Benchmark Improvement Process
38
pages
English
Documents
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe Tout savoir sur nos offres
38
pages
English
Documents
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe Tout savoir sur nos offres
Benchmark Improvement Process
FY 04
Executive Summary
for
US Army MWR Region Chiefs
April 2005
US Army Community & Family Support Center
Business Programs Directorate
CFSC-BP
4700 King Street
Alexandria, Virginia
22302-4404
Executive Summary
Benchmark Improvement Process
This is an Executive Summary to complement the annual “Benchmark Report – An
Indication of Key Performance – FY 04”. Together, these reports have the
potential of providing a high level of assistance to the Regions, Installation
Commanders, and activity managers, by detailing where each facility/operation
falls financially in comparison to their brethren operations.
According to Robert Camp, Ph.D., the originator of the benchmarking process, two
of the five key benchmark areas (his Number 4 and 5) are to “analyze the gap
between what you do and what the sum of the practices would say you should look
like” and “revise your internal performance measurements and goals”. Neither of
these was effectively being accomplished in our Annual Reports.
For the key indicators presented, this report shows what would have happened had
the benchmarks been met, the specific targets for each area, and the potential
increase in NIBD that would have occurred had the benchmarks been met (or
implemented as a goal). This goes a long way toward meeting the two key areas of
Dr. Camp’s process that were not fully implemented. Regions, Commanders, and ...
US Army Community & Family Support Center
Business Programs Directorate
CFSC-BP
4700 King Street
Alexandria, Virginia
22302-4404
Benchmark Improvement Process
FY 04
Executive Summary
for
US Army MWR Region Chiefs
April 2005
Executive Summary
Benchmark Improvement Process
This is an Executive Summary to complement the annual “Benchmark Report – An
Indication of Key Performance – FY 04”.
Together, these reports have the
potential of providing a high level of assistance to the Regions, Installation
Commanders, and activity managers, by detailing where each facility/operation
falls financially in comparison to their brethren operations.
According to Robert Camp, Ph.D., the originator of the benchmarking process, two
of the five key benchmark areas (his Number 4 and 5) are to “analyze the gap
between what you do and what the sum of the practices would say you should look
like” and “revise your internal performance measurements and goals”. Neither of
these was effectively being accomplished in our Annual Reports.
For the key indicators presented, this report shows what would have happened had
the benchmarks been met, the specific targets for each area, and the potential
increase in NIBD that would have occurred had the benchmarks been met (or
implemented as a goal). This goes a long way toward meeting the two key areas of
Dr. Camp’s process that were not fully implemented. Regions, Commanders, and
activity managers no longer have to pull out calculators to determine the impact on
their operations if the benchmarks were met and can easily establish departmental
specific goals to meet these important benchmarks.
We expect that if this report is used as intended, it will assist in improving the
financial performance of our many and varied programs.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Benchmark Improvement Process Methodology - Sample
1
Summary Results of BIP (FY 04)
3
Golf Program
4
Army Golf Best Practices
5
Army Golf Benchmark Data & Results
6
Bowling Program
8
Army Bowling Best Practices
9
Army Bowling Benchmark Data & Results
10
Food & Beverage Program
13
Actual F&B NIBD by Region
15
F&B Best Practices
16
Snack Bar Benchmark Data & Results
17
Dining Benchmark Data & Results
22
Regular Bar Benchmark Data & Results
26
Catered Food Benchmark Data & Results
32
Benchmark Improvement Process Methodology
- Sample -
We added three columns to the data that is contained in the basic Annual Benchmark Report.
The added
columns are to the right of “Ranking” on the facing page.
These columns effect the implementation of
Dr. Camp’s 4
th
and 5
th
Key Benchmarks at the Installation level and the 5
th
at the Region/Army level as
well.
Please note that the sample information is to illustrate the methodology used and is based on current
year data.
Camp’s 4
th
Area is to “analyze the gap between what you do and what the sum of the practice
would say you should look like.”
Though these numbers are divinable in the current annual
benchmark report, it involves the stubby pencil approach.
