The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) has developed the Campus Condition Index Reporting (CCIR) Program to identify all maintenance and repair work on campus. The maintenance shops performed a comprehensive and lengthy review of all facilities and infrastructure on campus in 2011-2012. The CCIR will need annual review, cost estimate updates and prioritization, but it will be the backbone of maintenance and repair funding annually and thereby improve our facilities and grounds
Objective
Use The Campus Condition Index Report To Manage Project Selection.
Use the Campus Condition Index Report (CCIR) to plan and prioritize the maintenance and renovation projects on campus.
KPI
Complete CCIR Submission To THECB
Complete the CCIR and submit it to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) by October 15, 2013..
Result
Reviewed The CCIR Project List
The CCI project list was reviewed and completed my maintenance staff by September 15, 2013.
Result
Completion Of The CCIR
The CCIR is project to be completed by October 1, 2013.
KPI
FY14 Project List Submittal To VP Of Finance And Operations
Submit a list of projects and budgets from the CCIR to the VP of Finance and Operations (VPFO) for FY14 funding support.
Result
Project List Submittal For Approval.
A project list generated by information compiled from the CCIR was presented to the VPFO in June of 2013.
Result
Approval Of Projects For FY14
There are 8 projects that have been approved and funded from HEAF for FY14.
KPI
Track Completion Of FY13 Renovation & Repair Projects
Track completion of FY13 Facilities Plant Operations (FPO) renovation and repair projects. Calculate the ratio of project cost versus project budget. An overall average of +5% is considered exceptional and +10% is considered acceptable.
Result
Projects For FY13
There were 121 FPO renovation and repair projects completed in FY13. There were 69 projects completed where estimates were performed. The average ratio between project costs vs project estimates was 89% accurate.
Action
Review Building Maintenance Items
Meet with the facilities staff to reveiw the ongoing maintenance issues for each building on campus.
Action
Director Review Of CCIR List
A meeting at the director(s) level to review in detail the CCIR Project List. This meeting will address not only the list of projects but also the budget estimates for each project.
Action
Analyze FY13 Project Estimates
Analyze the estimating process to determine where the process is breaking down. The concern is we are not documenting scope “creep”.
Goal
Improve Effectiveness Of Building Maintenance Staff.
The priority for maintenance shop labor is preventive maintenance followed by building and system repairs. Industry standards call for emphasis on preventive maintnence first to lower the amount of breakdown repairs which interrupt activities and cost more in maintenance funding over time. APPA Level II standards are above average conditions and recognized to be achievable within most university budgets.
Objective
Improve The Condition Of Buildings On Campus Using Existing Staffing Levels.
Using the existing staff, find a means to improve the condition of the buildings without compromising our condition standards for the building.
KPI
Determine Ratio Of Corrective Work Orders To Total Work Orders.
Generate a report that shows the effectiveness of Preventative Maintenance (PM) techniques by comparing the ratio of corrective work orders to total maintenance work orders (the sum of corrective and PM work orders). Compare the percentages from year to year to the number of deferred PM work orders. A decrease in the ratio is an indicator the PM program is being effective and an increase is an indicator that it is not being effective.
Result
Comparative Ratio Of Corrective Work Orders To Total Work Orders
For FY 2011 the ratio of corrective work orders to total work orders (CWO/TWO) was 26.4%. For FY 2012 the ratio was 26.5% and for FY 2013 the ratio was 27.2%.
Result
Determine Number Of Deferred PM Work Orders
The number of deferred PM work orders for FY11 is 2,257, for FY12 it is 2,708 and for FY13 it is 3,520. The increase in deferred PM work orders corresponds to the increase in the CWO/TWO ratio. This is not optimum.
KPI
Determine Productivity Of Maintenance Staff
Compare the ratio of productive maintenance hours to total available hours from year to year to monitor maintenance productivity. The report should show improvement from year to year. A target of 85% productivity is considered exceptional and 65% is considered acceptable.
Result
Productivity Of Staff
Productivity for FY12 was 72.6% and for FY13 it was 71.7%.
Action
Analyze Individual Shop Performance.
The number of deferred PM work orders is increasing and there is a corresponding increase in the CWO/TWO ratio (this is not the desired results). Determine which department has the most deferred PM work orders and address staffing issues.
Action
Determine What Works For The Staff.
Analyze the time sheets to rank the productivity of the technicians individually to determine who the performers are and who are not performing. Do a root cause analysis to improve productivity of the staff.