Transcript www.tefma.com

We Think We Are Doing
a Good Job,
BUT
What Do Our
Customers Think?
Andrew Frowd
Director – Facilities Management
QUT
28,000 EFT
9 Faculties
No Residential
FM Organisation Chart
DIRECTOR
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
BOOKSHOP /
COMMERCIAL
SERVICES
-
Food Services
Retail Operations
Student Text Books
General Books
Stationery
CAPITAL WORKS
- Capital Planning
- Capital Works
- Renovations
OPERATIONS
- Maintenance Services
- Engineering &
Technical Services
- Standards & Records
CAMPUS SERVICES
-
Parking
Vehicle Hire
Grounds Maintenance
Timetabling
Cleaning
External Hire of Facilities
Mail / Stores
Furniture
SECURITY
- Emergency First
Response
- Counter Disaster Planning
& Coordination
- Safety of University
Community
- Access Management
- Crime Prevention
Balanced Scorecard
Customer
Learning &
Growth
Financial
Business
Practices
Customer Service
Framework
Service
Level
Agreements
Benchmarking
of Costs
=
Service
Provider
of
Choice
Customer Satisfaction Surveys
Maintenance SLA
PRIORITY
RESPONSE
TIME
TARGET
Priority 1
2 hours
95%
Priority 2
Same Day
95%
Priority 3
3 Days
90%
Priority 4
2 Weeks
90%
•
Measured through maintenance management system.
Vehicle Fleet SLA
Action
Parameter
Goal
Booking request
response time
Telephone – immediate /
Email – 2 working hours
99%
Cleanliness of
vehicles
Cleaned weekly
100%
Service faults
repaired promptly
Roadworthiness maintained
100%
Vehicle servicing up
to date
Service booked not later than
24 hours of falling due
100%
Maintenance KPI
PRIORITY
RESPONSE
TIME
TARGET
Priority 1
2 hours
95%
Priority 2
Same Day
95%
Priority 3
3 Days
90%
Priority 4
2 Weeks
90%
•
Measured through maintenance management system.
Vehicle Fleet KPI
Response to email
requests
99% within 2 working
hours (from Request
Register)
Vehicle servicing
100% serviced (from
vehicle logs)
Corrective Maintenance
KPI Report
Maintenance Services
7000
100%
6000
5000
Tasks
4000
Received
3000
95%
Conformance
90%
2000
1000
0
85%
P rio rity 1
P rio rity 2
P rio rity 3
P rio rity 4
P rio rity 5
Number of Tasks Received
Number of Tasks w ith
Conforming Response Times
Actual Compliance %
Target Compliance %
AAPPA Benchmarking
Survey Period: 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000
Institution
Security
1
Security Staff
Expenditure
Other
Total
GFA under
Cost of
Cost of
In-house Staff
Salaries/Wages
on Security
Security
Security
Security Patrol
Security
Security
Cost as % Total
and Oncosts
Contracts
Costs
Expenditure
Refer Note 79!
per m2 (GFA)
per EFTSU
Security Costs
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
82a
No.
2
2
$
$
$
$
m
$ per m
$ per EFTSU
%
$769,768
$149,551
$130,565
$1,049,884
200,412
$5.24
$88
73.3%
$80,852
$258,500
$339,352
45,369
$7.48
$1,295
0.0%
$21,531
$294,688
42,240
$6.98
$502
92.7%
$240,000
$1,268,000
370,824
$3.42
$165
81.1%
$61,800
52,800
$1.17
$17
4.9%
$410,971
68,828
$5.97
$142
86.9%
2
Customer
Satisfaction
Rating
3
$273,157
4
$1,028,000
5
$3,000
$58,800
6
$357,175
$13,683
7
$865,979
$18,077
$75,384
$959,440
216,358
$4.43
$58
90.3%
8
$1,335,473
$53,440
$110,554
$1,499,467
247,548
$6.06
$81
89.1%
9
$102,716
$1,365,746
$146,593
$1,615,055
253,900
$6.36
$128
6.4%
10
$1,120,257
$15,000
$155,000
$1,290,257
155,718
$8.29
$87
86.8%
11
$671,000
$128,000
$799,000
120,000
$6.66
$88
84.0%
12
$273,340
$198,877
$472,217
119,489
