1

FY03 PMP Presentation PackageSecurity and Emergency Response Program

Division of Fire Rescue Services“NIH Fire Department”

2

Performance Management Presentation

Provide Fire Emergency Services

Team Leader:

Assistant Chief Jonathan Mattingly

Team Members:

Lieutenant Edward GotthardtMaster Firefighter Joe D’AmbrosioMaster Firefighter Paul DonaldsonMaster Firefighter Thomas KellumTechnician Michael LavenProgram Support Assistant Lori Eckstine

Security and Emergency Response ProgramOffice of Research ServicesNational Institutes of Health

21 January 2004

3

Table of Contents

Main Presentation

PM Template ………………………………………………………5

Customer Perspective ……………………………………………7

Internal Business Process Perspective …………….…………19

Learning and Growth Perspective …………………………….27

Financial Perspective …………………………………………..33

Conclusions and Recommendations …………………………38

4

Table of Contents (cont.)

AppendixPage 2 of template

Customer PerspectiveC1A: Number of responses by location.C1B: Type of calls.C2A: ORS customer scorecard ratings.

Internal Business Process PerspectiveIB1A: Response times. IB2A: Percentage of extinguisher inspections completed on schedule.IB3A: Hours of drills per month.IB3B: Number of building preplans per month.

Learning and Growth PerspectiveLG1A: Hours of job related training received above job requirements.

LG1B: Hours of drills per month.LG2A: Number of master firefighters.

Financial PerspectiveF1A: Unit cost per hour, per fire department employee.

5

Service Group: Provide Fire Emergency Services

Discrete Service:Provide fire, rescue, and hazardous incident response services

Value Proposition:Knowledgeable site-specific experts of the NIH Fire Department

provide rapid, on-site, highly advanced response capabilities, to incidents involving fire, emergency medical, hazardous materials, and technical rescue to the NIH community, and maintains readiness initiatives to ensure that an adequate emergency response program is provided to support the mission of the NIH.

Service Strategy:Operational Excellence

Strategy Description:The inherent risks associated with the mission of the NIH, require that

the NIH Fire Department maintains “Operational Excellence” via proactive site-specific planning, preparedness, and training that incorporates cutting edge techniques and technologies that enhance the overall comprehensive emergency response strategy.

6

Performance Objectives Relationship

HISO = HighImpact Strategic

Objective

KEY:

Division of Fire Rescue ServicesStrategy Map

C2: Increase customersatisfaction

Strategic Themes

Knowledgeablesite-specific

experts

Proactive site-specific

planning,preparedness,

and training

Provide rapid, on-site, highly advancedemergency response

to support themission of NIH

Cutting edgetechiques andtechnologies

Org

ani

zatio

na

l Va

lue

I1: Maintain/reduceresponse time

I2: Maintain extinguisher inspectionIAW applicable reqts.

Elem

ents critica

l togrou

p’s succe

ss

LG1: Increase the knowledge, skill,and abilities of staff to respond to future

emergencies.

F1: Minimize unit cost

Doc. Revised: 12/3/2003

CU

ST

OM

ER

INT

ER

NA

LB

US

INE

SS

FIN

AN

CIA

LL

EA

RN

ING

&G

RO

WT

H

HISO

objectives

LG2: Increase existing employee baseto full performance level

C1: Ensure the safety and protectionof the NIH Community during fire and life

safety emergency situations.

I3. Ensure readiness to respond toemergency incidents.

7

Customer Perspective

8

Customer Perspective

Objective Measure FY03 Target FY04 Target FY05 Target Initiative Owner

Cus

tom

er

C1: Ensure the safety and protection of the NIH Community during fire and life safety emergency situations.

C2: Increase customer satisfaction.

C1A: Number of responses by location.

C1B: Types of calls.

C2A: ORS customer scorecard ratings.

