How effective is your repairs service? Jez Lester, Asst Chief Exec (Asset Management)

Transcription

1 How effective is your repairs service? Jez Lester, Asst Chief Exec (Asset Management)

2 Rethinking Repairs Incommunities Group LSVT created in 2003 Based in Bradford, West Yorkshire 21,000 rented properties and 1,000 leaseholders 80,000 repairs a year 3,200 voids a year 18,500 gas services a year Asset Management budget - 45m (repairs, planned & cyclical maintenance and new build) Growing organisation through new build and mergers

3 Rethinking Repairs Gas Servicing and Gas Repairs Audit Commission Inspection Results of Service Review Redesigned Services Improvements and Cost Benefits

4 Short Notice Inspection Audit Commission Inspection Short notice inspection in 2009 Strengths significantly outweigh weaknesses 3* service

5 Short Notice Inspection Key Strengths Valid CP12s 99.6% (!) Appointment times flexible and well advertised Servicing and repair work checked by qualified inspectors Newly let properties have a valid CP12 (!) Repairs performance is high Most repairs carried out at first visit Repair appointments offered Gas servicing available to leaseholders Weaknesses Don t test smoke alarms or offer CO detectors Quality assurance arrangements not full developed

6

7

8 Service was Subcontracted - 2m per annum Gas Contract expired 2013 Systems Review undertaken 2012 Dedicated Team - full-time for 6 weeks to review the service I was part of the Team, as was the Director of the Service All parts of the service were reviewed Studied demand Studied our capability of response Studied how the system was set up to deliver the services Understood what we and the subcontractor focussed on (our motivation) Presented a review to Executive Mgt Team and Boards

9 SYSTEM PICTURE Value Work = 6.4% Process Design IT Systems Policy & Procedures Authority Levels Fragment'n & Special'n Legislation Agreements with ext contractors PDA's / IBS / Optitime etc No Access / Legal / Parts Ordering Ordering & passing for payment NTA's - duplication CP12 Policies & Procedures Customer Satisfaction Top Down Approach Performance Law / KPIs / Targets Budget Contact from customer Job logged/creat ed/changed Operative rec's job Carry out Serv or Rep Job Complete d Job Invoiced and Paid 52% demand is failure servs 25,000 calls - sched 50k 301 hours checking / sending orders - 3k Service Repair 150k - Lost time No Access 30% No Access. 77k - Officer time, letters, print Wrong Diagnosis Operative lost time as per repairs Missed Appt Rebooking missed appts -73 hrs Parts Req NTA's Checking & distributing New Install Repair Part available in stock Part ordered and del Issue Order Survey Legal Process 8 months - 30k fees & officer time

10 Key Findings of the Review Contract Terms Single payment for each property for an inclusive gas servicing and repairs (for appliances only, eg., boilers/fires) Full payment made after two service visits, even if no access gained No access problems were the responsibility of the landlord Major incentive to reduce repairs liability NTA ie., landlord responsibility or Boiler condemned Driven by meeting KPI targets: 2 hours; same day; next day Target met if operative attended (regardless of access/completing job) Meeting target was the major driver for contractor performance ie., attend at all costs, regardless of whether job can be completed

11

12 Results of Contract Terms Gas Servicing 30% no access (as contractor set the service date and time) No incentive to gain access (as got paid after 2 visits, not after servicing) Operatives given 10+ services a day (to cover for no accesses) Feather door-knocking! High number of NTA referrals (eg., radiator leaks) High number of boilers being condemned High levels of checking Continuous client/contractor disputes Poor customer satisfaction rates with the service

13 Results of Contract Terms Gas Repairs IT systems didn t talk to each other Couldn t tell customer when a repair/service would be carried out Customers were not offered an appointment in reality (driven by target times) Average of 3 days to get a part for a boiler but target met as visit already taken place even if repair not completed 52% failure calls Subcontractor only focussed on meeting targets That s how we monitored the contract ie., via targets To us, meeting targets meant achieving performance!!! Low levels of tenant satisfaction/high levels of complaints

14 Overall cost in terms of waste due to the system - 1.4m over 4 years

15

16 From To

17 Redesigned the Systems around the Customer Brought the Service In-house Scrapped category times Scrapped dynamic scheduling Attend when customer wants No access dealt with through door-knocking/ringing up Integrated repairs/servicing system using own IT repairs system Flexible operative workforce effectively doubled the capacity New technology introduced

18 Redesigned the Systems around the Customer Smoke alarm testing/offer smoke alarms Minor plumbing repairs Advice on use of boilers/showers/trvs/thermostats Collect key property data (location of stop-cock/consumer unit/gas meter/fire - make & type) No NTAs anymore Offer of CO detectors from next servicing round Continuous servicing schedule Gas engineers - up to 8 services a day (max)

19 The Results of our Systems Review Performance Measures Customer satisfaction 9.9/10 No access rates 1.6% Average end-to-end time for gas repairs 37 hours Valid CP12s 99.9% (all no accesses with legal team) Financial Measures Extra 300k spent on parts and materials Annual servicing savings - 400k (20%) Annual boiler replacements savings - 155k (20%)

20

21 Rethinking Repairs A similar systems review was undertaken in repairs and maintenance in 2011

22 Rethinking Repairs Audit Commission KPIs Emergency - 98% Routine 96% Customer satisfaction 92% Key Findings from Review 55% of all day-to-day jobs not completed first time 4% operative failed to attend 10% additional work/time needed compared to time allocated for job 11% wrong trade or multi-trade job 10% no access 5% parts no available 15% further works needed 50% of all jobs reissued Average end-to-end time 216 days!!! (43 repairs took longer than 1,000 days!!!) > 4.5m annual cost of waste in the service

23 Rethinking Repairs Repairs Process We understood demand and designed the service against demand Scrapped repairs category times and dynamic scheduling We attend when tenant requests and complete repairs in one visit (incl. delivering parts/materials to site) Developed our own in-house repairs management system involving staff actually doing the work Repairs Measures Average end-to-end time (all repairs) 8 days Average No. repairs outstanding 300 (a days work) No access 5%: Failure calls 2% Average call wait time to repairs centre 44 secs Customer satisfaction rating 94% Average cost per repair - 87 (down from 96 in 2010/11)

24 Rethinking Repairs Any Questions?