$3.95
$63
57.9%
3.9
13
$169,370
$159,150
$328,520
34,759
$9.45
$100
51.6%
4.1
14
$178,859
$224,682
$403,541
51,113
$7.90
$65
44.3%
4.1
15
$116,833
$246,981
$363,814
16,561
$21.97
$240
32.1%
4.4
16
$122,404
$120,008
$242,412
18,793
$12.90
$436
50.5%
4.2
17
$761,334
$0
$0
$761,334
127,481
$5.97
$65
100.0%
18
$196,994
$614,166
$137,310
$948,470
373,094
$2.54
$77
20.8%
19
$303,642
$1,305,000
$1,608,642
179,656
$8.95
$103
18.9%
20
$131,214
$1,035,777
$1,166,991
363,427
$3.21
$43
11.2%
7.0%
$40,113
21
$4,000
$50,000
$3,000
$57,000
8,145
$7.00
$56
22
$27,521
$415,000
$10,000
$452,521
80,697
$5.61
$62
6.1%
23
$91,488
$4,800
$4,000
$100,288
49,710
$2.02
$27
91.2%
24
$100,902
$44,790
$16,911
$162,603
33,455
$4.86
$71
62.1%
25
$216,946
$783,381
$43,845
$1,044,172
293,261
$3.56
$51
20.8%
2.0
AAPPA Benchmarking
Survey Period: 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000
Institution
Energy Consumption/Expenditure
Annual
Annual
Total
Consumption
Cost of Energy
GFA serviced
in Gigajoules
Purchased
with Energy
58
59
60
2
Energy
Consumption
per m2
61
2
Energy
Consumption
per EFTSU
Cost
Cost
Average Cost
per m2
per EFTSU
per kWHr
62
63
64
65
cents/kWHr
(GFA)
2
GJ
$
m
GJ per m
GJ per EFTSU
$ per m
$ per EFTSU
1
103,473
$1,961,100
180,700
0.57
8.6
$10.85
$164
6.8
2
11,210
$335,000
48,000
0.23
42.8
$6.98
$1,279
10.8
3
17,426
$565,000
40,000
0.44
29.7
$14.13
$963
11.7
4
354,527
$4,993,964
370,824
0.96
46.1
$13.47
$650
5.1
5
50,000
$516,000
52,800
0.95
13.7
$9.77
$141
3.7
$1,100,000
68,828
$15.98
$379
6
7
202,261
$2,215,154
216,358
0.93
12.2
$10.24
$133
3.9
8
177,543
$3,390,320
247,548
0.72
9.6
$13.70
$183
6.9
9
184,425
$2,572,705
253,900
0.73
14.6
$10.13
$203
5.0
10
78,315
$1,973,763
145,237
0.54
5.3
$13.59
$133
9.1
11
62,877
$1,277,655
142,583
0.44
7.0
$8.96
$141
7.3
12
59,390
$1,749,881
116,328
0.51
8.0
$15.04
$235
10.6
13
15,994
$441,370
34,703
0.46
4.9
$12.72
$135
9.9
14
30,499
$735,990
52,825
0.58
4.9
$13.93
$119
8.7
15
10,472
$187,153
16,058
0.65
6.9
$11.65
$123
6.4
16
7,960
$200,542
16,793
0.47
14.3
$11.94
$361
9.1
17
91,067
$1,969,155
134,182
0.68
7.7
$14.68
$167
7.8
18
191,755
$2,436,125
214,094
0.90
15.6
$11.38
$198
4.6
19
129,418
$1,736,699
184,100
0.70
8.3
$9.43
$111
4.8
20
363,457
$4,774,174
363,427
1.00
13.4
$13.14
$176
4.7
21
7,272
$121,671
8,145
0.89
7.2
$14.94
$120
6.0
22
38,159
$626,665
80,697
0.47
5.2
$7.77
$85
5.9
23
46,547
$701,271
54,330
0.86
12.5
$12.91
$188
5.4
24
10,382
$291,668
32,429
0.32
4.5
$8.99
$127
10.1
25
301,071
$3,327,949
293,261
1.03
14.8
$11.35
$164
4.0
Benchmarking
Bookshop
Total Expenses as % of Sales
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
QUT
1
4
3
5
Sector
2
Benchmarking
Security Costs ($/EFTSU)
$150
$100
$50
$0
1
2
QUT
Sector
3
4
5
6
Benchmarking
Maintenance Costs ($/m 2)
$ 25
$ 20
$ 15
$ 10
$5
$0
6
1
3
QUT
Sect or
4
2
5
Customer Satisfaction
Linkage between consumption and payment
Promulgation AND acceptance of SLAs
Who is the customer?
Who is the Customer?
Individual consumer
Corporate university
Statutory obligations
Queensland University of Technology
Facilities Management
Victoria Park Road Kelvin Grove Q 4059
Phone: (07) 3864 3623
e-mail: [email protected]
www:http://www.qut.edu.au/pubs/div_adm_facman/facman/facman.html
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT – CUSTOMER SERVICE SURVEY
Customer
Satisfaction
Survey –
Primary

