Six Sigma DMAIC Improvement Story - flbenchmark.org101652CD-38DF-4EBF-A75F... · Define Measure...

Team:

Ben Balcer (Co-Team Leader) Julie Zicarelli (Co-Team Leader)

Leslie Olson Mark Satterlee

Green Belt Project Objective:

Reducing the # of Days to Review and

Approve Building Permits

Six Sigma DMAIC Improvement Story

Howard Tipton (Sponsor)

Hammer Time

Last Updated: 3-7-17

Monica Graziani (Process Owner)

Overview of SLC Building Permits

2Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

▪ Building permits are required for most construction and renovations. The County has adopted the Florida Building Code as it’s standard for all construction.

▪ Building permits are fundamental to both economic development and public safety.

▪ 8431 permits were issued in 2016.

▪ Permit applications require plan reviews for land use and zoning, building code, fire code.

SLC Plans Examiner Ed Roseberry

Project Alignment to Strategy


Reducing Building Permit Timeframes Aligns with

several Strategic Objectives

Identify Project CharterThe team developed a Project Charter.

Project Name: Reduce # of Days to Review and Approve Building Permits

Problem/Impact:

Turnaround Time for Building Permit Issuance is not

consistently achieving our target. In addition, the time to

provide initial feedback to applicants is too long, causing

customer dissatifaction.

Expected Benefits:Reduce the amount of time for Permit Issuance, ultimately increasing customer satisfaction

Outcome Indicator(s)

Q2 (BD012) % of Permit Requests Completed within 30 days (as Req’d by Fla

Statute 553)

P7- # of Days from Application Recd TO Plan Review Comments to Applicant

Proposed Target(s) Q2=95%; P7= 15 Days

Time Frame: Nov 2016 through March 2017

Strategic Alignment:Supports County's Economic Development "Service" and "Community" strategic objectives

In Scope: All Permits receiving a CO within the last 6 months

Out-of-Scope: Fencing, Driveway and other non CO permitsAuthorized by: Howard Tipton

Sponsor: Howard Tipton

Team Leader: Julie Zicarelli, Ben Balcer

Team Members: Mark Satterlee, Leslie Olson

Process Owner(s): Monica Graziani

Mgmt Review Team: Howard Tipton and Deputy County Administrators

Completion Date: 31-Mar-17

Review Dates: Monthly and Final Review in March 2017

Key Milestone Dates:See Action Plan

Team

Schedule

Project Charter

Business

Case

Objectives

Scope


1.

2.

Stakeholder Needs for Building Permits


Stakeholders and Needs

Stakeholders Needs

Applicant

Quick response and fast turnaround… The ability to receive a building permit that

is reviewed by professionally certified reviewers in a timely manner.

Quality control check for safe buildings… The assurance the proposed

construction meets the standards of the Florida Building Code.

Helpful customer service. The knowledge to know what to expect, based on an

established timeline for building permit review..

Community

(taxpayers)

Quality control check for safe buildings... A guarantee that all structures are

reviewed based on the Florida Building Code and are safe to occupy.

SLC

Senior

Leadership

Quality economic development… To minimize the areas of waste in the building

permit process, resulting in cost savings by reducing redundant review and time-

consuming procedures that have little added benefit.

Helpful customer service… To maintain a reliable process that ensures SLC is

sustaining its customer and business friendly reputation.

Quality control check for safe buildings... The assurance the proposed

construction meets the standards of the Florida Building Code.

Visitors

Beautiful community and evident pride of place…A variety of appealing options

when deciding where to eat, stay, & entertain themselves while they visit St. Lucie County.

Quality control check for safe buildings... The assurance the proposed

construction meets the standards of the Florida Building Code..


Hidden Costs of Late Building Permits

Stakeholder

Pain

Experienced Annualized "Costs"

Applicant Delayed Occupancy

Discourage development and job creation - Owners or potential

property owners may be discouraged from improving their property

because permit delays increase development costs, pushing them to

consider other opportunities, such as developing elsewhere.

Community

(Taxpayer)

Misguided perception of

not customer or business

friendly.

Encourage illegal building activity - Complex and lengthy process

provides an excuse to proceed without proper approvals, resulting in

more violations and enforcement workload.

