|
|
Introduction/Background
|
Contractor |
DOE Office |
|
|
Date of last assessment: October 2000
The Property Control functional
area received an overall rating of outstanding in the FY 2000 Annual Appraisal.
Gradients have been established and agreed upon for the measurement of inventory
performance. Our self-assessment team identified areas of opportunity for
enhanced performance and will address those areas in the following report.
Identification of Self-Assessment Report Staff
Discussion of Individual Performance Objectives
Performance
Objective/Measure: #1
Accountability of Personal Property.
SLAC will achieve cost effective accountability for
government property.
Performance Criteria 1.1: Equipment Inventory.
The Laboratory shall conduct successful equipment inventories as
established in its Inventory Plan. Property
accountability records shall be reconciled within 90 days after conclusion of
the inventory.
Performance Measure 1.1.a: Equipment Inventory Results.
Percentage of equipment accounted for, by acquisition value, in the most
recent equipment property inventory conducted will be measured.
Process used to meet objective/measure: The Laboratory
submitted its inventory plan for this fiscal year based on a wall-to-wall
inventory, with DOE concurrence.
Findings: The inventory began in October 2000. There were
3,779 items in the equipment category with an acquisition cost of $809,995,799.10.
Reconciliation was conducted during the months of August and
September. At the close of
inventory cycle the inventory team continued to conduct searches for those items
unaccounted for. In addition, a
memo and computer generated custodian listing was sent to those individuals with
property which was still unaccounted for. The
inventory team was able to find all but 47 items with a total acquisition cost
of $534,848.31. The percentage of
equipment accounted for was 99.93% equating to a rating of
‘Outstanding’.
In 1999, the inventory schedule
was changed to a fiscal year cycle from the previous calendar year cycle.
The above graph reflects inventory results for fiscal years 1999 through
2001. Fiscal Years FY00 and FY01
were both wall-to-wall inventories.
Discussion: SLAC
equipment inventories continue to reflect outstanding results.
The recent “Property News” letter was reflected with the results of
the inventory, and an article was placed in the SLAC newspaper highlighting all
the departments that achieved a 100% find rate.
Due to the purchase of new barcode readers and the implementation of an
upgraded version of PeopleSoft, the inventory was delayed. However, the
significantly increased efficiency of the new readers allowed the inventory team
to make up most of the lost time. The
reconciliation was completed in less than two months, reduced from the previous
90-day reconciliation. (For further
details on the barcode readers, see Performance Objective #6 Cost Efficiency).
Performance
Objective/Measure: #1
Accountability of Personal Property.
SLAC will achieve cost effective accountability for
government property.
Performance Criteria 1.2: Sensitive Property Inventory.
The Laboratory shall conduct successful sensitive property inventories as
established in its Inventory Plan. Property
accountability records shall be reconciled within 90 days after conclusion of
the inventory.
Performance Measure 1.2.a: Sensitive Inventory Results.
Percentage of sensitive property accounted for, by acquisition value, in
the most recent sensitive property inventory conducted will be measured.
Process used to meet objective/measure: The Laboratory
submitted the DOE-approved inventory plan for FY 2001which reflected a
wall-to-wall methodology.
Findings: For FY
2001, the sensitive property inventory category consisted of a total of 3,044
property items with an acquisition cost of $5,841,762.80.
The inventory began in October 2000, with the reconciliation conducted during
the months of August and September. At
the close of inventory cycle, the inventory team continued to search for those
items previously unaccounted for, and, a memo and computer generated custodian
listing was sent to those individuals with property that was still unaccounted
for. An e-mail message was sent to
all computer administrators soliciting their help in locating computers.
The inventory team was able to find all but 26 items.
The unaccounted-for items had a total acquisition cost of $32,761.39.
The percentage of sensitive accounted for is 99.44%
equating to a rating of ‘Excellent’.
In 1999, the inventory schedule
was changed to a fiscal year cycle from the previous calendar year cycle.