Customer Profile
Which Campus?
Gardens Point 
Which Block?
Carseldine

Other 
Block
School/Department/Work Area
Staff Category

Sex:
 Academic Staff
 General Staff
M
F

 Postgraduate Student  Undergraduate Student
Do our services meet your current requirements?
Is our level of service acceptable? We have identified five criteria for customer satisfaction (ie whether you believe that we are accessible,
responsive, reliable, competent and understanding of your needs). Please rate each of the following Facilities Management Services
against these criteria. Should you wish to bring a specific matter to our attention, please elaborate in Other Comments – Section 6.
1 = Poor
Please tick box or
circle a number.
Facilities Management as a whole
3000 Help Desk
Page 1
Kelvin Grove 
Capital Works (>$200 k)
Minor Works (<$200 k)
Maintenance Services
Cleaning Services
Security Services
Grounds Maintenance
Parking Administration
Vehicle Hire
Mail/Stores Distribution
Furniture Purchasing
Furniture Relocation/Disposal
Bookshop
Food Services
Not
Applicable
(do not use
this service)















2 = Below Average
3 = Average
4 = Good
5 = Excellent
Accessible
(location, easy
to contact)
Responsive
(response and
job completion
times)
Reliable
(equality of
service, ability to
complete task)
Competence
(staff knowledge,
skill & problemsolving initiative)
Understanding
of customer
needs
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5

What is your level of satisfaction with our services?
Are you currently satisfied with the level and/or quality of our service? Have there been any changes in the level and/or quality of our
services in the last 12 months? Please rate each of the following Facilities Management Services against these criteria.
1 = Poor
Please tick box or
circle a number.
Customer
Satisfaction
Survey –
Primary
Not Applicable
(do not use this service)
Facilities Management as a whole
3000 Help Desk
Capital Works (>$200 k)
Minor Works (<$200 k)
Maintenance Services
Cleaning Services
Security Services
Grounds Maintenance
Parking Administration
Vehicle Hire
Mail/Stores Distribution
Furniture Purchasing
Furniture Relocation/Disposal
Bookshop
Food Services
Page 2















2 = Below Average
3 = Average
4 = Good
5 = Excellent
Rate your
current level
of satisfaction
Rate your
level of satisfaction
12 months ago
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5

What section or services were you most happy with, and why?

What section or services were you least happy with, and why?
Would you like us to contact you concerning this? If so, please leave contact details.

