Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

© 2003 Pojasek & Associates Robert B. Pojasek, Ph.D. MEASURING THE VALUE OF AN EMS AND SCORING THE EMS RESULTS August 19, 2004.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "© 2003 Pojasek & Associates Robert B. Pojasek, Ph.D. MEASURING THE VALUE OF AN EMS AND SCORING THE EMS RESULTS August 19, 2004."— Presentation transcript:

1 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates Robert B. Pojasek, Ph.D. rpojasek@sprynet.com MEASURING THE VALUE OF AN EMS AND SCORING THE EMS RESULTS August 19, 2004

2 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 2 EHS AS A COST CENTER Most organizations see EHS as a cost centerMost organizations see EHS as a cost center These companies are focused only on regulatory complianceThese companies are focused only on regulatory compliance Management initiatives can help move EHS into the core businessManagement initiatives can help move EHS into the core business –Lean, Six Sigma, Lean Six Sigma –Operational Excellence (Baldrige Model)

3 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 3 EHS INTEGRATION Using quality management as a language for all of the programsUsing quality management as a language for all of the programs –OHSAS 18001, SA 8000, AA 1000, ISO 9000 –Lean, Six Sigma, Operational Excellence Driving improvements through people and programsDriving improvements through people and programs Scoring the program using the Baldrige ModelScoring the program using the Baldrige Model

4 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 4 SYSTEMS APPROACH Proven method for improving processesProven method for improving processes Uses employee-driven bottom up approachUses employee-driven bottom up approach Provides for management oversightProvides for management oversight Tools common to all the programs mentionedTools common to all the programs mentioned Links to management information systemsLinks to management information systems –ERP, MRP, CMMS, Business Results

5 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 5 MRP SYSTEM Assigns a part number to all resource usesAssigns a part number to all resource uses Needs to track resources to a work step in the hierarchical process mapNeeds to track resources to a work step in the hierarchical process map You need to assign a part number to all wastes, discharges, emissions, spills, etc.You need to assign a part number to all wastes, discharges, emissions, spills, etc. Create a computerized way to track resource use and loss in the operationCreate a computerized way to track resource use and loss in the operation

6 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 6 CMMS SOFTWARE APPLICATION Assigns a work order number for each activityAssigns a work order number for each activity –e.g. Obtain air permit, file manifests, keep records, monitor stack, conduct audit, etc. People charge time to work order numbersPeople charge time to work order numbers Work orders assigned to work steps using the activity accounting sheetsWork orders assigned to work steps using the activity accounting sheets

7 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 7 ACTION PLAN FORMAT Action Responsible Person Performance Standard Completion Deadline Resources Needed Date: 1 2 3 4 Alternative Selected Purpose Project Benefits

8 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 8 ACTION PLAN COMPONENTS First action step is to perform a baseline analysis for weight/volume reduction and cost savingsFirst action step is to perform a baseline analysis for weight/volume reduction and cost savings Second step should be the alternative at the top of the prioritization listingSecond step should be the alternative at the top of the prioritization listing Next to the last action step is to repeat the baseline analysis to determine quantitative resultsNext to the last action step is to repeat the baseline analysis to determine quantitative results

9 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 9 COST ACCOUNTING Link a spreadsheet to the resource accounting sheetLink a spreadsheet to the resource accounting sheet Link a spreadsheet to the activity accounting sheetLink a spreadsheet to the activity accounting sheet Input cost information from MRP and CMMSInput cost information from MRP and CMMS Create a Cost Accounting Sheet to combine these spreadsheetsCreate a Cost Accounting Sheet to combine these spreadsheets

10 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 10 EHS COSTS Traditional AccountingTraditional Accounting Activity-Based ManagementActivity-Based Management –Manage activity costs Real Options for IntangiblesReal Options for Intangibles –Delphi group look at EHS issues –Cost assigned as an option cost –Cost discounted for use by accounting

11 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 11 INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT SCORING Scoring the continual improvement of your EMS (ISO 14001) programScoring the continual improvement of your EMS (ISO 14001) program Influencing the behaviors that will drive change and success in the programInfluencing the behaviors that will drive change and success in the program Scoring of the results to focus on areas where improvement is necessaryScoring of the results to focus on areas where improvement is necessary

12 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 12 SCORING AND THE BALDRIGE MODEL There are two parts to scoring true performance using the Baldrige model:There are two parts to scoring true performance using the Baldrige model: –True Performance –Sustainability Results Scores are issued by trained, third-party examinersScores are issued by trained, third-party examiners Scores can be used to measure and trend sustainability progress and any type of facility and aggregated across the enterpriseScores can be used to measure and trend sustainability progress and any type of facility and aggregated across the enterprise

13 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 13 SCORING TRUE PERFORMANCE The Baldrige criteria document and its State of New Mexico counterpart (Green Zia) have more than 100 questions to answer in a 50- page applicationThe Baldrige criteria document and its State of New Mexico counterpart (Green Zia) have more than 100 questions to answer in a 50- page application Currently used in over 60 countries to measure overall performance of the companyCurrently used in over 60 countries to measure overall performance of the company Program is transparent, copyright-free and continually improved every yearProgram is transparent, copyright-free and continually improved every year