SLC Senior

Leadership

1) Missed sales of

County services

2) County handling costs

for managing permits

3) Add’l Trips to the field

4) Handling Applicant

inquiries due to lateness

1a. Utilities ($3 per day) X (Avg # of days Late for late=23.2 days) X

(# Permits per yr=35/143X198)=$3,373 Est. Ann’l Rev lost1b. Lost taxes ($17.93/day for new SF homes)…. $19,242

2. (1 Hr Extra handling)X (35/143X198 late Permits)X$25= $1,2123. (3 trips per Permit)X(35/143X198 Late permits)X$25= $3,6364. Inquires for late permits…(Avg 3 per late permit ) (35/143X198 late

X (1 FTE hour)X($25)= $3,636 per year

Visitors

Missed opportunity to

experience new or

renovated venues within

St. Lucie County.

Missed sales of area business services and housing.

Annual Cost = $8,484 …… Annual Lost Revenue= $22,615

WHO

STEP

NEED

Process Building Permit Application

FBC_DMAIC_Story_Reduce Time to Provide Permit_Process Permit Applications_FLOWCHART_12-15-16.vsd 12/19/16

Customer Receives Permit And Can Commence Construction

DISCUSS

(Process Owner: Manager of Building and Code Regulations)

SLC STAFF / SITE AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE REVIEWERS

Customer Wants To Build And Needs Building Permit

TRAVEL/MAKE

RECEIVE/ROUTE

REVIEW/ISSUE

RECEIVED

DISCUSS

▪ Travel To SLC Offices ▪ Make Building Permit Application

▪ Discuss Proposed Building Plans/Ideas And Complete Intake Checklist With Customer

Meets Site Codes?

CUSTOMER (APPLICANT)

Q1- # of Days from Application Received TO Permit Issued

REVIEW

DISCUSS

FIRE DEPT

▪ Make Necessary Changes To Meet Code & Send To SLC

Application Complete?

▪ Staff Receive Documentation For Necessary Changes▪ Route To Appropriate “Site” Reviewers (ERD, Parking, Use, Site Plan)

NO

YES

▪ Site Reviewer Reviews Application And Plans For Zoning And LDC Compliance

NO

YES

P6- % of Applications that are Submitted Complete

MAKE

ROUTE

DISCUSS

MAKE

Able To Proceed With Agreed Changes?

▪ Discuss Issues/Changes Needed To Ensure Code Code Compliance


NO

YES

▪ Route To Plan Review Shelf Of Fla Building Code Reviewers

▪ Bldg Reviewer Reviews Application/ Plans Fla Bldg Code Compliance

Meets Fla Bldg Code?


NO

▪ Discuss Issues/Changes Needed To Ensure Code Compliance

▪ Review All Code Reviews And Ensure All Issues Have Been Addressed (Resolve With Customer And Reviewers As Needed)

▪ Approve Permit In System Pending Fire Dept Release (if Rqd)▪ Send To Fire Dept (if Reqd)

YES

▪ Review Plans And Identify Issues▪ Notify Cust Of Permit Issues (if Any)


▪ Applicant Corrects And Returns Docs

▪ Stamp Plans With Fire Release Return To SLC Staff

▪ Review All Docs & Resolve Any Remaining Issues W/ Cust/ Reviewers▪ Issue Building Permit

P2- # of Days from Start of Zoning review TO Plan Review Shelf

Q2 (BD012) % of Permit Requests Completed within 30 days (as reqd byt Fla Statute 553)

Ok W/o Fire?

P1- # of days from Application Recd TO Start Zoning Review

NO

YES

NO

YES

STAMP/RETURN

REVIEW/APPROVE/

SEND

REVIEW

REVIEW/NOTIFY

CORRECT/RETURN

P3- # of Days from Plan Review Shelf TO Plan Review Comments to Applicant

P4- # of Days from Plan Review Comments to Applicant TO Review Comments Returned from Applicant

P5- # of Days from Review Comments Returned from Applicant to Permit Issued


Review Process Flow Chart

The team next looked closer how to capture indicator data.

The team constructed a Process flow chart describing the Process.

