HomeMy WebLinkAboutAudit Reports - Public - Field Operations - Facilities Management Performance Audit - 6/7/2023
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit
Presented to the Audit Committee June 7, 2023
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................... 2
Overview and Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3
Objectives, Scope and Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 3
Facilities Management Overview .......................................................................................................................... 5
Professional Standards Applied to the Performance Audit ..................................................................................... 5
Are the work order and preventive maintenance processes efficient and effective? ........................... 6
Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................ 6
Summary of Observations ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Conclusions, Findings and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 14
Are work orders and preventive maintenance being completed in a timely manner? ....................... 21
Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................... 21
Summary of Observations ................................................................................................................................... 21
Conclusions, Findings and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 24
Is CentralSquare (formerly Lucity) being used by Facilities Management to accomplish the
department’s objectives? .................................................................................................................. 26
Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................... 26
Summary of Observations ................................................................................................................................... 26
Conclusions, Findings and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 27
Does CentralSquare provide meaningful reporting to determine whether the department's objectives
are met? ............................................................................................................................................ 30
Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................... 30
Summary of Observations ................................................................................................................................... 30
Conclusions, Findings and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 31
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 1
Executive Summary
We provide this Executive Summary of the results of the performance audit for your consideration. The
performance audit was more limited in scope than would be necessary to express an opinion or provide
any other assurance on internal controls of the City. The primary focus of the performance audit was the
Facilities work order process post‐implementation of the CentralSquare software. Prior to
implementation of CentralSquare in January 2021, the City relied on requesters submitting work
requests through email. Implementation of the system has provided many benefits to the City including
keeping work orders organized, monitoring the completion of work orders, and accumulating work order
data that can be used to inform management decisions and measure the department’s effectiveness in
achieving its objectives.
Below is a summary of the performance audit objectives, conclusions, and related findings. Additional
detail including our recommendations and management’s responses are presented in the following
sections of the report.
Objective: Are the work order and preventive maintenance processes efficient and effective?
Conclusion: The Facilities work order process is generally efficient and effective. The following findings
were identified.
Work order statuses were not appropriately used.
Contracted preventive maintenance is not tracked in CentralSquare.
Procurement card purchases are not reconciled to CentralSquare work orders.
Controls over inventory are minimal.
The City does not have formal policies and procedures governing the work order process.
The priorities assigned to work orders were not always consistent with the Priority Matrix.
We noted several deviations from the City’s established procedures in the work orders sampled.
Work orders were not always attached to the asset that failed.
The customer survey response rate is low at approximately 4%.
Objective: Are work orders and preventive maintenance being completed in a timely manner?
Conclusion: The City is responding to corrective maintenance work orders in a timely manner and
completing most preventive maintenance work orders on time. The following finding was identified.
The City is not measuring work order response and completion times against the priority
standards. Additionally, preventive maintenance is not being evaluated for timeliness.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 2
Objective: Is CentralSquare (formerly Lucity) being used by Facilities Management to accomplish the
department’s objectives?
Conclusion: CentralSquare is being used by facilities management to accomplish the department’s
objectives. The following findings were identified.
The City is working towards building out the asset database in CentralSquare.
The Tier III Balanced Scorecard Key Performance Indicator 2.2 – Maintenance Program
Performance is measuring the percentage of work orders completed without consideration of
timeliness.
We identified opportunities for the City to increase communication with requesters.
Objective: Does CentralSquare provide meaningful reporting to determine whether the department's
objectives are met?
Conclusion: CentralSquare has the capabilities to provide robust reporting on the department’s balanced
scorecard objectives. Facilities is not fully utilizing the system’s reporting functions due to a lack of
training and guidance. Furthermore, the City has not designed appropriate policies and procedures over
testing reports for accuracy before they are used. The following findings were identified.
The City is limited in creating new system reports due to a lack of training and guidance of Crystal
Reporting. Additionally, there is not a formal process in place to test and review the accuracy of
reports before they are used.
Report distribution is limited within the department.
The City has not created asset management reports.
