bsc in facilities management
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
1/36
1
THE BALANCED SCORECARD IN FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
for internal management and external benchmarking
Paul Coronel and Anne Evans
Directors, Benchmarking PLUSMelbourne
August 1999
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This paper is the result of collaborative work between a number of people and the support
of the AAPPA Board. In particular we wish to acknowledge the input of time and
intellectual capital from the following heads of facilities management organisations,
convened by Brian Fenn who was the catalyst for the whole exercise. They played a teamleader role in particular aspects of development:
Brian Fenn Queensland University of Technology;
Sam Ragusa Griffith University;
Andrew Frowd University of Wollongong;
Neville Thiele University of South Australia;
David Spedding Deakin University;
Kelvin Crump Facilities Management Services, TAFE, Queensland;
Also the input of a number of other facilities managers who participated in a workshop toassist in identifying relevant performance measures for facilities management within a
Balanced Scorecard framework.
CONTENTS
IntroductionSome characteristics of top performing organisations
How the balanced scorecard fits inThe essential characteristics of the Balanced Scorecard approach
How it can apply to FM in a tertiary education context(for both internal management and benchmarking purposes)Linkages between organisational levels and functionsEstablishing appropriate objectives for FM in the Balanced Scorecard contextBroad structure of a Balanced Scorecard
A sample of the KPIs in a Balanced Scorecard for facilities managementLinkages between KPIs at different levelsCharacteristics of KPIs in a balanced Scorecard - internal versus benchmarking versions
Conclusion
APPENDIX: Detailed format of Balanced Scorecards for facilities management
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
2/36
2
INTRODUCTION
Some characteristics of top performing organisations
It is clear from personal experience and consensus among observers of exceptional
organisations, that top performing organisations have a number of aspects in common
including the following:
Customer Focus: a clear understanding of their customers identity and their key
needs, and an effective means of response at both the strategic and the operational level;
Leadership: particularly in the sense of defining what things the organisation must get
right and to communicate this clearly throughout the organisation;
Use of information to manage: a coherent performance reporting structure that helpsintegrate the actions of managers at different levels in pursuit of their key objectives;
A restless quest for improvement: they will do what is necessary to ensure they
identify what is best practice and adapt it to fit their own organisation as soon as
possible.
HOW THE BALANCED SCORECARD FITS IN
The Balanced Scorecard is an approach to setting up performance measurement structuresthat help an organisation with some of the characteristics mentioned above.It was first
featured in the Harvard Business Review early in 1992*. (Ref to K&N article)
Since then it has been used in many countries and industries as the basis of a top-down
reporting structure which knits together the desired strategic perspective of an organisation
with its management actions at various levels.
A smaller number of organisations have also used it as a framework for performance
comparisons (performance benchmarking) with other organisations. It clearly makes
sense to use similar measures for external comparisons to those that one uses to manageinside the organisation.
The essential characteristics of the Balanced Scorecard approach are as follows:
performance measurement from four perspectives ensures the focus is not merely on
short term cost / financial performance (See slide 2: the question posed in each of the
four perspectives help give the essence of what is being measured.);
a review of the key objectives of the organisation. Existing objectives may need to be
restated or modified to gain the desired clarity and balance between the four
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
3/36
3
perspectives of the Balanced Scorecard approach. (Our experience has shown that this
is necessary more often than not, both from clarity and balance viewpoints.);
linking each of these objectives to between one and three key performance measures
which together are used as the scorecard at the top of the organisation (See slide 3: a
typical scorecard has between 12 and 24 key performance measures in all; having fewer
means the risk of too narrow an outlook while risking more confusion and lack of
focus.);
cascading; that is connecting the key performance measures at the top level with
similar measures at other levels in the organisation. These should be of direct relevance
to managers in the various jobs at these other levels. Thus cascading supports the
communication which goes with delegation and accountability.
In this way the perspective and consequently the actions of managers in different parts ofthe organisation are more co-ordinated and focussed on achievement in accord with a
balanced set of key objectives.
HOW IT CAN APPLY TO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT IN A TERTIARY
EDUCATION CONTEXT (for both internal management and benchmarking
purposes)
Linkages between organisational levels and functions
In my job I see a very wide variety of industry sectors and organisations. Two of the most
complex, in terms of services delivered to the end user or customer are public hospitals
and local government organisations. Facilities management organisations in the tertiary
education sector rank up there in my view.
For this reason we propose a structure we have used elsewhere; a Top Level Balanced
Scorecard with supporting Balanced Scorecards for major functions within facilities
management. (This is illustrated in slide 4).
The four supporting scorecards shown are indicative; the precise number and focus of thesupporting scorecards in any single facilities management organisation will depend on the
range and magnitude of functions that are under the FM Managers jurisdiction. Also to a
degree on the way in which that person has divided the accountability for the various
functions between managers reporting to him/her.
Establishing appropriate objectives for FM in the Balanced Scorecard context
It goes without saying that facilities management supports the fundamental activities of the
University. The objectives for FM should therefore be compatible with those of the
parent organisation.
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
4/36
4
Balanced Scorecard for Internal purposes
( for use by individual FM Managers to help run their own organisations)
In this case the facilities management objectives as a total set will be unique and specific to
the circumstances of the particular FM organisation and its parent body. Individual
objectives may be the same or similar to other FM organisations but it is highly unlikely
that this will be true of the whole set.
Balanced Scorecard for External purposes
(for use by a number of FM Managers to benchmark quantitative performance measures
and qualitative measures / practices between their organisations)
In this case the facilities management objectives must be generic to be able to serve all the
participating organisations and have a degree of relevance to each of them. The objectives
provide a stimulus for choosing a balanced set of key performance indicators but their role
need go little further.
Broad structure of a Balanced Scorecard
The implications are shown in slides 5 and 6.
Balanced Scorecard for External purposes
For benchmarking purposes the Balanced Scorecard has a set of generic objectives and key
performance measures (KPIs).
Balanced Scorecard for Internal purposes
For internal purposes the Balanced Scorecard has a set of objectives specific to the
individual FM organisation, and the KPIs are used to measure the level of achievement
against those objectives.
In addition the Facilities Manager will probably wish to:
define targets for the managers responsible for each KPI;
document strategies and tasks by which the objectives will be achieved;
fix accountabilities among his/her people for each strategy and /or task.