7

1. Receive & Review for Permit Application for Completeness.

2. Review Land/Plans for Zoning Compliance

3. Review Plans for Fla Building Code Compliance

4. Review Plans for Fire Code Compliance

DURATION

7 5 7 5 6 30 AP= AR=

AK= AL= AA-P- BB

AL+AG W-P 30

# Past Due # Past Due Avg %Y

5.5 -1.7 9.2 26.3 29.2 47.7 41.0 11.6 0 0 17.7 48.6

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 Q1 Q2 (BD012) P7 P6 P8 Q2 Q3

5 51 1 56 5 4 **Completed** NA NA 26 N

6 21 1 28 6 5 **Completed** NA NA -2 Y

6 5 1 11 6 5 **Completed** NA NA -19 Y

# of Days

Until Bldg

Permit Due

AF=

Y-W

# of

Jurisdiction

days to Issue

Permit

Appln

Received

TO

Comments To

Applicant

Bldg

Permit

Timely?

# of

Days

Appln Recd to

Bldg Permit

Issued LATE

Avg # of Days

# of Days

Until Mile-

stone Due

Next Milestone

Due

Comments

Returned

TO

Bldg Permit

Issued

Appln

Received

TO

Bldg Permit

Issued

Comments To

Applcnt

TO

Comments

Returned

Review

Started

TO

Plan Rev

Shelf

Appln

Received

TO

Review

Started

Plan Rev

Shelf

TO

Comments To

Applcnt

Target Days

Avg # of Days

AG=

AA-Y

AH=

AA-P

AC=

R-P

AD=

U-R

AE=

W-U

Comments

AM

AN=

Today-AM

Due

AO=

Today-AL

Due

Y' if

AP<=0

OUTCOMES

Identify Data Collection NeedsThe team developed a spreadsheet to help analyze the Permiting process.


Building Permit Status SummaryBCB MILESTONE DATES

B D E G I J K L O P Q R S U V W X Y Z AA AB

Lin

e #

Date Day Date Day Date Day Date Day Date Day Date Day

Avg %Y % Mo % Mo % Mo % Mo % Mo % Mo

0.4 $166,699 9.0 20.9 12.6 19.1 9.4 7.9

1 BUILDING RESIDENTIAL RENOVATION1609-0021 N $35,000 340380200020002 333 E MIDWAY RD N GEORGE & ASSOCIATES CONTRACTORS INC5 9/1/16 Th 9/1/16 Th 9/6/16 Tu 10/27/16 Th 10/27/162 BUILDING RESIDENTIAL RENOVATION1605-0187 N $2,000 142570101673702 2703 N A1A J N DAVID B MARSHALL GENERAL CONTRACTING INC5 5/10/16 Tu 5/10/16 Tu 5/16/16 Mo 6/6/16 Mo 6/7/163 BUILDING RESIDENTIAL RENOVATION1607-0021 N $2,300 141470100510008 119 QUEEN EUGENIA CT N TRUST CONSTRUCTION INC2 7/1/16 Fr 7/1/16 Fr 7/7/16 Th 7/12/16 Tu 7/12/16

%Y

Owner Name

WHERE

Parc

el ID

Parcel Address

WHO

5-

Review

Comments

Returned from

ApplicantPlans

Examiners

Owner

Builder?

Construct

ion

ValuePermit Type Permit # Targ

ete

d

Industr

y

Expedited?

WHAT

1-

Application

Received

2-

Zoning Review

Started

3-

Plan Review

Shelf

4

Review

Comments to

Applicant

6-

Building

Permit

Issued

D E M O G R A P H I C S

Up

% Y

93% 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 8.3 4.6

1 City of Port Orange Y 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1

2 City of Port St. Lucie Y 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 13 City of Tallahasse Y 0.990 0.990 1.000 0.993 21 1