The City is improperly using the Monthly Report to report work order performance for Tier III
KPIs 2.3‐2.6.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the City’s Internal Audit Program Manager and Field Operations staff for their
assistance in completing the Field Operations‐Facilities Management Performance Audit.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 3
Overview and Introduction
Objectives, Scope and Methodology
On April 26, 2022 the City Council approved the fiscal year 2023 audit plan, which included the Field‐
Operations – Facilities Management Performance Audit. The objective of the performance audit was to
review the processes and controls in place with respect to work orders, task completion, and
departmental payments. In July 2022, the City contracted with Heinfeld Meech to perform the Field
Operations‐Facility Management Performance Audit.
The Heinfeld Meech team met with the City’s Internal Audit Program Manager on July 27, 2022 to further
gain an understanding of the audit objectives and the impetus for the performance audit. On August 12,
2022 the audit team again met with the Internal Audit Program Manager along with representatives
from the Field Operations Department to gain an understanding of the work order program and solidify
the performance audit objectives. Additional meetings were held before the performance audit
objectives were approved by Field Operations and the Internal Audit Program Manager at the end of
September 2022. The objective of the performance audit was to answer these four questions about the
work order program:
1. Are the work order and preventive maintenance processes efficient and effective?
2. Are work orders and preventive maintenance being completed in a timely manner?
3. Is CentralSquare (formerly Lucity) being used by Facilities Management to accomplish the
department’s objectives?
4. Does CentralSquare provide meaningful reporting to determine whether the department's
objectives are met?
Each major task is reported in separate sections within the report with detailed discussions of the
performance audit objectives, scope, methodology, observations, conclusions, findings, and
recommendations. A summary of performance audit procedures performed under each objective
follows.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 4
Are the work order and preventive maintenance processes efficient and effective?
We performed the following to determine whether the work order and preventive maintenance
processes are efficient and effective.
• Conducted interviews with staff to develop an understanding of corrective maintenance and
preventive maintenance processes.
• Reviewed work order/preventive maintenance policies and procedural documentation, which is
a significant internal control.
• Reviewed workflow in CentralSquare to substantiate policies, procedures and internal controls
are operating as documented.
• Reviewed results of customer service surveys sent to departments.
• Reviewed work order statistics between work crews.
• Analyzed if preventive maintenance work orders are detecting corrective maintenance, which
the Department identifies as “PM Generated Repairs.” Furthermore, analyzed whether there is
a correlation between preventive maintenance and a reduction in corrective maintenance work
orders by requesters.
Are work orders and preventive maintenance being completed in a timely manner?
We conducted interviews with staff to develop an understanding of whether corrective maintenance
and preventive maintenance is being completed timely. We discussed how timeliness is determined and
reviewed the Priority Matrix and Preventive Maintenance Schedules. We reviewed work order statistics
in CentralSquare and compiled data for report presentation.
Is CentralSquare (formerly Lucity) being used by Facilities Management to accomplish the
department’s objectives?
We conducted interviews with staff to develop an understanding of how CentralSquare is being used to
measure and manage relevant key performance indicators in the Department’s fiscal year 2023 Balanced
Scorecard. We reviewed system workflow and data in CentralSquare to corroborate our discussions with
staff.
Does CentralSquare provide meaningful reporting to determine whether the department's objectives
are met?
We conducted interviews with staff to determine whether CentralSquare is providing meaningful
reporting to determine whether the department's objectives are met. We reviewed reporting
functionality in the CentralSquare system to corroborate interviews with staff. Finally, we gained an
understanding of the process and internal controls over creating new reports.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 5
Facilities Management Overview
The Field Operations Department is charged with the oversight, planning, management, maintenance,
and cleaning of 150 city buildings and 80 city parks. One of the significant functions of managing the
City’s facilities is performing work orders which include corrective maintenance and preventive
maintenance work orders. The work order process and the CentralSquare system used to manage work
orders is the focus of this performance audit.
The department primarily receives corrective work order requests from other city department
requesters. Examples of common corrective work order requests include hot/cold temperature calls,
door problems, lighting issues, and pest management. The City has also put into place preventive
maintenance plans covering the City’s buildings and equipment. Examples of preventive maintenance
include semi‐annual checks of doors and locks, quarterly electrical and emergency lighting checks, tri‐
annual plumbing checks, and semi‐annual HVAC checks.