The above graph reflects inventory results for fiscal years 1999 through
2001. Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001
were both wall-to-wall inventories.
Discussion: Since
FY99, sensitive inventory results have been consistently above 99%. The
“Property News” letter was issued with the results of the inventory.
In addition an article was placed in the SLAC publication,
the “Interaction Point” listing all the departments that had 100% find rate.
Due to the purchase of new barcode readers and the implementation of an upgraded
version of PeopleSoft, the inventory was delayed. However, the significantly
increased efficiency of the new readers allowed the inventory team to make up
most of the lost time. The
reconciliation was completed in less than two months, reduced from the previous
90-day reconciliation. (For further
details on the barcode readers, see Performance Objective #6 Cost Efficiency).
Performance Objective/Measure: # 2 Organizational Stewardship and Individual
Custodianship. SLAC will ensure
that both stewardship and custodianship for personal property is maintained.
Performance Criteria 2.1: Organizational Stewardship and
Individual Custodianship.
The Laboratory will ensure
organizational and individual accountability (stewardship and custodianship,
respectively) for property.
Performance Measure
2.1.a: Timeliness of Assignment. The
accountable individual is identified for equipment and sensitive property, and
the timeliness of such identification is measured.
Performance Assumptions:
% of accurate custodian assignments for sensitive property
%
of accurate custodian assignments for controlled property
% of initial custodians assigned within 60 days
Process used to
meet objective/measure: The initial custodian assignment was reviewed
for custodial assignment accuracy and timeliness.
To assess sensitive and equipment assignment accuracy, a
computer-generated list was run and random
samples were chosen for physical verification.
Findings:
§
% Of accurate custodian
assignments for sensitive property.
To verify sensitive property custodial assignment, the Air Force random
sample program was used to select random items for verification. DOE/OAK and a
SLAC representative physically verified 51 sensitive items. One item was found
to have a new custodian. In
addition, one item had been dismantled and used for parts by the department.
The results of verification reveled an assignment accuracy of 96.08%, for
a rating of Excellent.
§
% Of accurate custodian
assignments for controlled property.
To verify equipment custodial assignment, the Air Force random sample
program was used to select random items for verification. DOE/OAK and a SLAC
representative physically verified 37 equipment items. One item was found to
have a new custodian. The
results of verification reveled an assignment accuracy of 97.30%, for a rating
of Excellent.
§
% Of initial custodians
assigned within 60 days.
There were a
total of 981 sensitive and equipment items received this fiscal year. A total of
5 items did not get a final custodian assignment within the 60 days. The average
custodial assignment was approximately 17 days. The new custodian has a 99.49%
assignment within 60 days, for a rating of Outstanding.
Discussion:
Every month, a follow up call,
e-mail message or visit is made to new custodians that are 30 days past due.
This has assisted in getting signature forms back within the 60 days.
The new barcode readers have a small display screen that among other
things indicates the previous custodian. This
feature has been of great benefit when assigning property in cases when the
individual is not around during the inventory.
Performance Objective:
#3 Utilization of Property. SLAC
will ensure property utilization of government property.
Performance Criteria
3.1: Vehicle
Utilization Program. The Laboratory will ensure proper utilization of government
motor vehicles.
Performance Measure 3.1.a: Measure vehicle utilization. Percentage of total eligible motor
vehicles meeting local utilization criteria will be measured using the average
utilization percentage for each class of vehicles. Reviews will be completed for
each class of motor vehicles with established criteria.
Assumptions:
The average utilization percentage will be calculated for each class of vehicles
by dividing the overall utilization measured into the overall utilization
standard. As an example, 10 vehicles with a utilization standard of 1,000 miles
per year would equate to an overall utilization standard of 10,000 miles per
year. If the overall utilization measures 9,500 miles, then the average
utilization percentage would be 9,500/10,000 or 95%.
Process used to meet objective/measure:
The Transportation Department issues quarterly reports on vehicle utilization.
