STAFFING LEVEL ANALYSIS

Transcription

1 STAFFING LEVEL ANALYSIS October 15, 2010 Updated November 30, 2011 University of Manoa Office of Facilities and Grounds

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents... ii I. Analysis of Current Staffing Levels... 1 Introduction... 1 Overview... 1 Update... 1 Benchmarking... 2 General Expectations... 2 Administration Ratios... 3 Construction (Architects, Engineers, and Construction Managers)... 3 Shops (Maintenance)... 5 Janitors (Custodial)... 5 Grounds... 6 II. APPENDIX A: APPA FPI 2010 Operations Costs & Staff Ratios... 7 Administration... 7 A&E and Construction... 8 Repair and Maintenance... 9 Janitors (Custodial) Grounds Keepers III. Endnotes Page ii

3 I. ANALYSIS OF CURRENT STAFFING LEVELS INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW For purposes of staffing level analysis and benchmarking the OFG staff is broken down into five functional categories defined by APPA for purposes of its annual Facilities Performance Indicator (FPI) reporting. These categories are: Administrative Managers; Fiscal, Human Resources, IT, Contracts, Purchasing, Work Coordination, and all Secretarial and Clerical Construction Architects, Engineers, CAD Operators, and Construction Managers (including outsourced CM) Maintenance Trade Supervisors, Shop, Warehouse, and Logistics personnel Custodial All Janitors and Supervisory personnel assigned to Net Cleanable Spaces Grounds All Groundskeepers (excludes Trash and Recycling) In October of 2010 OFG prepared the following gap analysis of current staffing detailed in the following Table 1 which indicated a gap of 93 FTE for OFG. Figure 1 UPDATE Subsequent to the issuance of original October 2010 report the State hiring freeze was relaxed and total FTE increased to 326 as of November 30, 2011 which has correspondingly reduced the original gap by 18 FTE. In addition, over the intervening time changing approaches to staffing strategies have modified the overall need as discussed below. Page 1

4 BENCHMARKING GENERAL EXPECTATIONS In determining the appropriate staffing levels to accomplish its assigned mission OFG has developed a series of tools evaluate the estimated needed requirements. This is done continually on a Zero Based Budget approach. The general expectations are identified as follows: Administration o Achieve APPA Overall Customer Satisfaction of Level 4 (Satisfied) or greater o Meet all University established process timelines o Provide satisfactory support to OFG field units Construction (A&E and CM) o Execute projects in a timely manner within budgeted costs that meet the established strategic objectives o Provide satisfactory and timely support to the Maintenance forces Repair & Maintenance (Shops) o Maintain Plant that exceeds APPA Customer Satisfaction Level 4 or greater o Operations that meet operational goals with available resources o Maintain safe working conditions Custodial Services o Maintain Buildings at APPA Custodial Service Level 2 o Achieve APPA Custodial Customer Satisfaction Level 4 or greater o Maintain safe working conditions Grounds o Achieve APPA Grounds Customer Satisfaction Level 4 or greater o Maintain safe working conditions Based on the General Expectations established above staffing level for each functional area are calculated from several sources. This is done using several methods when appropriate in order to provide cross validation of the calculations. In the first iteration APPA FPI Staffing Ratios are employed to create a Baseline reference using several FPI ratios: Cost/GSF; Cost/Student FTE, GSF/FTE and others. FPI 2010 Staffing Ratio tables are available in Appendix A. The Construction and Maintenance functional areas receive additional analysis to account for their unique local conditions using simulation models and physical facility condition assessments to determine actual maintenance FTE required. Page 2

5 ADMINISTRATION RATIOS While OFG s Admin Total Cost/GSF is nearly identical to its peer publically funded institutions (University of Washington and PCAPPA) on the basis of GSF/FTE UHM has higher Admin staffing ratios than is typically found in these institutions. UW and PCAPPA are 241,000 and 252,000 GSF/FTE respectively compared to UHM at 201,000. While UHM has less favorable Admin ratios when compared to PCAPPA (primarily publicly funded institutions) and UW UHM s ratio is similar to fully funded 1 institutions such as the University of Chicago at half the cost per GSF. As of FY2010 OFG maintained 27 Administrative FTE. Not counted in this total are 2 FTE which UHM funds to provide AIM software support through OCI which increases the actual count to 29 FTE. Based on adjustments for differences of scale when compared to the larger GSF institutions such as UW and for higher costs observed in private institutions OFG believes that it justifies the addition of 3 6 FTE to improve administrative support, service analysis, procurement, maintenance contracting, and energy management functions. In particular, the lack of depth in key management positions has been identified as an area for development by prior APPA Facilities Management Evaluation Program (FMEP) recommendations. CONSTRUCTION (ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS) Other than institutions that rely on in house services (such as the University of Chicago, UH Manoa, and UH Hilo) Construction staffing ratios can be one of the most challenging areas to precisely calculate given the wide differences in Construction management approaches employed by APPA institutions. Many factors come into play when attempting to compare APPA Construction ratios. Several of the key factors that affect In House ratios are: Degree of Out Sourcing Level of Construction Activity Impacts from furloughs on productivity Effect of A&E providing O&M Field Maintenance support Time Requirements of projects To account for the wide variances between institutions due to local operating environment OFG has developed its own Construction Staffing Ratio benchmark based on Federal 2 and Industry 3,4 guidelines that benchmark a Productivity Factor (PF) of between $5.0M to $10.0M/Project/FTE adjusted for Project Type and Complexity. In addition to these external guidelines OFG has constructed a staffing simulation model based on Microsoft Project that calculates the staffing requirements for a biennium for 130 projects divided between Architecture and Engineering using the OFG Standard Interval as the prototypical project. Page 3

