|
|
Author/Local: P. Kostuk 7542
TO: Standing Committee on City Services and Budgets
FROM: Service Improvement Manager
SUBJECT: Development and Building Regulation Review - Pilot Project Status Report
A.THAT Council authorize the Director of Development Services to proceed to fully implement the new Development and Building Review Process at an estimated total cost of $5.2 million, through a loan of $4.45 million from the Capital Financing Fund (Solid Waste Reserve), repayable to the satisfaction of the Director of Finance. Repayments, beginning in the year 2000, will be generated through an estimated 10% increase in user fees.
B.THAT Council establish two temporary (one year) positions, to develop the Feedback and Education components of the new process. The classification of these positions is to be determined by Human Resource Services and required funding is included as part of Recommendation A.
C.THAT the Director of Development Services provide to Council a progress report and confirmation of the repayment plan before August, 1999.
The next phase of implementation of the Development and Building Review will be challenging for both customers and staff as we complete the transition to the new process. As no transition of this magnitude is smooth, there is a risk that some work may be delayed in the short term. Staff will also require extraordinary support as they work through this transition.
Early indications show a high potential for success for the new process. Industry has described its satisfaction with the establishment of a single contact, the Project Facilitator/Project Coordinator. Staff are also pleased with the project management approach and the integrated team processing. The community is anxious to see the clarification of its place and new role, which is scheduled to occur in the next phase of implementation.
The request to move to full implementation cannot yet be fully supported with adequately quantified measures, as the measurement process has just recently been initiated. In addition, the Corporate Services resources required to support full implementation, may not be available in-house because of the current implementation of SAP financial systems. Nonetheless, the General Manager of Community Services supports moving to full implementation at this time, having confidence that this implementation will benefit our external customers, the community and industry as well as the City. Pausing in mid-implementation would be highly disruptive to all parties and would destroy the momentum which has been established. The General Manager of Community Services therefore RECOMMENDS the foregoing.
Council has approved a number of resolutions supporting the Better City Government Program.
All changes in level of service are to be reported to Council.
The Development and Building Regulation Review (DBRR), is a top priority of the City's Better City Government Program. A prototype, approved by Council in April, 1997 is now in place for the permissions and inspections processes. The remaining redesign projects, regulatory, regulatory process and enforcement reviews, will begin in the fall of 1998.
The principal feature of the new process is improved project management and customer service, from project inception to occupancy. This enables everyone, staff, applicants and the community to take a more integrated and proactive approach to a project. As early as possible, staff work to identify potential issues and opportunities (which may arise from a number of competing interests) and facilitate the balancing of City interests with those of the community and industry.
After receiving Council approval to prototype, we proceeded to recruit a Pilot Team, developa training program, identify and renovate a suitable space and also communicate our activities to staff, the community and industry. The Pilot Team began accepting and processing projects on November 17, 1997. In the pilot, the team tests not only the permissions process but also, the open space design, the interim technology, the use of the Information Centre and the Call Centre. At this time, 112 projects and 4,100 general enquiries of varying complexity are or have been processed through the pilot.
Measurement is integral to the new process. Anecdotal feedback has been generally positive and non-pilot staff have been helpful in making the new process work. Given the test environment, pilot staff do make errors and adjustments in fine tuning. There is quite a departure from past practices and a higher level of staff resourcing is required earlier to obtain incremental benefits later. We believe that a reduction of up to 25 percent in processing time is achievable, without sacrificing quality or safety.
In order to obtain more objective feedback, staff developed objectives, targets and surveys which have been through the first fielding. Staff are meeting most target dates, but are hampered by the limitations of existing information technology. Pilot staff will not quite reach the 20% implementation target set for June 1998, and are changing the growth strategy so as not to delay full implementation. Survey results, measuring internal and external customer satisfaction, were released on June 22, 1998 and confirm the positive feedback received anecdotally.