The column “Difference Bench to
Actual” is the results of subtracting the Total Rounds Played from the Rounds Played
Benchmark.
The Average Green Fees Per Round column is pulled from the Annual Benchmark Report,
and is the mathematical results of dividing total green fees income by the number of rounds
the installation reported as being played.
Camp’s 5
th
area is to revise the “internal performance goals” based on the results of
benchmarking.
The 3
rd
column does this.
It reports the actual increase in NIBD that would
result if the Rounds Played (RP) Benchmark had been met, and this should become the basis
for the performance goal of the operation.
Example:
Using Baumholder, the first installation on the list.
It shows that the “Difference Bench to
Actual” is 3,884 Rounds played.
In other words, the “gap” between what they do, and what they should
do, is 3,884 Rounds.
Therefore Baumholder should revise their “internal performance goals” by
increasing rounds played by 3,884 rounds.
Using Baumholders Average Green Fees Per Round of $13.63, one can calculate the impact on the bottom
line for this activity if the installation had met the benchmark.
In this case, it would have produced an
additional $52,920 in NIBD.
The potential increase in NIBD in FY 03 if all Army golf operations had met this Benchmark is of
particular interest:
$8,661,686
.
More than double the current reported NIBD.
The adoption of the Benchmark Upgrade Process creates a real benchmark that is useful by the Regions,
Commanders, and Managers, to determine specific areas to target for the specific listed action, without
requiring users to pull out pencils, calculators, and spreadsheets.
Again, not all Potential Increases in NIBD shown in this Report are attainable.
That’s why this Report
should be used as a tool, not a weapon.
With the large number of activities the Army has, local
conditions, such as weather, base security, diversion of the facility, one-time problems, etc., can result in
the Benchmark not being attainable.
Even if it’s not, at least, with adequate verification, the reason for
the non-attainment becomes a known element of the operation, either as a one-time affect, or continuous.
1
Rounds Played
Benchmark Improvement Process
- Sample -
2
SUMMARY RESULTS OF
BENCHMARK IMPROVEMENT PROCESS
The table below shows the totals of all the Benchmark Improvement Process Potential NIBD
increases, from all the sheets that follow in this report.
Even a quick look at this table reveals that
huge potential increases in NIBD are available from all programs.
Remembering that the
Benchmarks are set at an industry accepted number, an Army average, or at the 25
th
Percentile,
there are numerous activities already meeting or exceeding the Benchmarks.
If the benchmark is
based on an Army average, 50 percent of the activities already meet or exceed that benchmark.
It
therefore becomes harder to rationally accept statements that it can’t be done.
Money remains tight in the MWR world.
Decreasing dividends from AAFES, reduced
appropriated funds for MWR, additional security constraints on programs, and deployed troops,
are all factors which contribute to increasing the difficulty our programs have in generating the
much needed earnings.
It is time for the Army, Regions, Commanders, and Managers to take a
serious look at the results of their operations and to adjust the programs to meet as many of the
Benchmark targets as are possible and practical.
Closing facilities should be the last resort.
Summary Results
Note:
Current total program NIBDs above will not equal the Army-wide SMIRF numbers, as adjustments were required for
the Benchmark Improvement Process purposes, such as non-reporting installations, missing data, etc.
3
Golf Program
Benchmark Improvement Process
As the Golf Program Benchmarks includes data on patron usage (daily rounds played, annual green fee
rounds played, etc.) that are not available in the other program areas, we are able to report on six
Benchmark areas for golf.
Food & Beverage departments at golf facilities are in the Food & Beverage
section of this report.
The table shown below displays the top and last row of the chart on the following pages and highlights the
Army-wide impact of these six benchmarks.
For example, the Column labeled “Increased NIBD if DG (Daily Green) Fees Equals Benchmark”, shows
that the average daily green fee for the Army in FY 04 (after adjustments for outliers) was $20.25 per
round played.
If all Army golf courses that charged less than $20.25 per round played, charged this
amount, an additional $4,998,495 in NIBD for Army Golf would have been produced.