14 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 14 USING THE BALDRIGE MODEL Some organizations apply for awards in established programs - state and federal levelSome organizations apply for awards in established programs - state and federal level Model can be used as a self-assessment toolModel can be used as a self-assessment tool Factor analysis can be used to create a diagnostic for surveying employeesFactor analysis can be used to create a diagnostic for surveying employees Each method has a feedback report to drive continual improvementEach method has a feedback report to drive continual improvement Each method scores the true performance of the organizationEach method scores the true performance of the organization

15 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 15 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA LeadershipLeadership Strategic planningStrategic planning Influence of other interested partiesInfluence of other interested parties Use of management information and analysisUse of management information and analysis Employee involvement and well-beingEmployee involvement and well-being Process managementProcess management

16 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 16 USING A DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY Pojasek & Associates has used factor analysis and reduced the number of questions in the performance criteria to 22Pojasek & Associates has used factor analysis and reduced the number of questions in the performance criteria to 22 Wording of the questions must address sustainability and the culture of the employeesWording of the questions must address sustainability and the culture of the employees Questions are asked to a random number of employees in the organizationQuestions are asked to a random number of employees in the organization

17 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 17 USE OF A DIAGNOSTIC Questions delivered to employees either by a web enabled questionnaire or a paper survey form or bothQuestions delivered to employees either by a web enabled questionnaire or a paper survey form or both Considered less painful than a 50-page applicationConsidered less painful than a 50-page application Diagnostic is handled like a 360-degree performance reviewDiagnostic is handled like a 360-degree performance review Questions can be extended to the other interested parties with some revisions to the wordingQuestions can be extended to the other interested parties with some revisions to the wording

18 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 18 TYPICAL QUESTION 1.Senior leadership personally and visibly demonstrates its commitment to the sustainability program in this organization Agreement: Indicate how strongly you disagree/agree with this statement. o o o o o o o o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A Disagree Agree

19 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 19 DIAGNOSTIC COMPONENT Cite some strengths of the senior leaders in this category. List some opportunities for the senior leaders to improve in this category. All responses are confidential and maintained by an independent examiner. Employees can explain their scoring with words to be compiled and used in the feedback report.

20 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 20 TRUE PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK The facility will receive a true performance score from the third-party examinerThe facility will receive a true performance score from the third-party examiner Each question will have a standard deviation calculatedEach question will have a standard deviation calculated Written comments will be be consolidated by the third-party examiner and summarized by questionWritten comments will be be consolidated by the third-party examiner and summarized by question –Strengths –Opportunities to improve

21 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 21 RESULTS SCORED SEPARATELY Improvement results and indicators can be scored by a third-party examiner just as the true performance was scoredImprovement results and indicators can be scored by a third-party examiner just as the true performance was scored Results categories include:Results categories include: –Environmental –Social responsibility –Other interested party involvement –Financial –Other program indicators

22 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 22 FACTORS FOR SCORING RESULTS Is the result or indicator demonstrated to be important to the organization? Link to performanceIs the result or indicator demonstrated to be important to the organization? Link to performance Was the result planned? Was the plan attained?Was the result planned? Was the plan attained? Did the organization trend the result? Can the trend be adequately explained?Did the organization trend the result? Can the trend be adequately explained? Did the organization benchmark the result? How did it compare?Did the organization benchmark the result? How did it compare?

23 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 23 SCORING PROCEDURE Examiners use a transparent scoring matrix and methodology found at http://www.quality.nist.govExaminers use a transparent scoring matrix and methodology found at http://www.quality.nist.gov http://www.quality.nist.gov Examiners file draft feedback report through the lead examiner to a panel of judgesExaminers file draft feedback report through the lead examiner to a panel of judges Judges determine if a site visit is warranted to confirm the score (for award program)Judges determine if a site visit is warranted to confirm the score (for award program)

24 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 24 USING THE SCORES Some organizations have a single true performance score where the results component score is approximately 40% of the total scoreSome organizations have a single true performance score where the results component score is approximately 40% of the total score Some organizations prefer to have two scores – one for true performance and one for results and indicatorsSome organizations prefer to have two scores – one for true performance and one for results and indicators There are many uses for these scores as a means to track and improve EHS programsThere are many uses for these scores as a means to track and improve EHS programs

25 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 25 HOW WOULD YOU SCORE?

26 © 2003 Pojasek & Associates 26 Contact Information Robert B. Pojasek, Ph. D. P.O. Box 1333 E. Arlington, MA 02474-0071, USA Phone: (781) 641-2422 Fax: (781) 465-6006 e-Mail: rpojasek@sprynet.com Website: www.Pojasek-Associates.com


Download ppt "© 2003 Pojasek & Associates Robert B. Pojasek, Ph.D. MEASURING THE VALUE OF AN EMS AND SCORING THE EMS RESULTS August 19, 2004."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google