Council appointed a Community/Industry Advisory Committee (CIAC)on April 30, 1998. The CIAC is assisting in the evaluation of the pilot and in the development of community involvement in the new process. Other areas remaining to be developed more fully include geographic sectoring, outreach/education, the Information and Call Centres and information technology.
Information system requirements were identified while staff confirmed the new process. These requirements include public web access to general and site/project specific information, electronic application and fee payment, electronic plan submission and review, project management and remote capabilities for field inspectors. The City has an opportunity to enter an agreement to meet these technology requirements and other complementary GIS (geographic information system) requirements in Engineering Services. This opportunity is presented in the accompanying report to Council.
In 1997, a total estimated cost of $6.5 million was reported to Council. The current estimate is $5.2 million, and this report proposes funding through a fee increase. The $4.45 million requested in this report is required primarily for information systems development and implementation ($3.2 million) and workspace renovation ($.75 million). Council previously approved $.75 million to establish the pilot. Processing efficiencies expected will betransferred to fund the ongoing requirements of education, feedback and new information systems. A repayment plan will be presented to Council along with an implementation progress report before August 1999.
8. Achieving Continuous Improvement
8. Performance Measurement Audit Report
This report presents highlights of the development and implementation activities of the DBR Pilot which have occurred over this past year. It seeks authority to proceed to full implementation and to allocate funding for information systems development and implementation, workspace renovations, call centre development, and performance measurement.
On April 10, 1997, Council authorized the development of a prototype to test, measure and refine the new permissions and inspections process, before proceeding to full implementation. Detailed planning for the prototype followed Council approval. Although a prototype, the testing phase came to be known as the DBR Pilot.
The Pilot began on November 17, 1997, two months later than planned, due to the 1997 CUPE 1004 labour disruption. Overall implementation targets of 50% participation by the end of 1998 and 100% implementation by the end of 1999 remain intact.
Concurrent with pilot planning, detailed information systems requirements were developed and incorporated into a draft Request for Proposals document.
The most significant feature of the new process is improved project management. One stop entry provides an enquiry function where projects are streamed to an appropriate project manager. Once it is determined that a project is viable, a project team is assembled and a project schedule is established with the applicant. This approach allows for more concurrent processing through early identification of all interests: applicant, community and City.
Another important feature is better information. The staff are learning to identify, through training and practice, potential issues in all City requirements. Feedback is collected from customers and improvements are made to processes and publications. In addition, efforts are being made to publish more understandable information in print and on the internet.
Pilot preparation focused on four areas: recruiting, training, space and communication.
There are four new roles in the process; Customer Service Representative, Project Coordinator, Project Facilitator and Project Scoper. These roles focus on identifying customer needs as early as possible. The Project Facilitator/Coordinator role also manages projects through to completion. These roles were defined (Appendix 1), information sessions were scheduled and interested staff were asked to submit Expressions of Interest if they wanted to assume and develop one of the new pilot roles. At this point in time, over eighty staff have asked to be considered for the sixteen current pilot positions. Nine staff were recruited in June, 1997 and between March and July, 1998, another nine staff joined the pilot. Two staff have left the pilot; one retired and the other accepted a position outside of the City.
In order to provide training for the Pilot Team we developed detailed process manuals and a corresponding training program. The training had to make real the conceptualization of the new process and also bring to the fore the importance of customer service and teaming. This proved to be quite challenging for the initial two week training session in November, 1997, as the Design Team deliberately left details to be developed by the Pilot Team. In addition, it was difficult to convey the links between customer service, teaming and the new process. By the second training session in May, 1998, the process and the links could be demonstrated through the experience of actual projects that were processed in the Pilot. A synopsis of the training objectives is provided in Appendix 2.
DBR Design staff worked with Facilities Development and identified the first floor of the East Wing as the most suitable space to profile the pilot. They felt it was important to give a visible public presence and professional but friendly atmosphere to our customers. They also wanted to be able to test the open office concept and a number of different space configurations. Facilities Development finalized the plans and managed the move and renovation. The space was ready for occupancy on October 30, 1997.