4 City of Winter Garden Y 1.000 1.000 1 1

5 City of Cape Coral Y 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1

6 City of Clermont Y 1.000 1.000 1 1

7 City of Coral Springs Y 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1

8 City of Dania Beach Y 0.950 1.000 0.975 24 1

9 City of Deerfield Beach Y 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1

10 City of Lakeland Y 0.980 1.000 1.000 0.993 21 1

11 City of Oviedo Y 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1

12 City of Pinellas Park Y 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1

13 City of Plant City Y 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1

14 City of Pompano Beach Y 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1

15 Alachua County Y 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1

16 Broward County Y 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1

17 Okaloosa County N 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1

18 Orange County Y 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1

19 Pinellas County Y 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1

20 Marion County Y 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 20 20

21 Martin County Y 0.998 0.997 0.979 0.991 23 21

22 Polk County Y 0.960 0.940 0.940 0.947 26 22

23 St. Lucie County Y 0.740 0.860 0.800 27 23

24 City of New Smyrna Beach Y 1.000 1.000 1.000 1

25 City of Oakland Park Y 0.970 0.970 0.970 25

26 City of Palm Bay Y 1.000 1.000 1.000 1

27 Miami-Dade County N 1.000 0.998 0.999 19

Average for below columns

3rd Most

Recent Yr

Performance

2nd Most

Recent Year

Performance

Most

Recent Year

Performance

Average

Performance

BD012 - Percent of permit requests completed within

30 days as required by FS 553

3

Year

Avg

Most

Recent

Year

Rank

Organization

Fiscal Yr Performance for:Rank

Com

para

ble?

Y/N

Good Direction

Up or Down?

Target Setting Methodology: BD012 % Permit Rqsts Cmpld within 30 days

The team set the target using Florida Benchmarking Consortium’s (FBC’s) comparable data.


The team noted that SLC ranked 23rd out of 23 counties and cities for the most recent year.

The team selected comparable city and counties for analysis.

Good Direction

(Down or Up)

3rd Most

Recent

Performance

2nd Most

Recent Year

Performance

Most

Recent Year

Performance

Up 0.74 0.86

Potential

Target

Gap from

3 Yr Avg

Performance

Potential

Target

Gap from

Most Recent

Performance

Potential

Target

Gap from

3 Yr Avg

Performance

Potential

Target

Gap from

Most Recent

Performance

1 ALL Organizations 1.00 25% 0.99 15% 1.00 25% 1.00 16%

2 Top 10 Organizations 1.00 25% 1.00 16% 1.00 25% 1.00 16%

3 Top 5 Organizations 1.00 25% 1.00 16% 1.00 25% 1.00 16%

4 Top Organization 1.00 25% 1.00 16% 1.00 25% 1.00 16%

5 Our Best Perf 0.74 -8% 0.86 0% 0.74 -8% 0.86 0%

6 Our Avg Perf 0.80 0% 0.86 0% 0.80 0% 0.86 0%

7 Average of All Methods 0.92 15% 0.95 11% 0.92 15% 0.95 11%

Target Selection MatrixOur Organization

St Lucie County

Target Methodology

(Based on)

ALL Organizations Only Comparable Organizations

3 Year Most Recent Year 3 Year Most Recent Year

For Performance Indicator==> BD012 - Percent of permit requests completed within 30 days as required by FS 553

< 25% from Current Perf

<0 or > 50% from Current Perf

Stoplight Legend

25%-50% from Current Perf

Target Setting MethodologyThe team reviewed options provided by FBC’s worksheet.


The team selected 95% initial target in order to select a realistic and improving target.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Jun JulAug

Sep OctNov

Month 2016

Perc

enta

ge

Target

Average

% in 30 days

Review Selected Indicator

*Time from electronic date that application for permit is entered into the Permits System to when

it is entered as "completed“ regardless of when customer picks it up. Count only time when

jurisdiction has the plans.


GAP

GOOD

Q2 (BD012) % of Permit Requests Completed

within 30 days* (as required by Fla Statute 553)

Avg= 70%

Target = 95%

Review Selected Indicator

The team next looked closer at these permits from June thru November 2016.


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1-Jun

8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 93 100

107

114

121

128

135

142

148

155

162

Date Permit Issued (starting from Jun 1, 2016 thru Nov 30, 2016)

# of

Day

s

Target

Average

#Days Comments to Applicant

GOOD

P7- # of Days from when the Application was Received TO when Plan Review

Comments were sent to the Applicant

Avg= 11.7 days

Target =

15 days

Comments

to applicant

were LATE

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

-4.5 -0.5 3.5 7.5 11.5 15.5 19.5 23.5 27.5 31.5 35.5 39.5 43.5 47.5 51.5

# of

Per

mits

P7- # of Days from Application Received to Comments Provided to Applicant

Building Permits Issued between 6/1 and 11/30/16

20

29

33

26

14

87

3

1 1 1

_x

n = 143mean = 11.5std dev = 8.3

Stratify the Problem

13

The team stratified 143 permits issued from 6/1-11/30/16 using a histogram and found…

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

5.