The Transportation Committee reviews the data and makes recommendations
regarding vehicle reclassifications and recalls to the Associate Director of BSD
when requested by the Transportation Department, using the Fleet Management
Policy as a guide.
Findings:
The Year 2001 average utilization percentage for motor vehicles quarterly
reports submitted to DOE has demonstrated over 100% in each vehicle category.
Performance
Objective/Measure: #
4 Customer Satisfaction
SLAC will strive to improve
customer satisfaction
Performance Criteria 4.1: The Laboratory listens and responds
to its internal and external customers and stakeholders in a fair and open
process that encourages dialogue and participation.
Performance Measure 4.1.a: The Laboratory shall select areas
in which to determine the needs of its customers relative to its property
management systems and methods. Measurement
of improved customer satisfaction will be from an established baseline.
The Laboratory will submit its selection by December 1, 2000 and its plan
of action by April 1, 2001.
Process used to meet objective/measure: The selection and a
corresponding plan were submitted to DOE/OAK on November 13, 2000.
This year the focus was on improving processes within the department,
instead of conducting a customer survey. Results
of future customer surveys will be used as the baseline for improvements.
Findings: During
FY 2001, the Business Services Division hosted an independent committee
consisting of panel members from various DOE laboratories to conduct an
independent peer review of SLAC’s business processes. The Panel evaluated each
administrative service area involved in the Peer review with regard to the
following criteria:
Is
each area pursuing high quality standards through the use of relevant
performance-based criteria?
Are the service functions pursuing their missions
in a cost effective and efficient manner;
Are the service functions aligned with the
programmatic goals of the Laboratory; and
Are the service functions achieving an acceptable
level of customers’ satisfaction?
In addition to the above, SLAC
asked the Panel to identify areas that it believed to merit special recognition,
as well as areas warranting special attention for improvement.
The Panel recognized and commended the new web-based property
“re-use” system that is used to preview available items for reissue.
The Panel indicated that: “As a result, the property management system
works effectively through the use of the Web and e-mail to transfer equipment,
maintain accountability, and view the property on-line.”
In accordance with our plan, the
department met on several occasions to discuss services each staff member was
performing that could be examined for improvement. Six processes were defined for improvement:
Offsite
Use: In the past, as a courtesy, Property Control would send
custodians a new form listing the items they had offsite.
Custodians would be required to sign and get the appropriate supervisory
signature, and then mail the form back to our office.
To increase process efficiency, we focused on reducing renewal/response
times. An e-mail notification is now sent to both the custodian and their
supervisor before the expiration date. Offsite
use is extended once the e-mail responses are received back from both the
custodian and supervisor. A copy of
the e-mail is attached to the original loan.
The e-mail notice has been refined to highlight the fact that both
custodian and supervisor are required to reply.
A hard copy is now only sent as the last resort.
Responses are being received back faster than with the hard copy
renewals. This new notification is getting praise from custodians. Accordingly, a new procedure was drafted and
approved by DOE.
Telephone service
calls: The office administrator’s extension is used as the main Property
Control telephone number. The
administrator needs to be able to answer customer questions.
If a call requires more detail or explanation than the administrator can
provide, a goal has been established to follow up with a return call within 20
minutes. If the main extension is not answered, a new
voice menu gives the caller options that will forward their call to the
appropriate personnel. To further
assist our customers, the updated Personal Property Management Guide has been
placed on line in the Property Control home page in BIS.
New equipment signature forms:
Although the new custodian forms are being returned within 60 days, we
felt that we needed to get more custodians to return the form automatically,
instead of waiting to be reminded. The
form was redesigned to highlight important areas and the type font has been
enlarged. We are finding that more
forms are being returned before we have to follow up. An e-mail confirmation is also being accepted in lieu of the
signature form being returned. There are still custodians that do not send their
form back or respond to e-mail in a timely manner.
In those cases we have to follow up with calls, e-mail and visits.