‘The Pilot’ newsletter was launched on May 12, 1997 as a primary vehicle to communicate Pilot activities to staff. It began as a biweekly and now is published monthly. It is available both in hard copy and on the intranet. In addition, DBR Design and Pilot Staff meet regularly with workgroups to establish detailed procedures for processing.
Two areas of the city, containing a good mix of development, were selected for pilot projects; a north/south strip from Southlands to Kitsilano and an area at the east end of False Creek. In October, 1997, we wrote to the industry and invited them to volunteer projects for the pilot and we also placed an advertisement in local newspapers (Appendix 3).
After training in November, 1997, the Pilot Team began accepting projects into the pilot at a rate of approximately two projects per week. In the early stages, the Pilot Team spent a great deal of time developing their roles and the details of the process. With each project processed they began to test, refine and document their work.
The pilot seeks to identify as many issues as possible early in the process to avoid ‘late hits’ and subsequent rework. A key tool for this is the ‘Scoping Document’, which summarizes the nature of the project and potential related issues. This document is circulated to technical and policy staff who determine if they need to participate on the project team.
The pilot also seeks to expedite processing of less complicated projects. Pilot staff continue to work with staff to push the envelope, question and determine if projects that traditionally were in the same queue as larger projects could be processed in the new Coordinated Stream. The objective being not to delay smaller projects.
Initially, the DBR Design Team worked closely with the Pilot Team to ensure that the vision is realized, to provide rationale for the vision and to assist with learning. The Design Team has gradually passed the baton to the Pilot Team and now only two DBR Design Team staff participate in Pilot Team development.
The absence of suitable information technology significantly reduces the ability to achieve efficiencies in processing. The project management approach can be greatly enabled by systems, but at this time pilot and project staff rely primarily on the existing mainframe. This is supplemented by some stand alone applications (MSProject, MSAccess, WordPerfect), but always requires duplication of data entry. An integrated, business-specific application is required to really achieve the benefits which technology has to offer.
Measurement is an integral part of the new process. The DBR Design Team has worked with the Pilot Team and staff to design an internal and external measurement process. In addition, on April 30, 1998, Council approved a twelve member Community/Industry Advisory Committee to help evaluate the new process.
Our June 30, 1998 statistics show that 146 projects of varying complexity are or have been processed in the pilot. For comparative purposes, it is important to note that each project will contain a number of discrete permissions which could include rezoning, subdivision, development permit, building permit, and a series of trades permits; i.e. these projects translate into translate into many more permits under the existing system. Along with some project work, Customer Service Representatives have also fielded 4,849 enquiries. Pilot projects and enquiries are summarized in Appendix 4.
Anecdotal feedback received from the users of the pilot process has been generally positive. Users find the new space open and welcoming. They appreciate the one-stop customer focus and are very pleased with our project management approach. One developer commented specifically on how much better the process is as a result of having a Project Facilitator. Another developer wrote a very supportive letter which is included in Appendix 5.
Negative feedback about the pilot focuses on community involvement and the regulations. The community wants to establish its place in the new process and some community groups are concerned that the pilot will not jointly develop that role. Some individual members of the community and industry believe that the new process is "more of the same", because it does not deal directly with problems with the City's regulations. Council has received a presentation from the General Manager of Community Services on the regulatory problem and on an approach to make improvements over time.
There is a range of staff reaction from general curiosity to fully supportive to cautionary. Generally they are more supportive, once they have an understanding of the process. All staff are to be commended for the way in which they are working to improve the new process as it grows. They are beginning to routinely ask 'why' and implement process changes when appropriate. For some staff, the pilot growth rate has been much too slow. For others, it has been too fast.
We have received a number of enquiries about the new process from across Canada and the United States. In September, 1997, we presented a paper to the National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards and have subsequently been asked to submit our work to their Streamlining Project. People are impressed with the DBR project, particularly with the comprehensive approach we are taking.