Plus/Minus 5% of FY02

Plus/Minus 5% of FY02

Consistant with ORS ratings

Plus/Minus 5% of FY03

Plus/Minus 5% of FY03

Consistant with ORS ratings

Plus/Minus 5% of FY04

Plus/Minus 5% of FY04

Consistant with ORS ratings

Data Collection from Reports

Data Collection from Reports

Fire Department Customer Survey

A/C Chaplin

A/C Chaplin

A/C Mattingly

9

C1A: Number of Responses by Location

33%

22%

29%

16%

33%

20%

31%

16%

FY 01 FY 02

FY 03 FY04*

34%

19%

31%

16%

0

29%

22%

27%

22%

Building 10

On-Campus Labs

On-Campus Non-Labs

Mutual Aid

10

C1A: Number of Responses by Location

Responses by Location (* FY04 Estimate Based on 1st Qtr)

641675 687

616

425 420381

448

548

638 629

572

298326 321

484

FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04*

Building 10

On-Campus Labs

On-Campus Non-Labs

Mutual Aid

11

C1A: Number of Responses by Location For Fiscal Year 03 = 2018

687

381

629

321

Building 10

On-Campus Labs

On-Campus Non-Labs

Mutual Aid

12

C1A: Number of Responses by LocationBased on 1st Qtr Data

FY 04 1st Qtr Total of 530

154

112

143

121

Building 10

On-Campus Labs

On-Campus Non-Labs

Mutual Aid

13

C1B: Types of Calls

Calls By Type (FY 99 to FY 03)

Fire57%EMS

26%

Hazmat17%

14

C1B: Types of Calls

Average call per month (Fy 99 to FY 03)

173

152 154 155143

160 159 154 157 157171

161

Octobe

r

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

Janu

ary

Ferua

ry

Mar

chApr

ilM

ayJu

ne July

Augus

t

Septe

mbe

r

15

C1B: Types of Calls

Total Calls By Type(Note: FY 04 Est. Based On 1st Qtr. Data)

1010951

1125 1146 1160 1176

468 482 477525 532 548

315272 310

388326

396

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY 04 1st QTR

Fire

EMS

Hazmat

16

Customer Scorecard Methodology

The NIH Fire Department shall use a custom scorecard designed by OQM and DFRS

It shall be distributed monthly It shall cover all incidents for the first 10 days of

each month It will address specific concerns of the DFRS

Responders handling of problems? Resolution of emergency?

Data will be compiled quarterly, by OQM

17

Customer PerspectiveWhat does the data tell you?

The types of calls remains consistent over the 5 year comparison Thus meeting the FY 03 Target of +/- 5% change

The location of the calls remains consistent over the 5 year comparison Thus meeting the FY 03 Target of +/- 5% change

The average number of calls per month remains consistent over the 5 year comparison

18

Customer PerspectiveWhat actions are planned?

• Continue with current data collection procedures, and evaluation processes (monthly/quarterly)

• Conduct ORS OQM/DFRS Customer Scorecard assessment during FY 04

19

Internal Business Process Perspective

20

Internal Business Process Perspective

Objective Measure FY03 Target FY04 Target FY05 Target Initiative Owner

Inte

rnal

Bus

ines

s

IB1: Ensure incident response times are below the national established limits of the ISO.

IB2: Maintain estinguisher inspections in accordance with applicable requirements.

1B3: Ensure readiness to respond to emergency incidents.

IB1A: Response times.

IB2A: Percentage of extinguisher inspections completed on schedule.

IB3A: Hours of drills per month.

IB3B: Number of building preplans per month.