These additional features MAY - but do not have to - be included on the scorecard
structure. It is up to the individual manager. (Two of the leading people in our working
party, Sam Ragusa and Andrew Frowd, have included some or all of these elements in
scorecards for their own organisations. Both approaches differ somewhat from each other,
as is to be expected).
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
5/36
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
6/36
6
Sample of the KPIs in a Balanced Scorecard for facilities management
Customer Perspective
Quantitative measures
Score on customer satisfaction survey
Number of complaints per period (per EFT customer staff or per EFTSU)
% compliance with provisions of service level agreements
LTIFR (for customer staff / students)
Incident levels per period (for example security incidents, safety incidents)
Qualitative measures / practices
Alignment of strategy with the parent organisation strategy
Practices regarding use of SLAs
Financial Perspective
Quantitative measures
Top Level Cost ratios (for example operating cost per EFTSU)
Breakdown of the above by function such as cleaning and security
(cost per EFTSU, cost per sq metre)
Asset employed ratio (for example $000 asset value installed per EFTSU)
Budget balance ratio (for example budget variance $ per budget $)
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
7/36
7
Internal Business Perspective
Quantitative measures
Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (for FM staff & contractors)
Management overheads as % of direct service delivery costs (for example
capital works and cleaning services)
Project time variance as % of original plan time
Project cost variance as % of original project cost (both relating to capital
works)
Qualitative measures / practices
Asset Management & Maintenance practices
Innovation & Learning Perspective(people, processes, technology)
Quantitative measures
% budget spent on improved technology
Annual training days per FM staff member
% improvement in customer satisfaction index
% improvement in operating cost per EFTSU
Qualitative measures / practices
Quality practices & process improvement techniques used
Incentives / rewards employed
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
8/36
8
Linkages between KPIs at different levels
The sample just given does not show an important element of choosing KPIs; that is the
value of having linkages between KPIs at top level and the same or similar KPIs at other
levels of the facilities management organisation.
It is one thing to have a set of detailed measures, but it is another to have the ability to take
the helicopter view whenever necessary and see the linkages between that view and
ground level. Decision making can be more strategic and yet maintain a practical
monitoring and implementation connection with strategy.
As a simple example the degree of customer satisfaction with facilities management is an
aggregate of the satisfaction with its various elements; maintenance, security and so on.
Hence if a Customer Satisfaction Score is derived by means of a customer survey for each
of the important elements of facilities management it can be summarised at the top level as
an average or weighted average. Comparisons with other facilities management
organisations are facilitated as is internal management summary reporting, trend analysis,
and resource allocation decisions.
Some other KPIs where I believe this approach is worthwhile:
Complaints per EFTSU per period
Operating cost per EFTSU
Trends in each of the above and in Customer Satisfaction Scores
Budget balance ratio
Injury rates
Annual training days per person.
Characteristics of KPIs in a balanced Scorecard - internal versus benchmarkingversions
There are some important differences which I would like to point out, which influence the
design of a choice of KPIs for collective benchmarking purposes as opposed to one for use
by an individual facilities management organisation.
These are shown in the table over the page.
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
9/36
9
KPIs for benchmarking vs KPIs for internal use
KPIs for collective benchmarking KPIs for individual organisations
No limit to the number used Shouldnt have too many
Individual KPIs dont need to be relevant to
all participants
All KPIs need to be relevant
Need absolutely specific definition Not quite so critical
Reasonable approximations are acceptable Reasonable approximations may be
acceptable
Must be structured to accommodate size
differences in participating organisations
(eg # complaints/EFTSU)
Not needed for internal comparisons
(hence could just have # of complaints)
Mentioning targets is inappropriate
(unless the targets are being benchmarked)
Setting targets can be beneficial
(eg, Reduce complaints by 10%)
CONCLUSION
In this paper I have covered a number of important points in the design and use of the
Balanced Scorecard approach, for both collaborative benchmarking between facilities
management organisation and management within an individual organisation.
The detailed scorecards which form the remainder of this paper are the result of
considerable collaborative work between us and a number of individuals who were
acknowledged at the beginning of the paper. Hence most of the people involved are highly
accomplished facilities managers. That said, there is no doubt room for further refinement.
Possible pathways for facilities managers
Benchmarking: The scorecards are set out primarily for benchmarking purposes, and it is
hoped that they will provide a platform for an addition or adjunct to the excellent AAPPA
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
10/36
10
Benchmarking Survey already in use. If so the performance indicators and qualitative
practices questions will provide a template for those who wish to follow this route.
Internal management: Even though the scorecards are set out primarily for benchmarking
purposes, I trust that using the points raised in this paper, facilities managers who are so
inclined will be able to adapt the structure and tailor them for use in their own organisation.
In this case each can select which of the performance indicators and customer satisfaction
survey questions suit their current circumstances, and supplement them with others if
desired.
Before doing so they will wish to make the objectives more specific to the circumstances of
their own institution, and they way wish to set targets and assign individual
responsibilities for delivering against those targets and indicators.
Combination approach: Of course it is possible to do both. In this case some or all of the
performance indicators used for internal purposes and qualitative practices questions will
also be benchmarked externally, thus providing a more informative basis for self evaluation,
planning, and target setting.
I thank you for your attention today.
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
11/36
11
The Balanced Scorecard
in Facilities Management:
Paul Coronel
Benchmarking P LUSWellington, September 1999
for internal and benchmarking purposes
Slide 1
BBBBeeeennnncccchhhhmmmmaaaarrrrkkkkiiiinnnngggg PPPPLLLLUUUUSSSS
The Balanced Scorecard Approach:Performance from Four Perspectives
Financial Perspective
How well do we
deliver, financially?Customer Service
Perspective
How are we perceivedby our customers? Innovation & Learning
Perspective
Can we continue to
improve and create
value?
Internal ServicesPerspective
What must weexcel at?