In order to objectively assess customer satisfaction, we used an external consultant to develop and administer a series of customer survey instruments. Individual survey schedules are used for enquiries, projects in progress and projects in construction. A complementary set of questionnaires, designed for staff, identify how staff feel about the new process and also identify gaps between staff and customer perceptions. Initial results from the first round of surveys, released on June 22, 1998 are positive. A summary of the results is included as Appendix 6.
Internally, we identified a number of objectives and targets to measure both the new process and also its implementation. (Appendix 7). The majority of work in the first phase of internal measurement entails establishing systems to make data collection easy. Making it easy has proven to be quite difficult. It will be important to integrate measurement with our new technology to ensure we can easily obtain and analyze data. The internal measurement process was audited on May 26, 1998 and results are contained in Appendix 8. Two major issues were identified in the audit; the importance of communication about the pilot and the use of information technology in data collection.
Because performance measures have just recently been established, we are not yet able to confirm with sufficient statistical confidence that the new process is meeting its service, process and output objectives. We should have a better measure of this by the end of 1998.
Operationalizing the vision was the initial challenge faced in implementation. In order to obtain a good mix of projects, the Pilot Team often had to go outside of the selected geographic areas. Staff had process guides and flowcharts, but neither went to the level of detail required for routine processing. This was an intentional design strategy to give the Pilot Team freedom to finalize the design.
As pilot roles evolved, questions had to be answered about how projects would be assigned to the new positions and how decisions would be made. An early challenge had to do with the composition and size of project teams. Protocols had to be established about who would participate on a project team. Another challenge had to do with meetings. Some participants felt the meetings were too long, and simply an additional layer in the process. They did not yet foresee the benefits that would occur later in the process. Expectations about the roles of the policy and technical experts and their relationship with the Pilot Team needed clarification as project team members are expected to make decisions, but often need to confer with supervisors.
An issue that had to be resolved was the priority that pilot projects were given by policy and technical experts. There was a perception that pilot projects should receive priority over non-pilot projects, even though the Pilot Team asked for regular queuing. There was also a perception that the pilot accepted only the ‘best’ projects, while at the same time, some Pilot Team members felt they were receiving those which had a myriad of problems attached to them.
Within the Pilot Team, staff were challenged to balance process development time with processing time. They were concerned that the technology was not available to fully achieve the benefits of the new process. One Pilot Team member stated "We can't give you production numbers, if you don't give us production tools."
Initial Pilot Team roles had backfilling. When this funding stopped, it became more difficult to recruit staff into pilot roles. Adjustments had to be made in the regular process, as staff recruited to the pilot rarely brought a substantial amount of their former work load with them. The new roles capture pieces of a number of old positions, which cannot be translated into new positions until full implementation.
Staff also struggled with the concept of improved customer service. They questioned if giving good service involved accepting project plans that needed considerable additional work. It was not until well into the pilot that staff fully understood the relationships with internal and external customers.
The Pilot Team and non-pilot staff continue to face challenges in transition with project management and working in two systems, but they are gradually working through their issues.
The implementation targets of 20% participation by mid 1998, 50% participation by the end of 1998 and 100% implementation by the end of 1999 contemplated incremental growth. The slower initial growth accommodated staff development of the new roles; and, although we are slightly short of our 20% target, we have an opportunity in this next phase, to take more work into the pilot than we originally planned. This increased pace of growth is supported by the recent appointment of the new Director of Development Services.
Because the newly developed pilot roles incorporate tasks from other positions many existing positions will have to be changed. It will be important to balance the work loads between work groups as staff move through transition.
As mentioned earlier, the role of the community and how it will participate in the new process needs to be developed as soon as possible. Output from the Public Involvement Review is now available to this next development phase. In addition, the recently appointed Community/Industry Advisory Committee will be encouraged to take an active role in development of this component.
The Customer Service Representatives are currently developing both the Information Centre and the Call Centre. The vision for the Information Centre is to have friendly information available in print and on the internet in the form of self-help. Additional assistance will be available through E-mail or telephone. The Information Centre will be built gradually, responding first to the less experienced customers and then to feedback received from enquiry statistics and surveys.