Other comments
Please write your comments or suggestions for improvements – we appreciate your feedback.
We thank you for your participation in our survey, the results of which will help us improve our services to you.
Please return your completed survey to: Personal Assistant to Director – Facilities Management, Kelvin Grove
QUT Bookshop
Customer Feedback
The purpose of this feedback is to gather information that will ensure the Bookshop services provided
by QUT suit the needs of its clients.
Customer
Satisfaction
Survey –
Secondary
1. Which campus bookshop would you like to comment on?
Note: 1 form for each outlet please.
 Gardens Point
 Kelvin Grove
 Carseldine
2. Please indicate if you are:
 Student (Full time)
 Student (Part time)
 Both staff and student
 Staff (General)
 Staff (Academic)
 Other
3. Your frequency of use of this bookshop?
 Daily
 Weekly
 Fortnightly
 Monthly
 Each semester
 Yearly
4. Please consider the following questions and indicate your level of satisfaction with the service
provided by the bookshop, using these ratings:
1 = Poor
2 = Below average
Availability of textbooks
3 = Average
4 = Good
5 = Excellent
0 = Not applicable

Availability of QUT publications (course notes, lab manuals, study guides, readings etc.)
Page 1
Availability of stationery products


Availability of software and other computer related products

Availability of sundry items (bus tickets, phone cards, stamps/postal items, news and mags)
Accessibility (location, easy to contact)

The appearance and presentation of the premises

Level of competence of staff (knowledge, skill and problem solving)
The helpfulness and friendliness of bookshop staff



5. Do you access the bookshop website for information (please tick)?
If yes, please rate the website

 Yes
or
6. Do you utilise the Booklist in Student profile for your text list (students only)?  Yes
If yes, please rate the Booklist feature

