 Series2 Series3 6500 6000 5500 AGING WORK ORDERS PER MONTH 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07 REPORTING MONTHS

2008 JULY - DECEMBER AGING WORK ORDERS 6500 6000 AGING WORK ORDERS PER MON TH 5500 5000 4500 4000 3500 Total Aging W/O Aging W/O < 31D Aging W/O > 30 D 3000 2500 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 REPORTING MONTHS

07/08 JULY - DECEMBER AGING WORK ORDERS Total 07 Aging W/O Total 08 Aging W/O 6,500 6,250 6,000 AGING WORK ORDERS PER MONTH 5,750 5,500 5,250 5,000 4,750 4,500 4,250 4,000 July August September October November December REPORTING MONTHS

MAINTENANCE STAFFING PROFILE 1999-2009 Maintenance FTE FTE Baseline 200 190 Baseline - 172 FTE 187 188 180 170 170 170 179 166 166 170 172 176 FTE PER YEAR 160 150 140 152 130 120 110 100 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 REPORTING YEARS

PO&M Budget / GSF PO&M Budget / GSF $1.20 $1.00 $0.80 Dollars Per GSF $0.60 $0.40 $0.20 $0.00 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 PO&M Budget / GSF $1.05 $0.34 $0.44 $0.58 $0.67 $0.68 $0.59 Reporting Years

MAINTENANCE 9562 BUDGET / GSF PO&M 9562 Budget / GSF $0.90 DOLLARS PER GROSS SQUARE FOOT $0.80 $0.70 $0.60 $0.50 $0.40 $0.30 $0.20 $0.10 $0.00 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 PO&M 9562 Budget / GSF $0.78 $0.14 $0.20 $0.39 $0.48 $0.49 $0.43 REPORTING YEARS

Plant Operations Budget 9560 / GSF Plant Operations Budget 9560 / GSF $0.30 $0.25 $0.20 Dollars Per GSF $0.15 $0.10 $0.05 $0.00 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Plant Operations Budget 9560 / GSF $0.26 $0.20 $0.24 $0.19 $0.20 $0.20 $0.16 Reporting Years

PO&M OVERTIME USAGE ANALYSIS Overtime Hours Per Year 40,000.00 35,000.00 30,000.00 O/T HOURS PER YEAR 25,000.00 20,000.00 15,000.00 10,000.00 Note: FY 08-09 is a calculated number using the first six months of the fiscal year and forecasting the second six months of overtime hours. 5,000.00 0.00 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 Overtime Hours Per Year 23,597.29 31,408.79 37,321.49 32,438.34 9,912.8 REPORTING YEARS

EZ DMAIC 20 CHECKPOINTS DEFINE MEASURE ANALYZE IMPROVE CONTROL Plan Do Check Act Macro Process Name: Manage Facilities Plant Operations and Maintenance Key Work Process: KWP3 Manage Work Order Processing Work System / Leader: Ed Curry DMAIC Status: Improve Cycle: Yes Process Owner: Walt Petters 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: A Q Measure Q5 Work Order (W/O) Backlog per Year and In Process Indicators P3.1 P8.1 were developed and tracked. 3. A theme statement consistent with the indicator was selected. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: Yes the theme statement is consistent with Q4 and In Process indicators P3.1 P8.1 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

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 six problems. Each problem was analyzed during a brainstorming session with the significant problem chosen The same-month aging work orders for August 07& 08 through October 07 & 08 is 17,640 and 18,104 respectively. The same-month aging work orders for the period of August through October 2008/2009 school year is increasing. 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 backlog by 10% 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. Gap: The gap between the amount of same-month aging work orders for August 07& 08 through October 07 & 08 is 17,640 and 18,104 respectively. There is a backlog gap of 464 between same-month repair center backlogs and it is increasing by an average of 641 per month. The target is to reduce the work order backlog by 10%. The total backlog equals the total aging work orders less than 30 days and total aging work orders greater than 30 days. Baseline = 6,500 W/O back log per month. Target= 5,850 W/O backlog per month. 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