The Department’s fiscal year 2023 organizational chart lists two lead technicians and 13 technicians who
are tasked with responding to work order requests. Additionally, the City contracts work order requests
to third parties, which are overseen by three contract monitors. The department’s Planner/Scheduler
routes work order requests and is the primary contact for system questions and requests. The
Planner/Scheduler was our main point of contact for the performance audit. Oversight of work orders is
provided by the Facility Management Supervisor and the Deputy Director of Field Operations.
In January 2021 the department implemented the CentralSquare system to manage work orders. The
City’s water department previously implemented the system and Facilities implemented the system
using the same license. This has limited some of the flexibility and tailoring of the software to facility
operations.
Prior to implementation of CentralSquare, the City relied upon requesters submitting work orders
through email. Implementation of CentralSquare was a significant improvement over existing processes
which has allowed for more effective and efficient tracking of work orders. The system has allowed the
department to establish workflows, accumulate useful work order data, and report on the department’s
performance in responding to work orders.
Professional Standards Applied to the Performance Audit
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 6
Are the work order and preventive maintenance processes
efficient and effective?
Methodology
We performed the following to determine whether the work order and preventive maintenance
processes are efficient and effective.
• Conducted interviews with staff to develop an understanding of corrective maintenance and
preventive maintenance processes.
• Reviewed work order/preventive maintenance policies and procedural documentation, which is
a significant internal control.
• Reviewed workflow in CentralSquare to substantiate policies, procedures and internal controls
are operating as documented.
• Reviewed results of customer service surveys sent to departments.
• Reviewed work order statistics between work crews.
• Analyzed if preventive maintenance work orders are detecting corrective maintenance, which
the Department identifies as “PM Generated Repairs.” Furthermore, analyzed whether there is
a correlation between preventive maintenance and a reduction in corrective maintenance work
orders by requesters.
Summary of Observations
Work Order Process
The City’s work order process was discussed with staff and corroborated through review of system
documentation and sampling of work orders. Below is a summary of the work order process.
Corrective Maintenance:
A. Creating Work Orders
Work requests are primarily submitted by department requesters in CentralSquare. The requester is
notified by CentralSquare via email when the work order is successfully created. The Scheduler/Planner
is responsible for turning the work request into a work order. This is typically done within a half hour of
receiving the work request. The requesters are asked to gauge in the request the severity of the issue,
which is also called the Priority. There are five priorities to choose from including Immediate, High,
Moderate, Routine, and Low. Pictures can also be uploaded by the requester, which assists technicians
in responding to requests. The Scheduler/Planner reviews the severity assigned and makes updates as
necessary. When the Planner Scheduler is out of the office, a contract monitor and the two lead
technicians turn the work requests into work orders.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 7
Work orders can also be created by Facilities staff. For example, technicians will sometimes enter work
orders during the completion of preventive maintenance work orders if additional repairs are needed
outside the scope of the preventive maintenance process. These are labeled as PM‐Generated Repairs
in CentralSquare. Citizens can submit safety issues through Glendale One which is routed to the Facilities
department. If the safety issue is related to an asset that Facilities manages, it will be routed to the
Planner/Scheduler who creates a work order in CentralSquare.
B. Assigning Work Orders
After the work order is created its routed to the appropriate staff person by the Planner/Scheduler.
Typically, the work order is routed to one of the two lead technicians or one of the three contract
monitors. One of the lead technicians is over HVAC and electrical crews and the other lead is over
plumbing and carpentry crews. When Facilities makes the decision to contract out repairs, the work
order is routed to one of the contract monitors. Some of the ongoing work assigned to contractors
include pest control, custodial, roof repairs, and gate repairs and maintenance.
The lead technicians keep the work order to complete themselves or assign it to one of the technicians.
The technicians have certain buildings/zones they are responsible for and will cover other zones when
needed. Based on the priority and zone the work order will be assigned to a technician. The technician
receives an email notification when a work order is assigned, and it also populates in their CentralSquare
work queue.