Maintain/reduce previous year's percentage of times that are 5 minutes or less

100%

TBD -- New Initiative

TBD -- New Initiative

Maintain/reduce previous year's percentage of times that are 5 minutes or less

100%

Plus/Minus 5% of FY03

Plus/Minus 5% of FY03

Maintain/reduce previous year's percentage of times that are 5 minutes or less

100%

Plus/Minus 5% of FY04

Plus/Minus 5% of FY04

Data from Reports, to ensure 5 minute mark established by ISO

Data, in accordance with JCAHO

Data from Database

Data from Database

A/C Chaplin

Lori Eckstine

A/C Mattingly

A/C Chaplin

21

1B1A: Response Times

Percentage Of Total Calls (Emergency and Non-Emergency) With A 5 Minute Or Less Response Time

93%93%

95%

93%

94%

88%

FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 1st QTR

22

1B1A: Response Times

Percentage of On-Campus Calls (Excluding Mutual Aid) (Emergency and Non-Emergency with a 5 Minute or Less

Response Time

95%95%

96%

97%

95%

95%

96%

96%

97%

97%

FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 1st Qtr

23

1B1A: Response Times For FY 03

Response Times For FY 03

117

248

827

359

182

106

38 18 9 13 9 32

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

< 1 M

inute

1 M

inute

2 M

inute

s

3 M

inute

s

4 M

inute

s

5 M

inute

s

6 M

inute

s

7 M

inute

s

8 M

inute

s

9 M

inute

s

10 M

inute

s

> 11 M

inutes

Response Times For 2018Responses

24

1B1A: Response Times For FY 03

On-Campus Response Times for FY 03

162

230

746

291

134

6927 10 6 6 3 10

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

< 1 M

inute

1 M

inute

2 M

inute

s

3 M

inute

s

4 M

inute

s

5 M

inute

s

6 M

inute

s

7 M

inute

s

8 M

inute

s

9 M

inute

s

10 M

inute

s

> 11 M

inutes

1696 On-Campus Responses

25

1B1A: Response Times For FY 04 1st Qtr

Response Times For FY 04 1st Qtr.

50

74

156

105

49

31

10 5 61

12

31

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

< 1 M

inute

1 M

inute

2 M

inute

s

3 M

inute

s

4 M

inute

s

5 M

inute

s

6 M

inute

s

7 M

inute

s

8 M

inute

s

9 M

inute

s

10 M

inute

s

> 11 M

inutes

Response Times For 530 Responses

26

1B1A: Response Times For FY 04 1st Qtr

On Campus Response Times 1st Qtr

43

69

141

89

35

19

2 2 3 1 3 20

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

< 1 M

inute

1 M

inute

2 M

inute

s

3 M

inute

s

4 M

inute

s

5 M

inute

s

6 M

inute

s

7 M

inute

s

8 M

inute

s

9 M

inute

s

10 M

inute

s

> 11 M

inutes

409 On-Campus Responses

27

1B2A: Percentage of Extinguisher Inspections Completed on Schedule

•Inspection Schedule is Regulation Driven

•JCAHO Requirements for Clinical Center

•NFPA 10 Requirements for Campus/Farm

•ALAC Requirements for Animal Care Areas

•Inspections are REQUIRED to be Completed in Accordance with the Requirements

•Therefore, the Inspections are Completed on Schedule, 100% of the Time

28

Internal Business Process PerspectiveWhat does the data tell you?

• Response times remain consistent over the 5 year comparison

• Thus meeting the FY 03 Target

• The 1st Qtr of FY 04 is not consistent with the previous years, some triggers have been identified

• This trend will not meet the FY 04 Target• Increased Mutual Aid requests have affected the overall

response time summary• New location of the Fire Station, and route of travel to

access Building 10 (Only Temporary)• Response challenges resulting from CVI location• Current construction items at the Fire Station that will be

resolved upon completion (only using one side of apparatus bay, station alerting system)

29

Internal Business Process PerspectiveWhat actions are planned?

• Continue with current data collection procedures, and evaluation processes (monthly/quarterly)

• Monitor next Qtr’s to ensure 1st Qtr triggers are resolved

• Separate response time data to show emergency v/s non-emergency and on campus v/s mutual aid

• Ensure fire extinguisher program remains at 100% compliance

30

Learning and Growth Perspective

31

Learning and Growth PerspectiveLe

arni

ng a

nd G

row

th

LG1: Increase the knowledge, skill, and abilities of staff to respond to future emergencies.