Slide 2
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
12/36
12
BBBBeeeennnncccchhhhmmmmaaaarrrrkkkkiiiinnnngggg PPPPLLLLUUUUSSSS
Overview of Structure of Balanced Scorecard
Customer Service
Perspective
Innovation & LearningPerspective
Internal Services
Perspective
Objectives KPIs
Financial Perspective
Objectives KPIs
Objectives KPIs
Objectives KPIs
Objectives KPI
s
1 to 3 ob jectives per perspective
1 to 3 KPIs per objective
Hence 12 to 24 KPIs t otal
Slide 3
BBBBeeeennnncccchhhhmmmmaaaarrrrkkkkiiiinnnngggg PPPPLLLLUUUUSSSS
Universitys Objectives
High level FM objectives
linkages
Incorporated into/drive
FM Balanced Scorecards
Top level scorecard
Maintenance Cleaning Security Capital Works
Slide 4
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
13/36
13
BBBBeeeennnncccchhhhmmmmaaaarrrrkkkkiiiinnnngggg PPPPLLLLUUUUSSSS
Structure of High Level Scorecards for Benchmarking
Customer Service
Perspective
Innovation & Learning
Perspective
Internal ServicesPerspective
Financial Perspective
Objectives(generic)
KPIs
Objectives(generic)
KPIsObjectives(generic)
KPIs
Objectives(generic)
KPIs
Slide 5
BBBBeeeennnncccchhhhmmmmaaaarrrrkkkkiiiinnnngggg PPPPLLLLUUUUSSSS
Structure of High Level Scorecards for Internal Management
Financial Perspective
Objectives(specific)
KPIs Strategies
Customer Perspective
Objectives
(specific) KPIs Strategies
Innovation/learning
Perspective
Objectives(specific)
KPIs Strategies
Internal Perspective
Objectives
(specific)KPIs Strategies
Slide 6
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
14/36
BalancedScorecardformanagement&b
enchmarking
PreparedforAAPPAConference,September1999
_
Page14of36
!
!
"#
$%&
'(
)01
2
%
3 4
56
7
DETAILEDFORMATANDSTRUCTUREOFBALANCEDSCORECA
RDSFORFACILITIESMANAGEMENT
Onthesuccee
dingpagesthescorecardstructurereferredtointhepresentationpaperissetoutindetail.
Therearefive
scorecardsinall:
TopLevel
scorecard;
scorecardforCleaning;
scorecardforSecurity;
scorecardforMaintenance;
scorecardforCapitalWorks.
Eachcontains
thefourperspectives-customer,financial,internalprocesses,andinnovationandlearning.Alsoeachcontainsqualitative
measures/practicesaswellasquantitativemeasures.
Theyareseto
utprimarilywithbenchmarkin
ginmind.Howeveronthelastsheetofthisdetailedlayoutth
ereisapageofascorecardsho
wnina
formatsuitableforinternalmanagementpurposes.Tofacilitatecomparisonbetweenthealternativelayouts,thesubjectmatter(objective
sandKPIs)
showninitco
rrespondscloselywiththesub
jectmatterinthefirstsheetofthescorecardforMaintenance
whichappearsonpage16ofthissection.
Whencomme
ncingthefirstyearofaco-operativebenchmarkingexerciseit
iscommontoreducethetotaln
umberofmeasurestomakeiteasyfora
greaternumberoforganisationstoparticipate.Evenso,notallparticipants
areusuallyexpectedtoentereverysingleitemofdatarequiredto
completetheset.Insucceedingyearstheme
asuresarerefinedandextended
inthelightofthedevelopingexperienceoftheparticipants.
Wetrustthem
aterialshowninthisdetailedformatwillprovideabasisforthoseorganisationswhowishto
extendthescopeoftheirbenchmarking,
togetstarted.
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
15/36
BalancedScorecardformanagement&b
enchmarking
PreparedforAAPPAConference,September1999
_
Page15of36
89
9
@
@
9
AB
CDE
FG
HIP
Q
D
R S
TU
V
TOPLEVEL
SCORECARD
CustomerPe
rspective
(Howdoourcu
stomersseeus?)
Objective
PerformanceIndicators
Comments/Sourceofdata
Achievehighestpossiblelevel
ofcustomersatisfaction
Customersatisfactionindex
Thisassumesthereisacustome
rsatisfactionsurveyforeachgroup
ofservices
(perhapsduringthefeedbackprocesswiththeclientregardingperformance
againstSLAs-see
QualitativeMeasures/Practices).
Servicescan&shouldbegroup
ed,eg,Security,Maintenance,Clea
ning;sothat
theyform
partofaseparateiden
tifiablesurveyandcanbeusedintherespective
scorecard.
Eachsurveyshouldbesimple,ca
pableofbeingscored.(Seetheexa
mpleinthe
papergiveninthebreakfastsess
ion).
TocalculatetheCustomersatisfa
ctionindexshowninthis(toplevel)
scorecard,
anaveragecanbecalculatedfrom
thescoreforeachsurvey.Inthis
wayitwould
belinkedtoallsubsidiaryscore
cards.
Thiswouldbeveryusefulforboth
internalmanagementandexternal
benchmarking.
NumberofcomplaintsperEFTSUattending
CapitalWorkstim
e&budgetperformanceindex
Linkedtoallrelevantsubsidiary
scorecards
AsummaryofsomeCapitalWorksScorecardKPIs
Achievealignme
ntwiththe
Universitysdire
ctionandwith
ourcustomersneeds.
See
QualitativeMeasures/Practicesinthis
section.
Anumericalratingofanswersagainstthesequestionispossibleforb
enchmarking
purposes.
Theyarealsogoodselfassessm
entquestionsforinternalmanagem
ent
purposes.
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
16/36
BalancedScorecardformanagement&b
enchmarking
PreparedforAAPPAConference,September1999
_
Page16of36
89
9
@
@
9
AB
CDE
FG
HIP
Q
D
R S
TU
V
CustomerPe
rspective(Continued)
Qualitative
Measures/Practices
(Pleasecirclethe
answerwhichmostapplies)
Planning(representationandalignment)
Towhatextentdoyoubelievethatyouhaveid
entifiedthekeyUniversityplann
ingforums?
Notatall/wehave
identifiedsome/wehaveidentifiedmostofthem
/weknowallofthem
Onwhatpropo
rtionoftherelevantplanningfo
rumsisFMinvitedtositattheplanningtable?
None/some/most/allofthem
Howwouldyoujudgethelevelofinvolvement
ofFMinthedevelopmentofUniversitysstrategicplan?
Noinput/someinputorinvolvementbutshouldbeaskedformore/theFMfunctionisproperlyrepresenteda
ndlistenedto
Pleasecommentonthenatureoftheinvolvem
ent
Mostlyinformal/Mostlyformal-weareaskedforspecificinform
ationatcertainstepsintheprocess/Fairlyevenmixofboth
DoestheFMfunctionhavealongterm/strate
gicplan,ie3yearsormore?