C. Completing Work Orders
Technicians are instructed to complete work in the order of priority. When a technician starts work on a
work order they are instructed to change the work order status to “in progress”. The technician reviews
the notes and documentation in the system and if necessary, follows up with the requester to further
understand the problem. Technicians are expected to document their work and expenses in the system
using tablet devices that are connected to the CentralSquare web‐based application. Comments are left
in the work order describing the work performed and labor hours are also charged to the work order on
a daily basis. If supplies were needed to complete a repair, the charges are documented in the system
and supported by invoices and receipts. Once the work order has been completed, the technician
changes the status to “closed in field.” The work order then gets routed to the lead technician to review
the work order, which includes reviewing the work order for completeness and in some instances onsite
inspection of work performed. If the work order record is complete, the lead technician will change the
status to “complete.” If the lead technician requires additional documentation or changes to the work
order, the status will be changed to “missing required data.” Other statuses used in CentralSquare to
track the progress of work orders include “pending invoice” for work orders that have been completed
but the invoice has not been received, and “closed in field asset update needed” for completed work
orders that require the Planner/Scheduler to make updates to an asset record.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 8
D. Contracted Work Orders
When work orders are routed to a contract monitor, they review the request and follow up with the
requester if necessary for additional details. When the contract monitor contracts with a vendor to
complete the work, the work order status is changed to “assigned to contractor.” Most if not all
contracted services have been procured in advance and blanket purchase orders are in place. In some
instances, multiple vendors have been qualified and the contract monitor selects the contractor based
on specialty, past‐experience, and availability. Contract monitors oversee the contractors’ completion of
the work and each time the work order is worked on, comments are left in CentralSquare. When the
work is completed the contract monitor inspects the work and changes the status to “closed in field”
and then its forwarded to a supervisor to review and close the work order.
It was noted during our review of work orders and discussion with staff that closeout of work orders was
often delayed while waiting for a final invoice to attach to the work order in CentralSquare which skews
the reporting metrics. The department is now attaching the proposal/quotes rather than the final invoice
to the work order.
E. Requester Notification
When a work order is closed the requester receives an email notification generated from CentralSquare.
Additionally, the requester receives another email from Survey 123 to assess their satisfaction with the
work performed.
Preventive Maintenance:
The City has several preventive maintenance plans in place covering HVAC systems, lighting and
electrical, doors and locks, plumbing, and other maintenance tasks. The plans are entered into a
CentralSquare template which establishes the frequency, a checklist of tasks to be performed, and who
is responsible for assigning and overseeing the preventive maintenance. The preventive maintenance
templates are then attached to buildings and equipment in the system. The first preventive maintenance
work orders were issued in August in 2021, except for HVAC preventive maintenance which were issued
in October 2021. The preventive maintenance work orders are assigned in a similar fashion to corrective
maintenance work orders and are assigned a projected completion date. The technicians complete the
preventive maintenance work orders as they have time in their schedule as these are a lower priority
than most corrective maintenance work orders. The work orders must be completed by the projected
completion date. For example, a quarterly preventive maintenance work order must be complete within
three months of issuance. A new preventive maintenance work order is not created until the completion
of the current work order.
The technician assigned to the work order completes the preventive maintenance checklist, adds
comments in the system, and attaches other supporting documentation as deemed necessary. The work
order is then reviewed by the assigned lead technician and the status is updated to completed.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 9
The department is not currently using the CentralSquare system to track and monitor contracted
preventive maintenance such as filter replacement, rollup doors, gates, and fire life safety systems.
Supplies and Parts:
Facilities maintains small quantities of supplies and parts in storerooms/bays and on the technician’s
trucks. Per discussion with Facilities staff, access to the storerooms/bays is limited with the exception of
the plumbing storeroom which is shared. The inventory is not tracked on a listing nor is it periodically
counted.
Purchases of supplies and parts are typically made on a City issued procurement card. Most of these
purchases are for current jobs, but some technicians buy extra quantities to have parts on hand for
future jobs. Parts used on a work order are charged directly to that work order in CentralSquare. If
purchases were made on a procurement card the receipt is attached to the work order. When previously
purchased parts from inventory are used on a work order, the technician estimates the cost of those
parts and charges it to the work order. The lead technicians or supervisors review the charges for
reasonableness when closing out the work order. The Facilities Management Supervisor is tasked with
reviewing and approving all technician procurement card charges for accounts payable purposes. There
is not a process in place to reconcile total procurement card charges to what was charged to work orders
in CentralSquare.