Marking new purchase card purchases: Packages received from purchase
cards in the Shipping/Receiving department are usually received with a
person’s name on the mailing label. The receiving department is not allowed to
open these packages. As a
consequence property management depends on the requestor to notify us when they
make equipment purchases. To
determine how many items were bypassing property management, an audit was
conducted in the first quarter by the Property department.
From the property database, a computer-generated list detailing purchase
card items was compared against the audit items. Approximately 51% of credit card purchases did not get
marked. A memo was sent to all
cardholders and to their departmental approver reminding them of their
responsibility regarding property management notification.
In addition the purchase card administrator also sent e-mail to all
cardholders. An article was put in
the SLAC ‘Property News’ letter. For items that bypassed property management, e-mail was sent
to the custodian with the description of the item, and when and where it was
purchased. We reminded custodians
of items that need to be tagged and made a trip out to their offices to mark the
items. The list of “offending”
custodians was sent to the purchase card coordinator in the Purchasing
Department. An audit of credit card purchases was conducted for the second quarter
in which the percentage of items bypassing property management was reduced to
32%. This reflected an improvement
of 20%. We repeated the e-mail to
the custodian and the purchase card coordinator.
Due to the delay in the start of the inventory, we have been late in
reviewing the audit for the third quarter receipts.
The fourth quarter receipts will also be examined.
Scrap
metal pickups: We want to offer a timely scrap metal pickup once a call is
received. We established a goal of two working days.
We have surpassed that goal by picking up the barrels within 24 hours.
A problem with the timely pick up uncovered the excessive ‘trimsol’
(cutting oil) in the barrels. The
barrels leave a messy trail. The
machine shops were contacted and agreed to let the barrels sit for 24 hrs before
calling in for a pickup. Empty
barrels returned to the shops now have more holes in the bottom to allow the
trimsol to drain into a secondary containment.
The holes are small enough to drain the oil and not allow the metals to
fall through.
Computer disposition: Only computers that are known to be in good
condition are reissued. Others are
immediately placed in process for sale or donation. This has eliminated computers being returned back to Salvage.
In addition, an e-mail was sent
to past customer service focus groups, administrative associates & computer
administrators. We wanted to find
out if the
improvements made in response to their input have been beneficial, and if there
were additional areas of concern or additional improvement ideas. Overall,
the feedback was positive. From one
suggestion received, the table of contents for the Property Management Guide now
has a link to the appropriate section. These
groups felt that the property listing they received was very helpful.
We plan to mail a new listing to all custodians when the inventory is
finalized.
Discussion: During
the next fiscal year, we will send out a survey to compare our employee
awareness campaign and customer service improvements.
Performance Objective/Measure: # 5 Information to Improve/Maintain Process
SLAC ensures that Property
Management programs are consistent with policies and procedures approved by DOE.
Performance Criteria 5.1: Self-Assessment of Policies and
Procedures. The Laboratory shall
plan, conduct, document and report annually, the results of a successful
property management system evaluation.
Performance Measure 5.1.a: Assessing Support Processes.
The property processes shall be measured against identified system
evaluation criteria established in the plan.
Basis for Rating: SLAC’s self-assessment worksheet provides
the activities to be measured, point value for each activity and performance
gradients.
Processes:
1)
2)
4)
5)
Performance Objective/Measure: # 6 Cost Efficiency
SLAC ensures that property is
managed appropriately to balance performance and cost.
Performance Criteria 6.1: Performance/Cost Efficiency.
The Laboratory shall ensure that property processes/products are provided
in the most cost efficient manner while maintaining desired levels of
performance.
Performance
Measure 6.1.a: Measuring Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness.
The Laboratory shall measure its ability to effectively balance property
management costs and performance.
Process used to meet objective/measure: The process selected
is the ‘physical inventory’. A
review of the process and amount of time taken to accomplish this task has been
examined. The new procedures will
be used to compare and show the reduction in man hours/time and the reduced
number of steps.
Findings: The physical inventory process was very time
consuming particularly uploading the data from the reader to the database.