7. Overall how do you rate the bookshop service?
Customer
Satisfaction
Survey –
Secondary
 No
or
 No

8. Are the hours of operation sufficient (NB Trading hours are listed on the bookshop website)?
During peak trading (weeks 1 & 2 of semester)
During normal semester period (weeks 2 – 13)
During exam period & semester break
 Yes
 Yes
 Yes
or
or
or
 No
 No
 No
Comments:
9. What would be your preferred method of shopping?
NB. All options other than personal shopping entail the goods being mailed/ couriered out to you.
 Personal shopping (go into the shop)
 By fax
 On-line shopping with secure payment facilities
 By phone
 By e-mail
10. Are there any product lines you wish to see sold in your campus bookshop (space permitting)?
11. Please write your comments or suggestions for improvements – we appreciate your feedback.
Page 2
Please complete the form then enclose completed form in box provided at each bookshop or
fax/send form to the address listed below (by Friday 28 September):
Ana Gabiola
Manager - QUT Bookshops
Y Block, Gardens Point
E-mail: [email protected]
Fax: 3864 4187
Website: http://www.qut.edu.au/bookshop/
Customer
Satisfaction –
Facilities
Management
as a Whole
Customer Satisfaction
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
Score
3.4
3.5
1999
2000
3.6
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Year
2001
Customer Satisfaction –
Capital Works
Capital Works
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
Score
3.0
2.9
3.1
2.6
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
1999
2000
Year
2001
Customer Satisfaction –
Security (Corporate)
Security
5.0
4.5
Score
4.0
3.5
3.0
3.8
3.8
3.9
1999
2000
2001
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Year
Customer Satisfaction –
Security (Individual)
Security Survey
5.0
4.5
4.55
4.4
4.25
4.25
4.3
2000
2001
3.8
4.0
3.5
Score
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
1996
1997
1999
1998
Year
Customer Service
Framework
Service
Level
Agreements
Benchmarking
of Costs
=
Service
Provider
of
Choice
Customer Satisfaction Surveys
AAPPA Benchmarking
Survey Period: 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000
Institution
Security
1
Security Staff
Expenditure
Other
Total
GFA under
Cost of
Cost of
In-house Staff
Salaries/Wages
on Security
Security
Security
Security Patrol
Security
Security
Cost as % Total
and Oncosts
Contracts
Costs
Expenditure
Refer Note 79!
per m2 (GFA)
per EFTSU
Security Costs
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
82a
No.
2
2
$
$
$
$
m
$ per m
$ per EFTSU
%
$769,768
$149,551
$130,565
$1,049,884
200,412
$5.24
$88
73.3%
$80,852
$258,500
$339,352
45,369
$7.48
$1,295
0.0%
$21,531
$294,688
42,240
$6.98
$502
92.7%
$240,000
$1,268,000
370,824
$3.42
$165
81.1%
$61,800
52,800
$1.17
$17
4.9%
$410,971
68,828
$5.97
$142
86.9%
2
Customer
Satisfaction
Rating
3
$273,157
4
$1,028,000
5
$3,000
$58,800
6
$357,175
$13,683
7
$865,979
$18,077
$75,384
$959,440
216,358
$4.43
$58
90.3%
8
$1,335,473
$53,440
$110,554
$1,499,467
247,548
$6.06
$81
89.1%
9
$102,716
$1,365,746
$146,593
$1,615,055
253,900
$6.36
$128
6.4%
10
$1,120,257
$15,000
$155,000
$1,290,257
155,718
$8.29
$87
86.8%
11
$671,000
$128,000
$799,000
120,000
$6.66
$88
84.0%
12
$273,340
$198,877
$472,217
119,489
$3.95
$63
57.9%
3.9
13
$169,370
$159,150
$328,520
34,759
$9.45
$100
51.6%
4.1
14
$178,859
$224,682
$403,541
51,113
$7.90
$65
44.3%
4.1
15
$116,833
$246,981
$363,814
16,561
$21.97
$240
32.1%
4.4
16
$122,404
$120,008
$242,412
18,793
$12.90
$436
50.5%
4.2
17
$761,334
$0
$0
$761,334
127,481
$5.97
$65
100.0%
18
$196,994
$614,166
$137,310
$948,470
373,094
$2.54
$77
20.8%
19
$303,642
$1,305,000
$1,608,642
179,656
$8.95
$103
18.9%
20
$131,214
$1,035,777
$1,166,991
363,427
$3.21
$43
11.2%
7.0%
$40,113
21
$4,000
$50,000
$3,000
$57,000
8,145
$7.00
$56
22
$27,521
$415,000
$10,000
$452,521
80,697
$5.61
$62
6.1%
23
$91,488
$4,800
$4,000
$100,288
49,710
$2.02
$27
91.2%
24
$100,902
$44,790
$16,911
$162,603
33,455
$4.86
$71
62.1%
25
$216,946
$783,381
$43,845
$1,044,172
293,261
$3.56
$51
20.8%
2.0
Cleaning Services
Unit
Cost
Customer Satisfaction (compiled via standard survey)
1.5 1.6
1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0
$ 8.60
B-
$ 8.80
$ 9.00
C+
$ 9.20
$ 9.40
C
$ 9.60
$ 9.80
$ 10.00
$ 10.20
$ 10.40
$ 10.60
C3
$ 10.80
$ 11.00
$ 11.20
$ 11.40
$ 11.60
$ 11.80
4
$ 12.00
$ 12.20
$ 12.40
$ 12.60
A+
Outstanding
A
Excellent
A-
Very good
B+
Good
B
Fairly good
B-
Fair
C+
Average
C
Below average
C-
Poor
$ 12.80
$ 13.00
1
$ 13.20
2
$ 13.40
$ 13.60
$ 13.80
Example Using Chart:
Background
In 1999, QUT cleaning costs were $13.18/m2. In 2000 a customer survey rated the service at 3.3/5.0 (point 1 on the chart)
This resulted in an overall cleaning service ranked below average (=C) when compared to the performance of the sector.
Where does QUT want to be? Let's say QUT wants to operate at at least the "Fair" level (=B-). How can it do that?
It can do it in three ways:
1 - it can reduce the rate of cleaning costs to $10.80/m2 (point 3) (while maintaining customer satisfaction levels)
2 - it can better manage customer perceptions/expectations via SLAs and improved perceived/actual service (to 3.9, point 2) at the same cost
3 - it can reduce costs to $12.00/m2 and better manage customer expectations (point 4)
We Think We Are Doing
a Good Job,
BUT
What Do Our
Customers Think?
Questions?