Review of Work Order/Preventive Maintenance Policies and Procedural Documentation
During implementation of CentralSquare, the City created flowcharts detailing the system work
processes. The Planner/Scheduler is the keeper of the flowcharts; however, it does not appear they have
been shared with anyone else in the department.
The department also adopted a Priority Matrix which outlines the five priority categories: Immediate,
High, Moderate, Routine, and Low with the expected response times for each and the
repairs/maintenance that would be classified in each category. The Priority Matrix is not widely shared
within the facilities department and is not shared with requesters who currently set priorities.
The Scheduler/Planner put together training resources for department requesters and technicians. The
department requester guide is shared with all new users when their account is setup in CentralSquare.
The Planner/Scheduler also follows‐up with new users to ensure they understand the process. The guide
appears to be comprehensive, and department requesters interviewed believed the process was clearly
communicated. The guides for technicians are a step‐by‐step walk through with system screen shots.
In our discussions with staff and review of system documentation there were inconsistencies in how staff
process work orders. For example, there were inconsistencies in using work order statuses, setting
priorities, leaving work order comments, assigning charges to a work order, and attaching invoices.
During our interviews several technicians expressed an interest in additional training on policies,
procedures, and best practices for using the system.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 10
Detailed Review of Workflow in CentralSquare
We haphazardly sampled 25 corrective work orders and 10 preventive maintenance work orders that
were processed during fiscal year 2022. The work orders sampled were throughout the fiscal year and
included carpentry, HVAC, electrical, plumbing, and contracted repairs. We reviewed the work orders
for the following:
Corrective Maintenance:
Work order was assigned timely under the appropriate priority per the Priority Matrix.
Work order was started timely per the Priority Matrix.
Completion of the work order is appropriately documented in accordance with system flowcharts
(comments, labor hours, parts and material charges, invoice documentation, etc.).
Lead technician reviewed and approved completed work order.
Preventive Maintenance:
Work order was assigned/completed according to the preventive maintenance schedule.
Completion of the work order is appropriately documented in accordance with system
flowcharts (comments, labor hours, parts and material charges, invoice documentation,
preventive maintenance checklist, etc.).
Lead technician reviewed and approved completed work order.
The next scheduled preventive maintenance for the asset reviewed was completed according to
the preventive maintenance schedule, if applicable.
Results of Customer Service Surveys
The department started sending customer surveys to requesters in October 2022. Surveys are sent at
the completion of work orders. When a work order is complete the system sends an email to the
requester to notify them of completion. After that email another automated email is sent with the survey
from Survey 123 software. The Planner/Scheduler is notified when a survey is completed and reviews
the results and follows up as necessary. At the end of the month the Planner/Scheduler compiles the
survey results and sends them to the Deputy Director and Director. The reports are part of the Director’s
performance review and as such shared with the Assistant City Manager.
A total of 58 responses were received from requesters for the time‐period October‐December 2022.
During that timeframe there were 1,344 work orders completed per review of CentralSquare data. This
equates to a 4% response rate. Below are the summarized results from the surveys.
97% of respondents find the work order system convenient to use.
95% of respondents were either extremely satisfied or satisfied with the service provided.
60% of respondents reported that work order requests were completed the same day and 95%
within two business days.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 11
The customer service surveys suggest that requesters believe the work order process to be efficient and
effective.
Work Order Statistics Between Work Crews
The analysis below was performed on the fiscal year 2022 Timing Report provided by management. The
objective of the analysis was to compare workload and work order completion time by crew.
Crew
Work Orders
Closed during
FY22 Technicians
Work Orders
Per Tech
Average time
from WR Created
to WO Created
(minutes)
Average time
from WO
Created to WO
Start (days)
Average time
from WR Created
to WO Closed
(days) Total (days)
Carpentry 429 2.5 172 71 3 4 4
Electrical 527 2.0 264 11 2 2 3
HVAC 442 7.0 63 12 1 3 3
Plumbing 607 2.5 243 31 1 3 3
Custodial 399 NOTE 2NOTE 2 15 8 9 9
Contracts 562 NOTE 2NOTE 2 14 25 27 27
All Average 494 3.5 185 26 7 8 8
City Average 501 3.5 185 31 2 3 3
Contracted Average 481 NOTE 2NOTE 2 15 17 18 18
NOTE 1: The above statistics don’t include preventive maintenance work orders.