LG2: Increase existing employee base to full performance level.

LG1A: Hours of job related training received above job requirements.

LG1B: Hours of drills per month.

LG2A: Number of master firefighters.

Establish baseline

TBD -- New Initiative

4

Plus/Minus 5% of FY03

Plus/Minus 5% of FY03

8

Plus/Minus 5% of FY04

Plus/Minus 5% of FY04

12

Data collection, compared to Job Description

Data from Database

Personnel Staffing Roster

A/C Mattingly

A/C Chaplin

Chief Hess

Objective Measure FY03 Target FY04 Target FY05 Target Initiative Owner

32

LG1A: Hours of Job Related Training Received Above Job Requirements

• The DFRS staff received a total of 3487.5 hours of training in FY 03• This equates to an average of 290.6 hours per

month

• During the 1st Qtr of FY 04, the DFRS staff received a total of 476.5 hours of training• This equated to an average of 158.3 hours per

month

33

LG1B: Hours of Drills Per Month

• The DFRS staff spent a total of 2620.75 hours conducting drills in FY 03• This equates to an average of 214.4 hours per

month

• During the 1st Qtr of FY04, the DFRS staff spent a total of 350 hours conducting drills• This equated to an average of 116.7 hours per

month

34

Learning and Growth PerspectiveWhat does the data tell you?

• A total of 6108.25 hours were devoted to readiness training• This averages to 509 hours per month

• The 1st Qtr numbers for FY 04 are lower then the average for FY 03• This is mainly attributed to moving into the new

facility• An additional impact on these figures resulted

from the time spent during this Qtr, equipping the Tower, and qualifying additional driver/operators

35

Learning and Growth PerspectiveWhat actions are planned?

• Continue with current data collection procedures, and evaluation processes (monthly/quarterly)

• Ensure that the remaining Qtr’s of FY 04 result in increased readiness training• This will ensure that the FY 04 Target is met

36

Financial Perspective

37

Financial Perspective (cont.)

Mandatory to Report on Unit Cost ObjectiveFi

nanc

ial

F1: Minimize Unit Cost at a Defined Level of Service.

F1A: Unit cost per hour, per fire department employee, compared to per NIH employee.

Limit to a 5% increase over previous year

Limit to a 5% increase over previous year

Limit to a 5% increase over previous year

Data from OBSF Chief Hess

Objective Measure FY03 Target FY04 Target FY05 Target Initiative Owner

38

F1A: Unit Cost Per Hour, Per DFRS Employee

2002 Op 2003 Op 2004 Forecast 2004 Request

Total Cost (000s) 2,622.157$ 3,700.534$ 3,933.594$ 3,610.249$ No. of Units 104,832 104,832 104,832 112,736

Unit Cost 25.01$ 35.30$ 37.52$ 32.02$

39

Financial PerspectiveWhat does the data tell you?

• The unit cost data changes are identified to have 2 main triggers• The increase in staffing in accordance with the

2000 SAR• The conversion the NIH Fire Department from a

“Section” to a “Division”, which encompasses additional funding needs, such as rent

40

Financial PerspectiveWhat actions are planned?

• Monitor the next 2 fiscal years to ensure that the unit cost data becomes consistent.

41

Conclusions

42

Conclusions from PMP

• This process has illustrated that the strategies in place from previous internal assessments, and the implementation of the recommendations from the 2000 SAR, have resulted in a highly proficient and efficient service delivery

• Future assessments and the collection and analysis of data will ensure that the strategies implemented will continue to result in “Operational Excellence”

• The Division of Fire Rescue Services of the NIH will continue to develop and increase its capabilities, to meet the ever changing needs, trends, and developments within the Fire and Emergency Services for the community which we serve

43

THANK YOUSecurity and Emergency Response Program

Division of Fire Rescue Services“NIH Fire Department”