Jim Barnett is associate vice president for facilities services at the Universityof West Florida , Pensacola, Florida; he can be reached at jbarnett@uwf.edu. This is his first article for Facilities Manager.

In the mid 1990s, New York City ’s new mayor determined that future crime statistics could be decreased by implementing a statistical analysis system whereby data would be gathered, evaluated, and changed as a result of what tendencies the data demonstrated. By continually evaluating what the data illustrated, predictions were made with police resources allocated to higher probability areas, thereby increasing the effectiveness of safety and security throughout the city. Originally begun within the police department, the system was implemented throughout service units by city leadership. The recent television series, The District, portraying a Washington, D.C. police department, used a similar data retrieval system for crime analysis.

As we realize, most facilities organizations have used purchased or in-house computerized maintenance management software for many years to gather pertinent fiscal year-to-date information for organizational effectiveness and as a management analysis instrument with the goal of providing continual improvement. Logically, this information was meant to be used in a similar manner, as was New York City ’s computer statistics program. The data was gathered to understand what the data was illustrating rather than concentrating solely on the numbers. The facility leader’s responsibility is to keep the leadership team and reporting staff focused on how adjustments can be made throughout the organization to improve organizational performance. Merely collecting data is the tip of the issue.

As facilities professionals and leaders within moststate-supported institutions during continued resource-constrained times, we have an important responsibility to continually monitor strategic performance indicators throughout our organizations. This data can be compared to comparable peer or aspirant APPA benchmark institutions and NACUBO data survey information. APPA’s Facilities Core Data Survey,conducted annually beginning this year, and the NACUBO data survey, performed every five years, provide various categories. From these categories, others can be identified by the institution to drill down further into the organization.

Each facilities leader, with their leadership team and staff participation, can identify four general tasks to utilize key performance indicators for their respective institution.

Collecting the right information. It is essential toidentify key information relative to the problem orinitiative prior to the beginning of a fiscal year to enablea full 12-month business cycle. This will provideappropriate personnel participation, establishment of report formats, and implementation of standard operating procedures. For greatest effectiveness, the institution should format the information to enable future peer institution-benchmarking capabilities for data surveys.

Examples for facility planning and construction might be:
1. Number of estimates performed per quarter
2. Estimate’s versus actual costs accuracy comparisonby percentage
3. Monetary values of estimates in thousands per quarter
4. Value of completed construction by in-house staff per quarter

Examples for facilities management could be:

1. Quantity of corrective work orders per building and mechanical maintenance skilled trades FTEs completed at 15 calendar day intervals
2. Quantity of corrective backlogged work orders aged beyond 15 calendar days by service unit
3. Quantity of preventive maintenance backlogged work orders aged beyond 15 calendar days by service unit.
Implementation. Perform an analysis of “how to’s” prior to the fiscal year start so that collected data has value for personnel during the process. Managers should be willing to continually use monthly collected data to keep their reporting staff focused as the year progresses. The bottom line question is, “If facilities organizations are collecting what truly matters to make a positive difference within their respective organizations, should they wait until the fiscal year end to file the data in neatly bound notebooks?”
Continually review performance indicator for validity. The responsibility for valid data is not that of the computer support personnel individual(s). The managers should collectively review the information and provide guidance to computer support staff.
Evaluate the results. Managers should review those reports with their reporting staff and ask questions about what the data is telling them well before the fiscal year end. Obviously, the year-end data is necessary to compare to the previous fiscal year as to establish trends.

Three or four quick facts relative to the results should be shared with the senior leadership. This group can increase your circle of influence due to the broad spectrum of interrelated political, social, and strategic events encountered through the year. Let them assist you as advocates.

Although there are several goals and objectives to be identified within a university’s planning structure that must interrelate to fulfill the vision and mission of the institution, a most essential inherent facilities goal must be the leader’s responsibility to keep the management team focused on the “big rocks.” When we collect data then, let it be meaningful information that can hold people accountable for increased achievement.

Having measurable performance indicators within the organization are at the heart and soul of creating competitiveness and teamwork. Will there be risks associated with the information?

Of course. However, we need managers and staff who thirst for improvement and understand the economic reality of poor performance with possible associated outcomes.

Let no one in your organization ask the question, “Why do we collect all of this information anyway?” Good people and organizations that use key performance indicators as part of focused action plans have the capability to become great organizations.