Most incoming telephone calls will be answered by dedicated Call Centre staff. Initially, they will respond to status and general development enquiries, but over time, with training, they will respond to enquiries of a more complex nature. The Call Centre needs to be developed now, to reduce customer wait times and to prepare for the next stage of pilot growth. Customer Service Representatives are currently touring local call centres to help them with the design.
Staff are reviewing various authorities and looking for ways to improve decision making. Decisions should be timely and should provide consistent interpretation of regulations.
A number of City activities and functions; including Neighbourhood Integrated Service Teams, Inspections, Fire and Police employ geographic sectoring to organize work. Staff have initiated discussions around how this could be accomplished in the pilot. Next steps will include creating manageable sectors and developing a plan to appropriately allocate staff to the sectors. This will be presented in a separate report to Council.
8. Achieving Continuous Improvement
Feedback has recently been formalized through measurement and surveys, and will require sustained attention as the pilot grows. When collected, it needs to be analyzed and used to improve our processes, regulations and education.
The pilot envisions a broader understanding of the total development process by staff. In addition, clear articulation about the City's requirements and the intent of regulations will ultimately assist in increasing compliance. This requires the development of a formal internal and external education program.
An education/feedback group is proposed in Recommendation B to coordinate evaluations and help ensure that the improvements are made. Performance measurement will become equally important to the rest of the Community Services Group, and to the City as a whole, and this group could assist in establishing similar programs in other areas.
The absence of appropriate information technology has been identified as an inhibitor to improved performance and better technology has been consistently identified as a core requirement throughout the DBR review, redesign and implementation. The main existing system resides on the mainframe, but it is supplemented by many stand alone and network applications. Information is not readily accessible to those who require it and there is much duplication of core information between the mainframe and other systems. As information is fragmented, there is no assurance that all those involved in processing a project share the same knowledge.
During the pilot preparation, staff developed detailed information systems requirements for the new process. They also developed a series of demonstration scenarios and prepared a draft Request For Proposal for a technology replacement. They visited three sites to observe potential technological solutions.
It became clear that no one vendor could provide a full solution and that a number of products may have to be integrated to do so. In addition, it appeared that most vendors offered systems built around permits and historical permit tracking. The DBR requirements focussed on projects and managing development processing as project, not permits.
One vendor, who already has a strong relationship with the City, has proposed a cooperative development opportunity, which would also provide tight integration with the City's existing geographical information system (GIS) and other Engineering systems (water, sewer, streets, traffic). This opportunity is presented in the accompanying report to Council.
Our inspectors tested the use of smaller computers in the field. From this test we gained knowledge about our system requirements for remote access. Staff found it helpful to be able to access information from an inspection site, but they had problems in achieving and maintaining a connection to the City network.
As we gain experience in the pilot, it becomes more and more evident how important it is to have widely accessible, integrated systems. Scheduling team meetings, developing project schedules, performing concurrent reviews, analyzing processing times, costs and feedback, providing information electronically to applicants and the community need to all be related to avoid duplication. This is a major technology implementation which will require a commitment of staff resources and strong leadership for success.
Along with the new process, the pilot tested several different work environments including; working at tables, in modular work stations and in meeting rooms. The open space arrangement is very appealing to customers, but it is difficult to get quiet time to do work without interruption.
As the pilot grows, it is important to provide the related service-oriented space and respect the need for some quiet space. We need to provide for some remediation of failed experiments and furnishing for new pilot staff on the first floor. We also need to provide for the completion of the renovation of the second floor. This will provide our customers with functional space and our staff a professional, ergonomic environment in which to work.
In addition, we need to provide an adequate workspace for inspectors. Their working conditions are in dire need of improvement. The cramped cubicles are not designed to accommodate computers or the reference material inspectors use on a regular basis. The existing cubicles were recycled from the Police Department when the 911 service was first established and have outlasted their useful life.