No/suchaplanhasbeenestablishedforlessthan5years/for
5yearsormore
HowwouldyouratethedegreeofalignmentbetweentheFMstrategicplanandtheUniversitysstrategicplan?
(Eg:-keyobjectives/strategiesintheUniversitysstrategicplanareanalysedfortheir
implicationsforFM;
-Universitysprojectionsandanalysisoftrends
areincorporatedinmedium
tolong
term
FM
planning.)
ANSWER:
Low
/medium
/highdegreeofa
lignment
DoyoureceivefeedbackfromseniorUniversitymanagement(DVCsand/orPV
Cs)onFMsperformance
inregardtoth
eaboveaspects?
Noinput
Levelofinvolvement
shouldbeincreased/decreased/aboutrigh
t
Levelofalignmentsh
ouldbeincreased/aboutright.
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
17/36
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
18/36
BalancedScorecardformanagement&b
enchmarking
PreparedforAAPPAConference,September1999
_
Page18of36
89
9
@
@
9
AB
CDE
FG
HIP
Q
D
R S
TU
V
FinancialPerspective
(Howdoweloo
ktoourfinancialstakeholders?)
Objective
PerformanceIndicators
Comments/Sourceofdata
Obtainvaluefor
moneyand
manageourbudget
Assetsemployed
($A000)perEFTSUattending
Annualnetoperatingcost($A)perEFTSUattending
Budgetover-runa
s%
ofbudget(operating)
Budgetover-runa
s%
ofbudget(capital)
Highlevelmeasureoftheintensityofassetutilisation
Ditto.Netmeansanyrevenue(eghiringoffacilities)isdeductedfrom
operating
costs.
Linktosubsidiaryscorecards
Abilitytomanagethebudget.
Linktosubsidiaryscorecards(e
xceptCapitalWorks?).
Ditto.LinktoCapitalWorksscorecard.
Obtainadequate
fundingfor
effectivefacilities
management
AcompositeofM
aintenanceIndexplusfundingper
unitforotherservices
Linktosubsidiaryscorecards
-egMaintenanceIndexof1%
to1.5%
ofARV,
Cleaningcostpersqm
orperEF
TSU,SecuritycostperEFTSUatte
nding,
Qualitative
Measures/Practices
ManagementinformationforFM
Hardlyanyma
nagerbelievestheyhaveatota
llyeffectivemanagementinform
ationsystem.Withthisinmind
canyoupleasecomment:
Withinreason,ourmanagementinformationis:
Reliable/notre
liable
Easilyaccessible/not
Uptodate/takesalong
timetoarrive
Accurateenoughforthe
purpose/not
Themainprob
lemis:
WithintheFMfunction/not
Otherdepartments/not
General/specificsystems(pleasecommentbelow)
Comments:(eg
,thespecificsystemsofmostco
ncernprovideinformationonth
elevelofbacklogmaintenance)
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
19/36
BalancedScorecardformanagement&b
enchmarking
PreparedforAAPPAConference,September1999
_
Page19of36
89
9
@
@
9
AB
CDE
FG
HIP
Q
D
R S
TU
V
InternalProcessPerspective
(Whatmustw
eexcelat?)
Objective
PerformanceIndicators
Comments/Sourceofdata
EffectiveAssetManagement
Netannualvalue
ofcommercialopportunities
realised.
RatingonAssetManagement(selfassessment
Definedasrevenuefrom
usage
oftheInstitutionsassetsbyoutsideparties,
lessdirectcostsrelatingtosuch
usage.Revenueincludesthecom
mercial
valueoffreeordiscountedusagetocharitableorothercommunityg
roups.
SeeMaintenance&CapitalWorksScorecard.
Theoverallscorewouldappearhere.
Anticipate&ado
ptappropriate
technologyforF
M
RatingonAssetManagement(selfassessment)
SeeQualitativeMeasures/Pra
cticesbelow.
QualitativeM
easures/Practices
Technology
Fromyourownknowledge,howappropriateisthefacilitiesmanagementtechnologythatis
usedinyourareaoftheUniversity?Pleasecon
siderandscoreeachoftheaspe
ctsbelow:
-cost
0
1
2
3
4
-reliability
0
1
2
3
4
-fitnes
sformypurpose
0
1
2
3
4
-keepsmecompetitiveinmyfield
0
1
2
3
4
1=TotallyIn
appropriate
4=TotallyAp
propriate
0=Idon
tknow/cantgiveaknowledgeableanswer.
Comments:
..
..
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
20/36
BalancedScorecardformanagement&b
enchmarking
PreparedforAAPPAConference,September1999
_
Page20of36
89
9
@
@
9
AB
CDE
FG
HIP
Q
D
R S
TU
V
InnovationandLearningPerspective
(Canwecontinuetoimproveandcreatevalue?)
Objective
PerformanceIndicators
Comments/Sourceofdata
Improvekeyelementsof
FacilitiesManag
ement
Trendintotalann
ualOperatingCostperEFTSU
TrendinFacilities
ConditionIndex
TrendinCustome
rSatisfactionIndex
Alllinktosubsidiaryscorecards.
-OperatingCosttoOperatingCostelements,egSecurity
-FCItoMaintenanceorCapital
-CustomerSatisfactiontoeach
individualscorecard.
(IneachoftheKPIsproposed,trendmeans%
movementbetweeneachoflast3
annualfigures)
Developourpeo
ple
AnnualtrainingdaysperEFTfacilitiesmanagement
person.
AnnualtrainingcostperEFTsecurityperson.
Linkstosubsidiaryscorecards
Sourceofdata:
FinancialSystem
StaffDevelopmentRecords
QualitativeM
easures/Practices
Knowledgean
dSkills
Haveyouiden
tifiedtheknowledgeandskillsrequiredtooptimisethecontributionofFMtotheUniversityoverthenextseveralyears?
No/Yes,informally/Yes,aformalanalysishasbeenundertakeninallareas
Havethegaps
betweenexistingandrequiredk
nowledgeandskillsbeenidentified?
No/Yes,informally/Yes,aformaltrainingneedsa
nalysishasbeenundertakenforall
areas
Haveyouaplanforfillingthesegaps?