6 These models suggest that even when using a higher Productivity Factors of $10.0M/FTE calculations indicate that OFG will experience a peak FTE load of 35 FTE at a project load of $170M as described in the following Figure Figure 2 When this Construction FTE requirement is further adjusted to account for unique non productive time conditions (furlough and maintenance support hours) it further reduces the available Construction FTE by 20% to 25% to FTE creating a gap of during peak project phases (i.e. the Red Zone above). In any given project timeline you can typically adjust ( level ) in two dimensions to address resource issues increase resources or spread the resources out over a longer time. The latter strategy has been the strategy of choice for UH Manoa. This has caused projects to slip from their original Baseline schedules to their new Revised schedules to accommodate the unavailability of resources to perform critical Project Management functions such as submittal reviews. Of course there is a limit to project slips which is typically procurement s cut off date for procurement submission at which time the project funds enter into jeopardy of lapsing. Figure 3 Page 4

7 SHOPS (MAINTENANCE) The inadequacy of Maintenance FTE is the single greatest challenge facing UH Manoa facilities. In FY2010 OFG had a Maintenance FTE of 53 and one of the lowest Total Maintenance and Maintenance Labor costs reported by APPA. In FY2010 UHM reported a Total Maintenance cost of $0.89/GSF compared to a National average of $1.50/GSF with UC and UW coming in at $1.31/GSF and $1.73/GSF respectively. In terms of area covered one UHM Maintenance FTE covered 101,564 GSF while their peers at UC and UW covered 67,647 GSF and 51,763 GSF respectively. Using this analysis and applying a peer ratio of 65,000 GSF to UHM would result in 82 Maintenance FTE as compared to the FY2010 Actual of 59 Maintenance FTE for a difference of 23 FTE (excluding elevators). This analysis is validated and expanded by the Maintenance Planning study 5 performed by the ISES Corporation in 2010 to provide an estimate to OFG of the FTE required to perform Preventative Maintenance routines on 60 of the core campus buildings that is currently not being performed concluded that 48 an additional FTE would be needed to perform just the Preventative Maintenance alone. As the current Maintenance FTE perform almost entirely Reactive maintenance tasks these Preventative Maintenance FTE would be most incremental to the existing headcount requiring a total Maintenance FTE (excluding elevators) of between Total FTE. While this would be slightly higher than OFG s peer institutions it would account for the increased degraded condition of the campus from decades of maintenance neglect. JANITORS (CUSTODIAL) For the past sixteen months OFG s Building and Grounds Management (BGM) Building Services department has been utilizing a Janitorial measurement software system Breeze to measure and monitor Janitor performance. The Breeze system is based around APPA Custodial standards and relies on the APPA Custodial Staffing Guidelines to estimate staffing requirements for given cleaning tasks. Based on this model it was estimated that OFG BGM needed 180 FTE to achieve APPA Level 3 (Level 1 is the highest) standards resulting in one of the highest costs per GSF in APPA. Over the past year, due to continuing hiring freezes and budget restrictions, OFG and the BGM staff have continued to investigate new approaches and staffing models to perform building cleaning services. As a consequence of this effort a new staffing model is currently being developed which is expected to both reduce the FTE and cost while improving service levels. This recently developed model is expected to revise the October 2010 outlook to reflect no additional Custodial FTE will be required in the near future. Page 5

8 GROUNDS Because of UH Manoa s unique landscaping environment (year round growing season, large lawns, extensive shrubbery, and an extensive nationally recognized tropical hardwood tree collection 6 ) the Grounds department is a highly specialized department. In comparison to peer institutions UH Grounds experiences slightly higher costs per acre ($7,660 UHM vs. $7,603 UW) given the factors mentioned before OFG recommends additional FTE for the department. In FY2010 the Grounds department reported 48 FTE. Based on development plans for improved grounds keeping and an expansion of the re cycling and green waste handling program it has internally determined that additional resources are merited. Page 6

9 II. APPENDIX A: APPA FPI 2010 OPERATIONS COSTS & STAFF RATIOS ADMINISTRATION Page 7

10 A&E AND CONSTRUCTION Page 8

11 REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE Page 9

12 JANITORS (CUSTODIAL) Page 10

13 GROUNDS KEEPERS Page 11

14 III. Endnotes 1 One of the shortcomings of this type of comparative analysis is the condition known as benchmarking to failure. It s often the case that you only ask for what you might get rather than what you actually need. 2 Staffing Guide for Project Management, U.S. Department of Energy Office of Management, DOE G , Bell, Lansford C. and Stefanie G. Brandenburg, Forecasting construction Staffing for Transportation Agencies, Journal of Management In Engineering, July Davis, C. and S. R. Cochrane, Optimization of future manpower requirements in a multi discipline consultancy, Construction Management and Economics, 1987, 5, Tree Campus USA 2011 award winner Page 12