The team next compared the Late to the Timely Permits.

108 Timely

Comments

averaged

7.7 days

15 Day Standard

35 Late Comments

averaged 23.2 days

USL

SLC STAFFAPPLICANT

Need Feedback For Permit Application

· Review Submission

35 Late

Feedbk

BUILDING CODE REVIEWERS

· Review For Site Zoning Rqmts

· Note Issues

· Review Bldg Plans For Code Rqmts

· Note Issues

108 Timely Feedbk

Differ-ence

Applicant Received Comments

P1

P2

P3

P7

ZONING SITE REVIEWERS

Complete?NO

· Send Comments To Applicant

· Submit Appln+Docs

· Place On Plan Shelf For Review

M1

M2

M3

M4

YES

14The team looked closer the Building Code step.

The team compared the Late to the Timely issued permits and found …


Late Comments to Applicants took

10.8 more days than Timely Feedback

in the Building Code Review


3.9 1.1 2.8

2.0 .1 1.9

17.3 6.5 10.8

23.2 7.7 15.5

Process Building Permit Application

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

-4.5 -0.5 3.5 7.5 11.5 15.5 19.5 23.5 27.5 31.5 35.5 39.5 43.5

# of

App

lican

tions

P3 - # of Days From Plan Shelf for Building Code review to Comments sent to Applicant

Building Permits Issued between 6/1 and 11/30/16

27

43

2425

98

21 1

_x

n = 140mean = 9.3std dev = 6.7


15

The team looked closer at these 46 Permits averaging 17 days to review Building Code requirements and provide comments.

46 Permits averaged 17 days in

Building Code Review and each

took over 11 days to send

Comments to Applicant

The team stratified the permits for the Building Code Review Step and found…


5.

43

3

%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

N Y

% o

f Tot

al

# of

Per

mit

s

Owner/ Builder?

Building Permits Issued between 6/1 and 11/30/16 where Bldg dept took over 11 days from Plan Shelf to Comment to Applicant

n = 46


16

The team looked closer at these 43 Permits.

43 (94%) Permits were from

applicants other than an

Owner/Builder.

The team stratified the 46 Permits many ways and found…


5.

20

12

6

21 1 1

%

%

%

%%

%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

BUILDINGRESIDENTIAL(SFR UP TO 2

FLOORS)

COMMERCIALRENOVATION

BUILDINGRESIDENTIALRENOVATION

BUILD RESIDADDITION

BUILDINGCOMMERCIAL

BOAT LIFT WITHELECTRIC

COMMERCIALADDITION

% o

f Tot

al

# of

App

licat

ions

Permit Type

Building Permits Issued between 6/1 and 11/30/16 where Bldg dept took over 11 days from Plan Shelf to Comment to Non-Owner/Builder Applicants

n = 43


17

38 (88%) Permits involved New

Single Family Homes and

Comm’l/Residential Renovations

The team stratified the 43 applications many ways and found…


5.

Problem Statement: “38 Building Permits Issued between 6/1 and 11/30/16 where

Staff Building Code Reviews took over 11 days from Shelf to Comment involved Non-Owner

Builders AND Single Family Residents (up to 2 floors) and Commercial/Residential

Renovations”

Single Case Bore Analysis

Reasons or Factors

(that contributed to Building Code

reviewer Comments sent Late to

Applicant)

Sampled 13 of 38 Permits

Problem Statement: "38 Building Permits Issued between 6/1 and 11/30/16 where Staff Building Code Reviews took over

11 days from Shelf to Comment involved Non-Owner Builders AND Single Family Residents (up to 2 floors) and

Commercial/Residential Renovations”

1-#:

140

2-03

96;

Pla

nner#

4; 2

6 da

ys to

Com

men

ts

2-#:

151

1-00

17;

Pla

nner#

5; 3

7 da

ys to

Com

men

ts

4-#:

160

2-04

03;

Pla

nner#

5; 2

7 da

ys to

Com

men

ts

5-#:

160

4-05

81;

Pla

nner#

5; 1

7 da

ys to

Com

men

ts

6-#:

160

5-01

82;

Pla

nner#

4; 2

3 da

ys to

Com

men

ts

7-#:

160

6-00

42;

Pla

nner#

2; 1

9 da

ys to

Com

men

ts

8-#:

160

7-03

01;

Pla

nner#

5; 1

8 da

ys to

Com

men

ts

9-#:

160

7-04

26;

Pla

nner#

4; 2

5 da

ys to

Com

men

ts

10-#

:160

7-0

482

; Pla

nner

#5; 1

7 da

ys to

Com

men

ts

11-#

:160

7-0

591

; Pla

nner

#4; 1

8 da

ys to

Com

men

ts

12-#

:160

7-0

593

; Pla

nner

#5; 1

7 da

ys to

Com

men

ts

13-#

:160

8-0

038

; Pla

nner

#2; 2

8 da

ys to

Com

men

ts

14-#

:160

8-0

135

; Pla

nner

#2; 1

7 da

ys to

Com

men

ts

Tot

alPe

rcen

tage

Reasons or Factors

(that contributed to Building Code

reviewer Comments sent Late to

Applicant)

1) Staff not Avail (Sick, Vacation) X X X X X X X X X 9 69%

2) Incomplete Submittal X 1 8%

3) Heavy Permit Volume X X X X X X X X X X 10 77%

4) Multiple Reviewers required

(Commercial Review) X X X X X 5 38%

5) Limited Staff expertise Avail/

Building Official has to do

Mechanical Review

X X X X 4 31%

6) Misfiled X 1 8%

A

Identify Potential Root CausesThe team sampled 13 of 38 permits and reviewed before conducting Single Case Bore Analysis.

18

The team next looked closer at these four (4) factors.


9.

A

B

C

D

Identify Potential Root CausesThe team completed Cause and Effect Analysis and found…

The team next looked to verify these three (3) Potential Root Causes.


9.,10.

“38 Building Permits

Issued between 6/1

and 11/30/16 where

Staff Building Code

Reviews took over 11

days from Shelf to

Comment involved

Non-Owner Builders

AND Single Family

Residents (up to 2

floors) and

Commercial/

Residential

Renovations”

Problem

Statement

Fishbone

Cause and

Effect Diagram

= Potential Root

Cause

A- Heavy Permit Volume (77%)

Building Dept “Staffing Model” is

based on a needed FTE (with OT

for peaks) and does not adequately

cover all contingencies, forecasts

and Workforce Absentee rate

Increased # of Permits being

reviewed with limited staff

availability (that included OT)

A

B-Staff not Avail (Sick,

Vacation) (68%)

Hiring Personnel Requisitions

don’t actively seek-out Multi-

Trade certifications

Some of required reviewers are not able to

review their portion timely and no other

specialized reviewers available

C

County not always able to hire employees

with multiple trade certifications

A

D-Limited Staff expertise Avail/ Building

Official has to do Mechanical Review (31%)

Person needed is responsible

for admin and supervisory work

at same time or before

specialized Trade review

Only one has expertise to do

work and limited time to do it

Building Dept “Staffing Model”

is based on a needed FTE

(with OT for peaks) and does

not adequately cover all

contingencies, forecasts and

Workforce Absentee rate

Increased absentee rate where staff not

able to keep up with demand

Prioritization and delegation of all

responsibilities is not effective

enough to prevent delays

C-Multiple Reviewers required (Commercial

Review) (38%)

D

A Building Dept “Staffing Model” is

based on a needed FTE (with OT for

peaks) and does not adequately

cover all contingencies, forecasts and


Root Cause

C Hiring Personnel Requisitions don’t

actively seek-out Multi-Trade

certifications Root Cause

D Prioritization and delegation of all

responsibilities is not effective

enough to prevent delaysRoot Cause

Root Cause

or Symptom

Discussed with Mgmt and confirmed no

written staffing model available for

establishing Staffing levels

Discussed with Supv and Mgmt and

learned there is no written guidelines on

prioritizattion of work for Person with the

unique Mechanical Review Experience

Reviewed Personnel Requisitions and

discussed with Mgmt and confirmed while

we prefer multi-trade experience, we don't

actively seek out those persons for new

hires

Root Cause Verification Matrix

Potential Root Cause How Verified?

Verify Root CausesThe team collected data to verify the root causes and found….

20

…All potential root causes were validated as a root causes.


11.,12.

Identify and Select Countermeasures

The team selected 4 countermeasures for implementation.

The team brainstormed many countermeasures and narrowed them down to these for evaluation:


13.,14.