No/Yes,aninfo
rmalplan/Yes,aformalplanhasbeendevelopedandisbeingimplem
ented
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
21/36
BalancedScorecardformanagement&b
enchmarking
PreparedforAAPPAConference,September1999
_
Page21of36
89
9
@
@
9
AB
CDE
FG
HIP
Q
D
R S
TU
V
SCORECAR
DFORCLEANING
CustomerPe
rspective
Objective
PerformanceIndicators
Comments/Sourceofdata
Achievehighestpossiblelevel
ofcustomersatisfaction
NumberofcomplaintsperEFTSUattending
Withscoresforthismeasurefrom
otherscorecards,summarisesup
totheTop
LevelScorecard.
Customersatisfactionindex
SummarisesuptotheCustomer
SatisfactionIndexintheTopLevel
Scorecard,
alongwithcustomersatisfaction
scoresfrom
otherscorecards.
Thesurveyshouldbesimpleand
capableofbeingscored.SeeQualitative
Measures/Practicesbelowfore
xample.
PercentageComp
liancewithServiceLevel
Agreements
SLAseitheraspartofcontractspecificationorinternalagreementwithcustomers.
Scoreprovidedbymeansofregu
larchecksofserviceprovidedbyC
leaning
Supervisor.
SeealsoQualitativeMeasures/Practicesbelow.
BeEnvironment
ally
responsible
Wastevolume/sq
m
WasteVolume/EFTSU
Wasteisgarbagewhichrequires
general(notspecial)handlingfromb
uildings,and
binsalongpaths,etc(notlandscapingwaste).
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
22/36
BalancedScorecardformanagement&b
enchmarking
PreparedforAAPPAConference,September1999
_
Page22of36
89
9
@
@
9
AB
CDE
FG
HIP
Q
D
R S
TU
V
CustomerPe
rspective(Continued)
Qualitative
Measures/Practices
CustomerSatisfaction
Ratings:1=notacceptable;2=unsatisfactory;3=satisfactory;4=good;5=excellent
Sensitivityandunderstandingofcustomerneeds
Competenceand
expertisedisplayedwiththeadviceo
rserviceprovided.
Reliabilityofserviceprovided.
Timeliness/spee
dofresponsetoservicerequests
Effortsmadetosolveproblemsandfollowthrough
Feedbackprovidedtocustomersonservicesdelivered.
ServiceLevelAgreements
WehaveService
Charters/SLAswithourclients
None/Some/Most/All
Wemeasureour
performanceatleastannuallyagainsttheSLA
FornoneoftheSL
Asthatareestablished/Some/Most/All
OurSLAsaresetaftersomeformofconsultationwit
htheclientregarding
FornoneoftheSL
Asthatareestablished/Some/Most/All
theirkeyneeds
Weusetheclientsownratingofourperformancea
tleastannuallyagainsttheSLAs.
FornoneoftheSL
Asthatareestablished/Some/Most/All
Regularcheckso
fserviceprovidedagainsttheprovis
ionsoftheSLA,are
Fo
rnoneofthe
SLAsthatarees
tablished/Some/Most/All
conductedbythe
CleaningSupervisororequivalentp
osition.
WasteVolume
Wemeasurethevolumeofgarbagewhichrequiresge
neral(notspecial)handlingfrom
Whethermeasured
/frequency/usedforchangeprocess.
buildings,andbinsalongpaths,etc(ienotlandscapingwaste).
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
23/36
BalancedScorecardformanagement&b
enchmarking
PreparedforAAPPAConference,September1999
_
Page23of36
89
9
@
@
9
AB
CDE
FG
HIP
Q
D
R S
TU
V
FinancialPerspective
Objective
PerformanceIndicators
Comments/Sourceofdata
AnnualnetoperatingcostperEFTSUattending.
Dittopersquaremetre
Budgetover-runa
s%
ofbudget(operating)
Netmeansanyrevenueisdedu
ctedfrom
operatingcosts.
Costmeansthetotalallupinclu
dingforexamplecontracts,staffup
toheadof
FMgroup,materialsandconsumables,wasteremoval,windowcleaning,pest
control,hazardouswaste,recycling,sanitarybinservice,greasetrap
service,
landfillcharges,cleaningofcurta
insandfurnishings.
Measurestheabilitytomanagethebudget.
(Withscoresforthesemeasures
from
otherscorecards,summarises
uptothe
TopLevelScorecard).
InternalProcessPerspective
Objective
PerformanceIndicators
Comments/Sourceofdata
WorkSafely
LTIFR(forCleaningStaff)
IndustryStandard,from
OH&Sd
ata
Minimiseoverhe
ads
RatioofcostofC
leaningMgmttoTotalCleaning
Cost.
RatioofMaterials
Cost/TotalCleaningCost.
Cleaningmanagementcostsincludestaffandoverheadcostsforcleaning
supervision,aswellasashareo
fcorporatestaffandoverheadsuptoheadofFM
function.Thiswillalsoapplyifc
leaningiscontractedout.
Measuresmaterialscontrol,&en
vironmentalresponsibilitytosomedegree.
BeEnvironment
ally
responsible
SeeaboveandCustomerPerspective.
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
24/36
BalancedScorecardformanagement&b
enchmarking
PreparedforAAPPAConference,September1999
_
Page24of36
89
9
@
@
9
AB
CDE
FG
HIP
Q
D
R S
TU
V
InnovationandLearningPerspective
Objective
PerformanceIndicators
Comments/Sourceofdata
Improvekeyelementsof
FacilitiesManag
ement
TrendintotalOperatingCostperEFTSU
(AlsoperEFTandpersqmetre)
TrendinCustome
rSatisfactionIndex
TrendinLTIFR
Perhapsnotallthreecostratios-justtheperEFTSUratio
Withscoresforthesemeasures
from
otherscorecards,thecostand
customer
satisfactionmeasuressummarise
uptotheTopLevelScorecard.
IneachoftheKPIsproposed,trendmeans%
movementbetweene
achoflast3
annualfigures
Qualitative
Measures/Practices
BenchmarkingofCleaningStandard-Clea
ningpracticeregularity
Thissimpleratingsystemmightneedrefining/expandingbutcouldwellbeastart.