NOTE 2: Custodial and contracts are contracted services. The City does employ a contract monitor who coordinates the work
of the contracted custodial services.
NOTE 3: The technician count also includes the HVAC crew Lead Tech and the Carpentry and Plumbing Lead Tech split
between the crews.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 12
The following observations were made with respect to this analysis:
Work requests are converted to work orders in less than 30 minutes on average.
Non‐contracted work orders are started on average within two days.
Non‐contracted work orders are completed on average within three days.
Work orders assigned to City staff are completed quicker than contracted repairs and custodial
work. Custodial and other contracted work orders are completed on average within nine days
and 27 days, respectively. This is likely attributed to the lead time in sourcing a contractor and
the complexity of the work order.
Electrical has the largest work order load per technician and quickest completion time.
HVAC work orders completed per technician is 66% less than the average. The reason for this
could be attributed to the complexity and the labor hours required for HVAC calls. It was noted
that the preventive maintenance on HVAC appears to require more labor hours than other crews.
The above analysis was limited to corrective maintenance work orders. The analysis below is of
preventive maintenance. To perform our analysis, we exported from the system the “Active PM
Schedules Listing” which totaled 599. The next step was applying the frequency to the preventive
maintenance schedules to calculate the total preventive maintenance work orders of 1,860 required
annually. Below is the breakdown by crew.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 13
Analysis of Preventive Maintenance Generated Repairs and Comparison of Preventive Maintenance
to Corrective Maintenance Work Orders
During calendar year 2022, there were 248 preventive maintenance generated repairs, which are repairs
that were identified during routine preventive maintenance. This is a rate of 14% on total preventive
maintenance work orders of 1,837.
We also performed an analysis of calendar year 2022 monthly preventive maintenance work orders
compared to corrective maintenance work orders to determine if preventive maintenance is resulting in
fewer corrective maintenance work orders; however, it appears they are positively correlated.
Increases/decreases in corrective maintenance seemed to track increases/decreases in preventive
maintenance likely due to PM‐Generated repairs. Over the long‐term if effective preventive
maintenance is being performed its reasonably expected that non‐PM Generated corrective
maintenance orders would decrease.
Crew PM Workorders Interval Total PMs
Carpentry 2 3 months 8
Carpentry 179 6 months 358
Carpentry 8 45 days 64
Caprentry 189 430
Electrical 2 1 month 24
Electrical 156 3 months 624
Electrical 19 6 months 38
Electrical 177 686
HVAC 1 1 week 52
HVAC 15 1 month 180
HVAC 123 6 months 246
HVAC 139 478
Plumbing 86 4 months 258
Plumbing 8 52 weeks 8
Plumbing 94 266
Total 599 1,860
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 14
Conclusions, Findings and Recommendations
The Facilities work order process is generally efficient and effective; however, we have identified
several recommendations to improve the process and controls. See recommendations #1‐7 below.
Findings and Recommendations:
Finding:
1. The City does not have formal policies and procedures governing the work order process. The
flowcharts and guides that do exist are helpful; however, they are not widely shared with
stakeholders (Technicians, Contract Monitors, CIP Managers and to a certain degree requesters).
Additionally, the process has evolved since implementation when much of the material was
created.
During our review of work orders and discussion with staff, we noted work order statuses were
not appropriately used. Most often work orders were not placed in progress by technicians
moving from work order assignment directly to closed in field. This is problematic as it does not
allow the department to effectively monitor completion of work orders and later measure the
timeliness of work orders being addressed. Furthermore, statuses are an important tool for
communicating the work order progress with requesters.
Finally, we noted the following deviations from the City’s established procedures in the work
orders sampled for review.
For 11 of 35 (31%) corrective and preventive maintenance work orders reviewed, the
technician did not attach an invoice/receipt to the work order.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 15
For four of 25 (16%) corrective maintenance work orders reviewed, the work order was not
addressed timely within the established priority standards.