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: Six potential causes were selected: Reduced operating budget; Reduced staffing; Reduced use of overtime; Reduced or elimination of filling vacant positions; Increased service-call cycle time; and Replacement equipment and parts availability. 8. A relationship between the root causes and the problem was verified with data. Yes: X No: Rating: 4 Comment: Three of the six root causes were verified by data. The three root causes are reduced operating budget, reduced staffing, and reduced use of overtime. The remaining three root causes, reduced or elimination of filling vacant positions, increased service-call cycle time and replacement equipment and parts availability were verified by reviewing department records. 9. Root causes were selected and the impact of each root cause on the gap was determined. Yes: No: Rating: 5 Comment: The impact of the root cause was determined. The root causes that are related to school district budget reductions will not improve until the additional operational funding is increased to pre fiscal year 06/07 funding levels. The root causes related to increased service-call cycle time and replacement equipment and parts availability have an impact on the gap. 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

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: Three countermeasures were developed to address the six root causes listed in Macro DMAIC Storyboard. Because three of the root causes involved BPS district funding of plant operations and maintenance, a countermeasure was not developed. The following are the three countermeasures that were selected. 1. Develop service standards for completing work orders based upon health and safety priorities. Train, council and / or terminate PO&M employees. 2. Analyze history of work order types and repair center activities. Analyze work order process flow to reduce work order processing cycle times. 3. Work with Purchasing department to reduce the time it takes to purchase equipment and parts. The countermeasure for reducing the time to purchase equipment and parts is six sigma project being conducted by the Purchasing department. A countermeasure matrix was developed. See Macro Storyboard package. 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 counter measure by using a brainstorming session. See Macro Storyboard package for effectiveness and feasibility matrix. IMPROVE 12. The action plan reflected accountability, schedule, and cost, and was implemented. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: Three action plans were developed. One for each countermeasure deployment. A countermeasure action plan matrix was developed which shows deployment accountability, schedule and associated cost. 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

EZ DMAIC 20 CHECKPOINTS DEFINE MEASURE ANALYZE IMPROVE CONTROL Plan Do Check Act CONTROL 13. [Results] The effect of countermeasures on the root causes was demonstrated. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: As of February 26, 2009, the work order closure rate, for the nine (9) PO&M Repair centers range between 74.02% to 103.17% with only one repair center exhibiting a closure rate less than 90%. As of February 26, 2009, the cycle time to finish and close work orders for each of the nine (9) repair centers ranges between 22.91 to 94.85 days. See box score below. 14. [Results] The effect of countermeasures on the problem was demonstrated. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: As of the beginning of February 2009, a downward trend has started since the changes that were made as a result of the decrease in PO&M operating budget. See Total Aging Work Order chart in Macro Storyboard Package. 15. [Results] The improvement target was achieved and causes of significant variation were addressed. Yes: No: X Rating: 4 Comment: The deployment, of the countermeasure to reduce the number of aging work orders, has started a downward trend. All procedures are in place to achieve the target by the end of March 2009. See Aging Work Order Profile Jan 08 Jun 09 chart in Macro Storyboard Package. 16. [Results] The effect of countermeasures on the theme indicator representing the stakeholder s need was demonstrated. Yes: X No: Rating: Comment: Theme Statement: Repair center routine aging work orders (backlog) have increased during the time period between July to October 2008 from the same period in 2007. The data shown on the Aging Work Order Profile Jan 08 Jun 09 chart clearly shows that the countermeasure is having an effect on the theme statement. EZDMAIC SM is a registered Service Mark of ets Inc. ~ Copyright 2009, ets Inc. Page 5

EZ DMAIC 20 CHECKPOINTS DEFINE MEASURE ANALYZE IMPROVE CONTROL Plan Do Check Act 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 countermeasure method has been communicated verbally. The countermeasure method has not been documented to permanently change and communicate the revised process. 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 countermeasure has been standardized across all nine repair centers. 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. Aging work orders are reviewed each month of all nine repair centers. Corrective and preventative actions are taken when negative trends are noted. See PO&M Monthly Overview report. 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 but not documented. The PO&M operation uses a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) to schedule and track maintenance activities. Data can be collected at all levels of the maintenance cycle. Currently PO&M is working with TMA Systems to modify the CMMS to drill down the data collection to give the system uses more drop-down window choices when entering maintenance data. The monthly maintenance overview report is distributed to all Facilities managers and school district administrators. The report is a useful tool to identify problem trends and to inform stakeholders about maintenance activities that affect this school site or facilities infrastructure. 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