The largest increase in NIBD would occur if golf courses met the Rounds Played Benchmark (70.0
percent).
Using each installations actual Average Price Per Round (not the higher benchmark amount), if
all listed met the Benchmark for Rounds Played, the NIBD for Army Golf would rise from $11.0M to
$18.3M ($11.0M current NIBD plus $7.3M from meeting the Rounds Played Benchmark).
The “lowest”
increase in NIBD would occur if all activities with Pro Shops met the COGS Benchmark, which is based
on the Army average of 72 percent.
As you peruse the sheets with all the installations listed, you will see that many programs are doing
great!!
Those with numbers under each benchmark column that are colored “green” have less than a 5
percent deviation from current NIBD.
In other words, those facilities, while not exceeding the
benchmarks, a change to equal the benchmark would have a small dollar or percentage impact on their
overall NIBD.
Numbers in “yellow” have a 5-10 percent increase potential on NIBD, and those in “red” are costing
themselves 10 percent or more of their current NIBD, by not adjusting their programs to meet the stated
benchmarks.
Highlights of Golf Benchmark Improvement Process
Garrison Name
NIBD
NIBD %
Increased NIBD
if DG Fees
Equals
Benchmark
Increased
NIBD if AG
Fees Equals
Benchmark
Increased NIBD
if RP
Benchmark Met
Increased NIBD
if Non-Maint.
Labor is at
average
Increased NIBD
if Pro Shop
COGS Equal
Average
Increased NIBD
if Total Maint.
Exp. Per Hole
Equals
Benchmark
$20.25
$15.00
70.0%
20.0%
72.0%
$25,000
ARMY BENCHMARK
$11,012,558
16.1%
4,998,495
$
3,432,242
$
7,252,619
$
994,278
$
242,744
$
4,163,363
$
21,083,740
$
32,045,350
$
BENCHMARKS
Overall
Potential
Increase
NIBD
Total
Potential
NIBD
4
FY 04 ARMY GOLF
BEST PRACTICES
o
Strive for operational and financial efficiencies to achieve the MWR Board of Directors’
NIBD standard of 20 percent of net revenue for FY 05.
o
Spend no more than 46 percent labor.
Review maintenance practices to ensure
expensive labor intensive operations are performed in the most efficient manner.
o
Open the courses for play by the general public or local veterans where excess capacity
exists.
o
Review hours of operation to best meet customer demand.
Reduce hours where
appropriate to avoid excess labor charges with minimal revenue being generated.
o
Control overtime costs.
o
Review quantity and quality of pro-shop stock to maximize profitability and to ensure that
idle cash is not tied up in inventory.
Strive for inventory turnover of at least 2.5 turns to
ensure inventory is not on the shelf greater than 150 days before selling.
o
Develop an operational plan to incorporate the influx of women and junior golfers into
your program.
Institute a transitional plan to develop the new golfer from lessons/driving
range to an on-course environment.
o
Enhance golf operations by reviewing course maintenance practices and eliminating non-
value added practices such as maintaining roughs to fairway standards.
5
FY04GOLF
GarrisonName
NIBD
NIBD%
IncreasedNIBDif
DGFeesEquals
Benchmark
Increased
NIBDifAG
FeesEquals
Benchmark
IncreasedNIBD
ifRP
BenchmarkMet
IncreasedNIBD
ifNon-Maint.
Laborisat
average
IncreasedNIBD
ifProShop
COGSEqual
Average
IncreasedNIBD
ifTotalMaint.