Implementation is proceeding with the expectation that a number of jobs will change, some dramatically, and that service levels will substantially improve, but that there will be little or no change in the number of staff positions. Dramatic change, constrained by very finite resources, forces staff to implement under strained conditions, particularly now that backfilling is no longer provided. However, the reduced development activity is a mitigating factor and will make transition somewhat easier.
The new roles - Customer Service Representative, Project Scoper, Project Facilitator and Project Coordinator - are currently being classified by Human Resource Services. Pilot staff retain the option to leave the pilot up to the time the new roles are classified.
A significant amount of training will be required to achieve the broad technical knowledge base that DBR assumes. We have in place a four-part training program on the Zoning and Development By-law and need to complement that with a similar program on the Building By-law, once revisions are completed. In addition, we are putting together a program that provides an overview of all of the functions involved in development and building processes. The new process also requires that staff be trained in customer service, teaming, decision-making, negotiation, conflict resolution and project management.
Throughout transition, we need to provide staff with mechanisms to cope with the change in both processes and technology. This is particularly relevant as the DBR Design Team moves on to other work.
The education program will require development and administration. We propose funding one temporary full-time position to begin this work now. In the longer term, the work will require two full-time positions, but these should be funded by reallocations resulting from efficiencies gained in the new process.
It is also important, at this time, to maintain a concerted focus on feedback and performance measurement. A dedicated resource is required to maintain an ongoing commitment to measurement, to coordinate the administration of surveys and to ensure analysis is provided to enable continuous improvement. We propose a funding second temporary full-time position to continue the work on feedback. Ongoing work should also be funded by reallocations resulting from efficiencies gained in the new process, in the long term.
Design and implementation of new technology will require a large commitment of staff resources. We need to provide for both Information Technology and Community Services staff to participate in the implementation of new technology. We need to be able to match vendor teams and also provide strong project management to ensure that implementation proceeds in a timely fashion and that the new systems meet the City's needs as best as possible. Staff positions are described in the accompanying report and funding for ongoing positions will be provided by efficiencies gained in the new process.
CUPE 15 has been provided with a copy of this report.
In 1997, Council approved that $750,000 be allocated from the Service Improvement Reserve to develop and implement the prototype. Implementation to date has been achieved within the approved funding. At that time, total costs as reported to Council, were estimated to be in the order of $6.5 million. Funding was proposed through an estimated 10% increase in fees, which would take effect only when the new process demonstrated a substantial increase in service.
Revised estimated total costs for full implementation are $5.2 million, as detailed below.
When costs are firmly established, staff will ask Council for authority to proceed to contract (with various vendors) for the specific services as noted above. Additional detail on implementation costs is presented in Appendix 9. The intent remains to fund full implementation of the new process through a 10% increase in fees, beginning in the year 2000. Although we do not have sufficient statistical information yet to document the actual savings in justifying this fee increase, we have had enough experience with the new process to bolster our confidence that these savings will be readily achieved.
A cash flow analysis showing draws and repayments is provided in Appendix 10.
The new process has been tested by the Pilot Team, Project Teams and the development industry for six months. As the Pilot Team members develop their roles, they continue to refine the process, however they have not found the need to fundamentally change the original vision for the new permitting and inspections process. As more projects are processed in the pilot, we gain more confidence that it will succeed in full implementation.
There is some risk involved in moving to full implementation with parts of the vision yet to be implemented and with limited data available from pilot evaluation. Information systems development is the major cost item associated with moving to full implementation. As with much mainframe computer software, our existing technology systems are becoming rapidly obsolete and will have to be replaced anyway.
All participants in the new DBR process - the community, industry and staff - want it to work. Evidence received from measurement and feedback processes confirm the will as does the initial positive response to the new process. In collaboration, they can make it the best process of its kind in North America.
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS DOCUMENT THAT DO NOT HAVE ELECTRONIC COPYARE AVAILABLE ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
* * * * *
![[City Homepage]](/graphics/footnava.gif)
|
![[Get In Touch]](/graphics/footnavb.gif)
|
|
|
|
(c) 1998 City of Vancouver