The old barcode readers were eight years old, and were used prior to us
implementing the new PeopleSoft database. The
old barcode readers just performed data collection, with no validation. The old
readers also allowed assets to be scanned several times during the inventory,
creating duplicate records. Personnel
conducting the inventory did not have pertinent information on the current
custodian or location. In addition, the upload process was time consuming,
taking two to three hours. One of
the major reasons for this was the manual look up of the employee
identification. Previous upload
steps:
There was the initial cost of new readers and software. New barcode readers were ordered and customized to meet our inventory needs. The new readers have built in laser scanners, eliminating the large bulky scanner that had previously been used. They are compact, lightweight and are easily carried. The new units use the Palm operating system and can also be used as a Palm Pilot to take notes, etc. All active assets are loaded into the reader. The data includes the description, current location, custodian, and employee identification. In addition, a valid location and custodian tables are downloaded into the readers. When an asset is scanned, the latest database information is displayed (description, model, location and custodian, including employee identification). In the majority of cases this allows for an accurate inventory assignment. If the custodian changes, only a valid selection can be made from the custodian table. The new readers do not allow duplicate assets. The efficiency of the new readers has greatly reduced processing time:
One of the most important outcomes of the new readers is how fast the upload can be accomplished.This saves time and allows us to take care of other task in a timelier manner. Having the asset information available will help create a more accurate database.
Discussion: Based on the findings the process restructure has met the goal to reduce the man-hours to less time and still uphold the performance level without a reduction of service.
Performance Objective/Measure: # 7 Learning and Growth
SLAC ensures that there is a
program for achieving and maintaining learning and growth in the property
management organization.
Performance Criteria 7.1: Evaluation of Learning and Growth
and Employee Alignment. The
Laboratory will foster learning and growth and employee alignment in its
property management organization.
Performance
Measure 7.1.a: Measuring Learning and Growth and Employee Alignment.
The Laboratory will have a process in place to measure learning and
growth as well as to understand and address workforce expectation.
Process used to meet objective/measure: Property personnel
training opportunities were identified. Classes
were arranged and scheduled. Training
was measured by the percentage of employees required to take training and those
who completed the appropriate training.
Findings: All required property staff attended the PeopleSoft
upgrade training and review. In
addition, some staff members attended onsite training in fire extinguisher
safety, forklift operation, building managers training, electrical safety for
non-electrical workers, lock and tag, and web page improvements.
One staff member attended offsite training on data presentation and
information. Two staff members were
set to attend the ‘DOE Contractors Property Management Training Seminar’ in
February 2001. Due to circumstances
beyond their control, unforeseen mechanical airline problems, they were unable
to make connections to reach the conference in time.
At the time the selection and plan was written, this training was not on
DOE’s schedule.
Objectives/Goals for
Following FY
Goals met from last fiscal year:
Continue to work on
the already successful ‘Property Awareness Campaign’ – A new poster
was hung on bulletin boards around the site; A Property News Letter was sent
out; e-mails to administrative assistants, computer administrators and purchase
card holders; article in the Interaction Point; continued presentation at the
new employee orientation. Repeated reminder
to all employees of their property management responsibilities.
Continue to focus on,
and improve ‘Customer Service’ – We have improved many of the
department’s tasks and processes. Participated
in the Peer Review. Generated
feedback from administrative assistants and computer administrators.
Distribute the
revised ‘Personal Property Management Guide’ – The ‘Personal
Property Management Guide’ was put on the property web page. The table of contents was improved to allow a link to the
appropriate section.
Upgrade the barcode
readers for increased efficiency and accuracy – This goal has been met as
discussed in performance objective # 6.
New goals:
Continue to utilize the on-line capabilities to use
graphics to show items available at Salvage
Continue to focus on, and improve ‘Customer service’
Continue to work on the ‘Property Awareness Campaign’
Work towards on-line sales
For Questions or comments, Please contact Ziba Mahdavi, Last Updated 10/24/00