Eff

ecti

ven

ess

Fea

sib

ility

Ove

rall

Tak

e A

ctio

n?

Yes

/No

A- Building Dept “Staffing Model” is

based on a needed FTE (with OT for

peaks) and does not adequately cover

all contingencies, forecasts and


A1- Create a Staffing Model that

considers Permit Forecast, Staff

availability including absentee rate

and Trade Expertise

C- Hiring Personnel Requisitions don’t

actively seek-out Multi-Trade

certifications

C1- Aggressive Seek in Hiring more

plan Examiners with multiple Trade

Experience (Fla certification can be

achieved later)

D1/A2/C2- Change Process to Start

some Building Permit Reviews at

same time of Zoning Review (e.g.

Single Family Homes, Res/Comml Renos)

D2- Identify other County Staff that

can temporarily assume Admin/Supv

Duties to free up Expert Reviewer

when needed

“38 Building

Permits Issued

between 6/1 and

11/30/16 where

Staff Building

Code Reviews

took over 11

days from Shelf

to Comment

involved Non-

Owner Builders

AND Single

Family Residents

(up to 2 floors)

and Commercial/

Residential

Renovations

D- Prioritization and delegation of all

responsibilities is not effective enough

to prevent delays

Countermeasures Matrix

Problem

Statement Countermeasures

Legend: 3=Moderately5=Extremely 2=Somewhat

4=Very 1=Little or None

Ratings

Verified Root Causes

5 5 25

4 205

255 5

4 4 16

Y

Y

Y

Y

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Develop Countermeasures:

A1- Create a Staffing Model that considers Permit Forecast, Staff

availability including absentee rate and Trade Expertise

Bruce/Leslie/

Team

C1- Aggressive Seek in Hiring more plan Examiners with multiple

Trade Experience (Fla certification can be achieved later)Team

D1/A2/C2- Change Process to Start some Building Permit Reviews

at same time of Zoning Review (e.g. Single Family Homes,

Res/Comml Renos)

Team

D2- Identify other County Staff that can temporarily assume

Admin/Supv Duties to free up Expert Reviewer when neededTeam

2. Secure Management Approval of Countermeasures (share

benefits and of countermeasures)Team

3. Communicate/Train Staff in Countermeasures and related

policies/procedures (share benefits and Mgmt support) Team

4. Implement CountermeasuresTeam

5. Establish On-going responsibilities and standardize

countermeasures into operationsTeam

WHAT: Implement 4 Countermeasures to Improve Permit Process

HOW WHO1.

WHEN2017

On-Going

5/1/17

2/20/17

2/20/17

2/20/17

2/20/17

3/16/17

6/1/17

Develop and Implement Action PlanLegend:

= Actual

= Proposed

The team implemented an Action Plan for the team’s Countermeasures.


16.

Q1-'15 Q2-'15 Q3-'15 Q4-'15 Q1-'16 Q2-'16 Q3-'16 Q4-'16 Q1-'17 Q2-'17 Q3-'17 Q4-'17

Forecasted /Actual FTEs Needed 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5 5.6 6.3 7.1 8

Planned/ Actual Total FTEs Available 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

FTE Surplus/Shortfall 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -1 -1.7 -2.5 -3.4

4.2 4.3 4.44.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5

5.6

6.3

7.1

8

4.8 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.94.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

0.6 0.6 0.50.3 0.2 0.1 0

-0.1

-1

-1.7

-2.5

-3.4-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Forecasted /ActualFTEs Needed

Planned/ ActualTotal FTEsAvailable

FTESurplus/Shortfall

Fu

ll T

ime E

qu

ivale

nt

(FT

Es)

FTE Forecast versus FTE Availability

Quarter - Year

Countermeasures A1- Create Staffing Model


The team developed a Staffing Model with the help of the Master Black Belt facilitator.

Model Displays Available FTEs


Countermeasures A2- Concurrent Plans Processing (CPP)

Procedure

1. Applicants can request a “concurrent review

process” at permit intake. If requested, the applicant

must submit an extra set of plans.

2. Plans are routed at the same time to both the

Building and Zoning Depts’ plan shelf.