Exp.PerHole
Equals
Benchmark
$20.25
$15.00
70.0%
20.0%
72.0%
$25,000
Columbus,OH(DSCC)
$5,758
3%
22,606$
43,539$
29,811$
10,127$
-$
-$
106,083$
$111,841
Susquehanna,PA(DDSP)
($41,037)
-13%
3,078$
14,299$
112,373$
33,448$
-$
-$
163,198$
$122,161
DLATOTALS
($35,279)
-7%
104thASGHanau
$263,696
20%
1,120$
-$
-$
-$
21,060$
35,375$
57,555$
$321,251
104thASGHanau
$87,773
19%
27,138$
-$
33,692$
761$
18,041$
-$
79,632$
$167,405
98thASG-Wuerzburg
$16,598
11%
18,276$
64,444$
116,035$
4,176$
4,321$
-$
207,253$
$223,851
6thASGEUCOM
$272,270
24%
-$
25,498$
6,202$
9,860$
-$
-$
41,560$
$313,831
26thASGHeidelberg
$265,599
19%
-$
-$
305,194$
-$
19,086$
3,614$
327,895$
$593,493
EUROTOTALS
$905,936
20%
KoreaArea4MWR
$879,327
49%
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
330,957$
330,957$
$1,210,283
KoreaArea2MWR
$1,884,991
31%
-$
-$
-$
2,950$
12,102$
1,475,531$
1,490,582$
$3,375,573
KoreaArea1MWR
$255,185
25%
-$
-$
-$
46,450$
1,886$
12,144$
60,480$
$315,665
KoreaArea1MWR
$203,834
19%
-$
-$
-$
44,725$
-$
29,075$
73,800$
$277,634
KOROTOTALS
$3,223,337
32%
AberdeenProvingGround
$41,641
5%
107,219$
80,786$
37,778$
13,068$
11,626$
-$
250,478$
$292,119
AberdeenProvingGround
($7,912)
-94%
26,586$
185,190$
-$
5,516$
-$
-$
217,292$
$209,381
Ft.Monmouth
$79,520
7%
13,667$
-$
76,385$
-$
658$
289,731$
380,441$
$459,960
PicatinnyArsenal
$87,908
9%
-$
-$
148,035$
-$
1,163$
113,905$
263,103$
$351,011
Ft.Dix
$14,468
2%
2,553$
68,631$
74,295$
21,235$
-$
16,048$
182,763$
$197,231
USMA(Installation)
$186,162
18%
-$
5,638$
120,544$
6,454$
-$
23,443$
156,079$
$342,241
Ft.Belvoir
$96,344
3%
50,750$
-$
249,757$
143,888$
-$
187,992$
632,386$
$728,731
Ft.Belvoir
$233,613
39%
106,348$
67,755$
-$
4,770$
-$
-$
178,873$
$412,486
Ft.Meade
$168,058
6%
35,300$
62,912$
38,550$
52,019$
-$
250,466$
439,246$
$607,304
CarlisleBarracks
$135,220
16%
99,538$
130,808$
-$
4,717$
6,685$
-$
241,749$
$376,969
Ft.Eustis
$23,247
2%
93,564$
97,754$
-$
14,796$
-$
68,839$
274,953$
$298,200
Ft.Lee
$216,337
18%
115,135$
110,975$
148,403$
3,322$
3,518$
-$
381,353$
$597,689
NEROTOTALS
$1,274,607
9%
SelfridgeANGB
$165,163
23%
77,495$
73,920$
20,675$
11,594$
-$
-$
183,684$
$348,847
Ft.Carson
$89,205
7%
150,827$
-$
63,439$
-$
4,126$
109,080$
327,472$
$416,677
Ft.Lewis
($127,359)
-9%
-$
67,664$
591,750$
53,978$
18,406$
94,596$
826,393$
$699,034
Ft.Riley
($41,804)
-18%
63,168$
4,613$
186,279$
8,341$
-$
-$
262,402$
$220,598
DugwayProvingGround
$9,220
22%
-$
7,515$
181,686$
3,183$
-$
-$
192,383$
$201,604
Ft.Leavenworth
($17,010)
-2%
26,343$
-$
194,526$
11,893$
-$
-$
232,761$
$215,751
Ft.LeonardWood
($75,006)
-12%
33,181$
52,316$
194,499$
24,861$
17,819$
-$
322,677$
$247,670
NWROTOTALS
$2,409
0%
BENCHMARKS
Overall
Potential
Increase
NIBD
Total
PotentialNIBD
6