ITEM
Levelofservice/frequency
3Star
4Star
5
Star
Other
(statefrequency)
HallsCommonA
reasvacuumed
weekly
weekly
daily
Officesvacuume
d
monthly
fortnightly
w
eekly
Toiletscleaned
daily
daily
daily
HighUseToilets
cleaned
daily
twicedaily
threetimesdaily
InternalBinsemptied
twicewee
kly
daily
daily
ExternalBinsem
ptied
twicewee
kly
daily
daily
Cobwebbinginte
rnal
12monthly
3monthly
monthly
Windowscleaned-Internal
Windowscleaned-External
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
25/36
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
26/36
BalancedScorecardformanagement&b
enchmarking
PreparedforAAPPAConference,September1999
_
Page26of36
89
9
@
@
9
AB
CDE
FG
HIP
Q
D
R S
TU
V
FinancialPerspective
Objective
PerformanceIndicators
Comments/Sourceofdata
Effectivecostm
anagement
1.AnnualoperatingcostperEFTSUattending.
2.Budgetover-runas%
ofbudget(operating)
3.Securitycostp
erincident
Costmeansthetotalallupinclu
dingforexamplecontracts,staffup
toheadof
FMgroup.Forbenchmarkingpurposes,categorisedintothefollowing
(respondentswouldcompletethe
section-orsectionsinthecaseof
multiple
campuses-whichapplytothem:
MetropolitanCampus
-7Day,24hourservice
$
-Otherspanofhours
$
CityCampus
-7Day,24hourservice
$
-Otherspanofhours
$
(ThescoresforthesefirsttwomeasuresaresummarisedintheTopLevel
Scorecard,alongwiththeirequivalentsfrom
otherscorecards).
Theintentionistoprovidearoughjudgementofthedegreeofsecurityproblemon
campusbalancedagainsttheres
ourcesdevotedtoit.Thesourceofthedatais
theSecurityLogBookandtheFinanceSystem.
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
27/36
BalancedScorecardformanagement&b
enchmarking
PreparedforAAPPAConference,September1999
_
Page27of36
89
9
@
@
9
AB
CDE
FG
HIP
Q
D
R S
TU
V
InternalProcessPerspective
Objective
PerformanceIndicators
Comments/Sourceofdata
WorkSafely
1.LTIFR(forSec
urityStaff)
IndustryStandard,from
OH&Sd
ata
Monitorintensityofsecurity
effort
2.Annualnumberofsecurity/safetyescortsper
EFTSUattending.
3.Annualnumberofrecordedcalls/requeststo
securityserviceforassistanceperEFTSUattending.
4.Annualperson
hoursofsecurityserviceprovided
perEFTSUattending.
Datafrom
securitylogbooks.
Monitorthebala
ncebetween
varioussecurity
services
5.Percentageoftotalannualpersonhoursand
operatingcostsappliedto:
-Crime/inciden
tinvestigation
-Securing/lockup
buildingsandfacilities
-Surveillance/mobileandfootpatrols
-Attendancetopersonalsafetyrequests
-Carparkingcon
trolandregulation
-Escortduty
-Responsetooutofhoursgeneralinquiries.
Datafrom
analysisofsecuritylogbooksandapportionmentofoperatingcosts.
Monitorthemix
security
incidents
6.Numberofsafety/securityincidents(per1000
EFTSU)oncamp
usbytypeofincident:
-Theftpersonalp
roperty
-TheftUniversity
property
-Damageperson
alproperty
-DamageUniversityproperty
-Injury/assaultto
student/staff/visitor
-Harassmentto
student/staff/visitor
Datafrom
analysisof:
-SecuritySystem
-SecurityLogBook
-UniversityInsuranceRecords
-FinanceSystems
Datashowninthethreerowsabovecanbeusedtomonitorthelevelandbalanceinthemixofsecurityservices,tomaintainefficiencyandeffectiveness.
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
28/36
BalancedScorecardformanagement&b
enchmarking
PreparedforAAPPAConference,September1999
_
Page28of36
89
9
@
@
9
AB
CDE
FG
HIP
Q
D
R S
TU
V
InnovationandLearningPerspective
Objective
PerformanceIndicators
Comments/Sourceofdata
Developourpeo
ple
1.Annualtraining
daysperEFTsecurityperson.
2.Annualtraining
costperEFTsecurityperson.
Sourceofdata:
FinancialSystem
StaffDevelopmentRecords
Developourser
vices
3.%
ofannualtotalsecuritybudgetcommittedto
improvementofservicesorinstallationofnew
services.
Datafrom
annualbudget.
Investinapprop
riate
technology
4.CostperEFTS
Uattending,ofaccesscontroland
otherelectronics
ecurityservices.
Datafrom
annualbudget.
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
29/36
BalancedScorecardformanagement&b
enchmarking
PreparedforAAPPAConference,September1999
_
Page29of36
89
9
@
@
9
AB
CDE
FG
HIP
Q
D
R S
TU
V
SCORECAR
DFORMAINTENANCE
CustomerPe
rspective
Objective
PerformanceIndicators
Comments/Sourceofdata
Provideasafee
nvironment
1.1Reducethebacklogof
safetyrelatedmaintenance
AnimprovementintheSafetyConditionIndexwhichisdefinedas
SCI=1-
period
of
begiining
at
backlog
e
maintenanc
related
safety
of
Value
Total
backlog
e
maintenanc
related
safety
of
invalue
Reduction
Sourceofdata:
Maintenancemanag
ementsystem
Financesystem
1.2.Reducelos
ttimeinjuries
Losttimehourso
fallstaff/totalofstaffhoursavaila
ble
Academicandgeneralstaff.Staffavailabilityassumed
tobe46
weeks.Sourceofda
ta:asaboveplusworkerscompensationrecords
1.3.ReduceWH&Sincidents
ReductioninWH&SIncidentsdefinedas
eriod
ntsinlastp
Noofincide
ntperiod
ntsinprese
noofincide
eriod
ntsinlastp
Noofincide
Sourceofdata:asa
bove
Providereliable
services
Sourceofdatafor2
.1and2.2:
Maintenancesystem
/Helpdeskdata/Qualitysystem
2.1Rapidresponseto
breakdowns
%
responsetime
achievedwithinpublishedtargetsforvarious
categories
Forbenchmarkingpurposes,thecategoriesandtargetswouldneed
tobedefinedandcommonlyaccepted.Otherwiseame
asuresuch
asaveragerespons
etimebetweencallandreturntoservicewould
needtobeused.
2.2.Reducecomplaints
NumberofcomplaintsreceivedpersemesterperEFTSU
Provideanaesthetically
pleasingenviron
ment
Scoreoncustomersatisfactionsurvey
Annualsurveyconductedateachsite.Surveyshouldb
esite
specifictotakeinto
accountlocalissues.Somequestionsmaybe
commonacrossthe
system.Scoringsystem
commone
g4=good,
5=excellentona5pointscale.