3. Building Dept examiners will select the next plans

for review based on the plan shelf date.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1-Jun

8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 93 100

107

114

121

128

135

142

148

155

162

169

176

Date Permit Issued (starting from Jun 1, 2016 thru Nov 30, 2016)

# of

Day

s

Target

Average

#Days Comments to Applicant

Review Results

The team was encouraged by the results and will continue to monitor the countermeasures.

The team collected indicator data and reviewed results of it’s countermeasures


17.,18.,19.,20.

Countermeasures

to be implemented

in March 2017

GOOD


BEFORE Avg= 11.7 days

Target = 15 days

WHO

STEP

NEED

Escalate Building Permit Applications For Selected Applications

FBC_DMAIC_Story_Reduce Time to Provide Permit Feedback_FLOWCHART_1-20-17 Future State.vsd 2/4/17

Customer Receives Permit And Can Commence Construction

DISCUSS

(Process Owner: Mgr of Building & Code Regulations)

SLC STAFF / SITE AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE REVIEWERS

Customer Wants To Build And Needs Building Permit

TRAVEL/MAKE

RECEIVE/ROUTE

REVIEW/ISSUE

RECEIVED

DISCUSS

▪ Travel To SLC Offices ▪ Make Building Permit Application

▪ Discuss Proposed Building Plans/Ideas And Complete Intake Checklist With Customer

▪ Customer Requests “Concurrent Reviews” And Provides An Extra Set Of Plans

Meets All Codes?

CUSTOMER (APPLICANT)

Q1- # of Days from Application Received TO Permit Issued

REVIEW

DISCUSS

FIRE DEPT


Application Complete?

▪ Place Plans In Both Building And Zoning Dept’ Plan Shelf

NO

YES

▪ Both Zoning And Bdlg Dept Examiners Review Application And Plans For Regulatory Compliance

▪ Note Issues For Compliance ResolutionNO

YES

P6- % of Applications that are Submitted Complete

MAKE

Able To Proceed With Agreed Changes?



NO

YES

▪ Review All Code Reviews And Ensure All Issues Have Been Addressed (Resolve With Customer And Reviewers As Needed)

▪ Approve Permit In System Pending Fire Dept Release (if Rqd)▪ Send To Fire Dept (if Reqd)

▪ Review Plans And Identify Issues▪ Notify Cust Of Permit Issues (if Any)


▪ Applicant Corrects And Returns Docs

▪ Stamp Plans With Fire Release Return To SLC Staff

▪ Review All Docs & Resolve Any Remaining Issues W/ Cust/ Reviewers▪ Issue Building Permit

P2- # of Days from Start of Zoning review TO Plan Review Shelf

Q2 (BD012) % of Permit Requests Completed within 30 days (as reqd byt Fla Statute 553)

Ok W/o Fire?

P1- # of days from Application Recd TO Start Zoning Review

NO

YES

NO

YES

STAMP/RETURN

REVIEW/APPROVE/

SEND

REVIEW/NOTIFY

CORRECT/RETURN

P3- # of Days from Plan Review Shelf TO Plan Review Comments to Applicant

P4- # of Days from Plan Review Comments to Applicant TO Review Comments Returned from Applicant

P5- # of Days from Review Comments Returned from Applicant to Permit Issued


Standardize CountermeasuresThe team revised

indicators and

incorporated the

improvements

into the Process

flowchart.

The team

looked to

standardize

the Indicator

monitoring

26

21.,22.,23.

Applicant Requests and

provides extra set of Plans

Zoning and Bldg Depts

conduct Concurrent

Plan Reviews

Identify Lessons LearnedLessons Learned

4) The Florida Benchmarking Consortium’s Comparable data was helpful in setting

a realistic stretch target.

3) It is important to stay in “DMAIC process” (using the Checklist) as it is “tricky” to

know what are the right questions, steps and approaches to use in investigating

a problem.

27

Next Steps

1) Implement countermeasures.

1) A significant effort at the beginning of the project to develop a reliable data set

provided a sound launching point for our analysis. Building permit data was

plentiful and in most instances very accurate.

2) Paretos and Histograms were effective tools to stratify the Permit information

and lead the team to identify the root causes .


24.,25.

2) Monitor the performance results.

Date post:	07-Dec-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	buiminh
View:	217 times
Download:	1 times

Six Sigma DMAIC Improvement Story - flbenchmark.org101652CD-38DF-4EBF-A75F... · Define Measure...

Documents