Provideequityo
fservice
Maintenance$as
%ofARVbybuildingorcampus.
Measuredasaro
lling5yearaverage(eventually)of:
(MaintenanceInd
ex)=
tegory
eofAssetCa
cementValu
AssetRepal
ance
eonMainten
Expenditur
AlsoneedtoestablishFacilityConditionIndexwhichshouldbe
simultaneouslymeasuredtoindicateeffectivenessofm
aintenance.
Henceneedtoestablishacondition-basedmaintenance
plan.See
Qualitativemeasure
s/Practicesintheinternalprocess
Perspective.
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
30/36
BalancedScorecardformanagement&b
enchmarking
PreparedforAAPPAConference,September1999
_
Page30of36
89
9
@
@
9
AB
CDE
FG
HIP
Q
D
R S
TU
V
FinancialPerspective
Objective
PerformanceIndicators
Comments/Sourceofdata
Optimisethema
intenancedollar
Sourceofdatafor5.1and5.2:
Maintenancemanagementsystem
andAssetregisters
5.1
Gainadequatemaintenancefunding
MaintenanceIndex=
100
Value
t
Replacemen
Asset
e
Expe
nditur
nce
Maintenana
%
Itissuggested
thatthemaintenanceIndexshould
bebetween
1and1.5%
(S
ource:APPA/AAPPAResearch1980-1998,Dr
FrankBromilow(CSIRO),NCRB,FMA)
Maintenanceindexshouldbeassessedinconjunctionwith
movementintheFCI
5.2MaintainanadequatevaluefortheFacility
ConditionInd
ex
FCI=[1-(TotalBacklogMaintenance/InstitutionARV)]
APPA/AAPPA
Research1980-1998concludestha
tanFCIof
0.9oraboveisanindicatorofamanageableback
log
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
31/36
BalancedScorecardformanagement&b
enchmarking
PreparedforAAPPAConference,September1999
_
Page31of36
89
9
@
@
9
AB
CDE
FG
HIP
Q
D
R S
TU
V
InternalProcessPerspective
Objective
PerformanceIndicators
Comments/Sourceofdata
Adequatemainte
nance
planning
Correctivemainte
nanceexpendituredividedbytotal
maintenanceexpenditure
Sourceofdata:
Maintenancemanagementsystem
andAssetregisters
Adequatemainte
nance
systems/practices
See
QualitativeMeasures/Practicesbelow
Completionofanswerstothequ
estionsandcomparisonofthescoresachieved
providesabasisforbenchmarkin
g.
Ascorewouldneedtobesetfor
eachpossibleanswer(egfirstques
tionbelow:
Annually=4;Every2years=3
;Every3years=2andsoon).
Qualitative
Measures/Practices
AssetManage
ment-FacilitiesConditionmana
gement
AFacilitiesCo
nditionassessmentisconducted
Annually
/every
2years/every3years/lessfrequently/
never
Partoftheass
essmentissomeformofphysicalinspection
Yes/no
AFacilitiesCo
nditionIndexiscalculated
Annually/every2
years/every3years/lessfrequent
Aprioritisedlistofworkrequirementsisdevelo
ped
No/forsomeas
sets/formostassets/totallycom
prehensive
Theprioritised
listofworkrequirementsisakeytodeterminingbacklogmaintenanceworks
Yes/no
Theprioritised
listofworkrequirementshelpstodetermineminorcapitalworksprojects
Yes/no
Forbacklogm
aintenance:
Acostestimate
isderivedforeachitem/project
intheworkrequirements
No/forsomeite
ms/formostitems/totallycompre
hensive
Arecommende
dyearofactionisalsoidentifie
d
No/forsomeite
ms/formostitems/allitems
Thisresultsin
acostedplanforinfrastructuresustainability
No
/for1yearahead/for2years
/3years/lo
ngerterm
plan
ThishasbeenendorsedbytheleadershipgroupatmyUniversity/Institute/es
tablishment.
Yes/no
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
32/36
BalancedScorecardformanagement&b
enchmarking
PreparedforAAPPAConference,September1999
_
Page32of36
89
9
@
@
9
AB
CDE
FG
HIP
Q
D
R S
TU
V
InternalProcessPerspective(continued)
AssetManage
ment-Maintenanceroutinesand
decisions
Amaintenance
managementsystemisinplace
.
Forplannedmaintenance/corrective/backlog/deferred
Routinesared
ocumentedanddeliveredbythemaintenancemanagementsystem.
Yes/no
CM,PM,B&D
Aareaccountedforseparately.
Yes/no
APlannedMaintenancesystemisinplace
None/some/m
ost/forallsystems
Therearedocumentedproceduresforevaluatingoutsourcingdecisions.
Yes/no
InnovationandLearningPerspective
Objective
PerformanceIndicators
Comments/Sourceofdata
Improvekeyelementsof
FacilitiesManag
ement
TrendintotalOperatingCostperEFTSU
TrendinFacilities
ConditionIndex
TrendinCustome
rSatisfactionIndex
Trendinlosttime
injuries(seePerformanceindicator
1.2inCustomerPerspective)
Thesedontallnecessarilyhavetomovingintherightdirectionforth
eresultto
begood.Forexamplerapidlyre
coveringapoorFCImayimpactsev
erelyon
operatingcostperEFTSU.
(IneachoftheKPIsproposed,trendmeans%
movementbetweeneachoflast3
annualfigures)
Improveskillso
fworkforce
AnnualtrainingdaysperEFTmaintenanceperson
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
33/36
BalancedScorecardformanagement&b
enchmarking
PreparedforAAPPAConference,September1999
_
Page33
of36
89
9
@
@
9
AB
CDE
FG
HIP
Q
D
R S
TU
V
SCORECAR
DFORCAPITALWORKS
CustomerPe
rspective
Objective
PerformanceIndicators
Comments/Sourceofdata
Achievehighestpossiblelevel
ofcustomersatisfaction
Customersatisfactionindex
(Seeindicativesurveyquestionsbelow)
Itassumesthereiscustomersatisfactionsurveyforeachprojectandthata
client(spokespersonforkeyuse
rs)hasbeenidentified.
Thesurveyshouldbesimple,capableofbeingscored.
Thescoreforeachsurvey(calculatedas%
ofmaximum
possiblescore)canbe
calculatedandsummarised,alon
gwiththescorefrom
othercustomersatisfaction
scores,toanaveragescoreinth
eTopLevelScorecardforFacilities
Managementasawhole.
Ontimecompletion
Averagetimeove
rrunas%
ofplannedproject
duration
Aweightedaveragefigureiscalc
ulatedtotakeintoaccountthediffer
entsizeof
individualprojects.Sourceofda
ta:projectbudgetsandschedules.
CustomerSatisfactionsurvey
Wewereconsu
ltedattheplanningstageabout
ourrequirements
Notatall/yesb
utitwasapartiallysatisfactory/
satisfactory
Weweregiven
realisticexpectationsofwhatth
ecompletedprojectwouldprovide.
Notatall/tosom
edegree/yeswewere
Wewerekeptadequatelyinformedduringtheproject.
Notatall/tosom
edegree/toanappropriatedegree
Thecompleted
structurehasprovensatisfactory
Notatall/inpar
t/yes
Anyassociated
systemscontainappropriatetechnology.
None/some/most/forallsystems/dontknow
Operatingcostssofarhaveproventobewithinourexpectations.
Yes/no
Remedialwork
hasbeenunnecessaryorofaveryminornature.
Yes/no
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
34/36
BalancedScorecardformanagement&b
enchmarking
PreparedforAAPPAConference,September1999
_
Page34
of36
89
9
@
@
9
AB
CDE
FG
HIP
Q
D
R S
TU
V
FinancialPerspective
Objective
PerformanceIndicators
Comments/Sourceofdata
Manageourbud
geteffectively
Budgetover-runa
s%
ofbudget(operatingbudget)
Budgetover-runa
s%
ofbudget(capitalbudget)
Abilitytomanagethebudget.ReportedtoTopLevelScorecard
Ditto.ReportedtoTopLevelSco
recard
Projectcompetitivelytendered
%
ofcapitalworksbyvalue,competitivelytendered
Assessesthekeennesstocheck
costsandapproacheswithcompetitors
InternalProcessPerspective
Objective
PerformanceIndicators
Comments/Sourceofdata
EffectiveCapita
l/Asset
Management
Minimisemanagement
overheads
%
managementc
oststocapitalworksvalue
%
whichthecapitalworksgroup
annualoperatingbudgetrepresentsofthecapital
workscompletedoverthesameperiod
Optimiseproject
cost
performance
Budgetover-runa
s%
ofbudget(capitalbudget)
separatedinto:
nsum
ofprojectscompletedbyin-housepeople
nsum
ofprojectscompletedbycontractors
Assessessomeoftherelativem
eritsofin-houseprojectsandplacin
gprojects
withcontractors
Monitorportfolio
foreconomies
ofscale
Average%
managementcoststocapitalworksvalue
bysizestrataofprojects:
nallprojectsles
sthan$25000
nallprojects>upto$100,000
nallprojects>$100,000upto$1,000,000
nallprojects>$1,000,000
Highlightsneeds&opportunities
toreviewandcategoriseprojectma
nagement
practicesfordifferentsizedproje
cts
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
35/36
BalancedScorecardformanagement&b
enchmarking
PreparedforAAPPAConference,September1999
_
Page35
of36
89
9
@
@
9
AB
CDE
FG
HIP
Q
D
R S
TU
V
InnovationandLearningPerspective
Objective
PerformanceIndicators
Comments/Sourceofdata
Improvekeyelementsof
capitalassetsm
anagement
Trendin%
managementcoststocapitalworksvalue
TrendintotalfacilitiesassetsemployedperEFTSU
TrendinCustome
rSatisfactionIndex
TrendinLTIFRfo
rcapitalworksstaffandcontractors
Onalongerterm
basis,measuresthedegreetowhichthecapitalworksfunctionis
beingeffectiveinmanagingthec
apitalassetsaspects-eventhough
someofthe
measuresmaybeindirect.
(IneachoftheKPIsproposed,trendmeans%
movementbetweeneachoflast3
annualfigures)
Improveskillso
fworkforce
Annualtrainingda
ysperEFTcapitalworksperson
-
8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management
36/36
BalancedScorecardformanagement&b
enchmarking
PreparedforAAPPAConference,September19
_
Page36
of36
89
9
@
@
9
AB
CDE
FG
HIP
Q
D
R S
TU
V
BALANCED
SCORECARDFORINTERN
ALMANAGEMENTPURPO
SES
MAINTENANCEFUNCTION
Thiscorrespo
ndstothefirstpageofthecustomerperspectiveofthescorecardshownforthemaintenance
functiononpage16.
Thekeydifferenceisthatthislayoutprovide
sforspecifictargets,responsib
ilities,anddeadlinestobedocumentedonthesamepage.
CustomerPe
rspective
Objective
Strategy/Targe
t
KPIs
Actionsbywhom
/by
1.
TOPROVIDEASAFE
ENVIRONME
NT
1.1Reductionofthe
backlogof
safetyrelatedmaintenanceby
20%
p.a.
Performanceisme
asuredbyanimprovementintheS
afety
ConditionIndexwh
ichisdefinedas
SCI=1-
period
of
begiining
at
backlog
e
maintenanc
related
safety
of
Value
otal
backlog
e
maintenanc
related
safety
of
invalue
Reduction
1.2.Reductionoflos
ttimeinjury
as%
oftotalho
ursby10%.
Losttimehoursof
allstaff(academicandgeneral),dividedby
totalofstaffhours
available(46weeks).
1.3.ReductionofWH&Sincidents
by10%
ReductioninWH&
SIncidents=
eriod
ntsinlastp
Noofincide
ntperiod
ntsinprese
noofincide
eriod
ntsinlastp
Noofincide
2.
TOPROVIDE
RELIABLE
SYSTEMSAND
SERVICES
2.1.Ensureallresponsetimesare
metwith95%
c
onfidencerate.
%
responsetimea
chievedwithinpublishedtargetsfor
various
categories
2.2.Numberofcomplaints
receivedpersem
ester
Numberofcompla
intsreceivedpersemesterperEFTSU.
3.
TOPROVIDE
AN
AESTHETICA
LLY
PLEASING
ENVIRONME
NT
3.1
Perform
regularOccupancy
Evaluationsand
Condition
Audits
Respondentsgivingascoreof4or5orofgoodorexc
ellentona
scaleof5