For four of 25 (16%) corrective maintenance work orders reviewed, the work order's priority
was misclassified per the Priority Matrix.
For four of 35 (11%) corrective and preventive maintenance work orders reviewed, the
Planner/Scheduler signed off the work as complete rather than a supervisor. All four were
contracted work orders.
For two of 10 (20%) preventive maintenance work orders reviewed, the technician did not
complete the preventive maintenance checklist. Additionally, for one work order the checklist
for the subsequent preventive maintenance work order was not completed.
For one of 10 (10%) preventive maintenance work orders reviewed, the work order was not
completed within the timeframe set for the preventive maintenance plan.
For one of 10 (10%) preventive maintenance work orders reviewed, the subsequent
preventive maintenance work order was not completed timely.
For several of the work orders reviewed, the technician/contract monitor did not place the
work order in process. Rather they changed the status directly to closed in field.
Recommendation:
We recommend the department develop formal policies and procedures over the work order
process and follow up with designing training materials for technicians and supervisors. The
department may consider setting up a course in the City Learning Management System (LMS) to
automate the process, increase consistency, and have an on‐demand resource to staff.
Management Response:
Contact Person: Diane Samples, Daren Frank
Anticipated Completion Date: Step 1 was completed in May 2023. Steps 2 and 3 will be
completed by December 2023.
Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with the finding and has identified the
following corrective action steps:
1. Review the work order statuses and edit or remove some from the list as necessary.
Describe them and explain their use
2. Create policies and procedures for technicians and supervisors formalizing the work order
process. Including the process for attaching the invoice/receipt to the work order,
addressing the work order timely, how and when to change the priority, what the
expectations are based on the priority, and completing the checklist items on a preventive
maintenance work order. Also, create specific guidelines on who can and how to
complete the work orders.
3. Create new training documents for technicians and supervisors.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 16
Finding:
2. The City is not using CentralSquare to track contracted preventive maintenance.
Recommendation:
The City should evaluate whether contracted preventive maintenance should be tracked,
monitored, and documented within the CentralSquare system. Using the system will likely
increase efficiencies and improve controls over the administration of contracted preventive
maintenance work orders through the utilization of established workflows and other system
tools.
Management Response:
Contact Person: Diane Samples, Contract Monitors, Sonia Sarmiento
Anticipated Completion Date: April 2024
Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with the finding and has identified the
following corrective action steps:
1. Create new preventive maintenance plans.
2. Create the preventive maintenance schedules in CentralSquare.
3. Diane Samples will add to the process and create new training documents.
Finding:
3. The department does not have a process in place to reconcile technician procurement card
charges to charges to work orders. The reconciliation would ensure work order records are
complete with all appropriate charges, and may also detect inappropriate use of procurement
cards.
Recommendation:
We recommended that a reconciliation of procurement card charges to procurement card work
order charges be performed monthly in conjunction with review and approval of procurement
card charges for accounts payable purposes.
Management Response:
Contact Person: Diane Samples, Todd Blair, Daren Frank
Anticipated Completion Date: June 2024
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 17
Planned Corrective Action:
Management concurs with the finding and has identified the following corrective action steps:
1. Create the process to reconcile procurement card charges to procurement card work
order charges as a pilot program for one of the shop categories (carpentry, HVAC,
plumbing, etc.). Near the end of the pilot period, Facilities Management will analyze the
results and amount of effort versus the benefit, and determine whether to expand the
process to the remaining shop categories or discontinue it altogether.
2. Create new training documents for responsible parties.
Finding:
4. The City maintains limited supplies and parts in supply rooms and on the technicians’ vehicles.
Each technician purchases supplies and parts when needed for a job and sometimes purchase
excess to have additional stock on hand. During our review of work orders there were some
instances of delayed work order completion due to waiting on parts. Furthermore, the existing
controls over inventory are minimal with no inventory listing maintained nor periodic physical
inventories. Finally, the value of parts used from inventory are estimated by technicians and
charged to the work orders.
Recommendation:
The City should consider building up inventories for each crew based on historical usage of
supplies and parts. The City may also consider taking inventory off trucks and placing it in a
centrally controlled location. All purchases would go through a central purchasing system and be
maintained in an inventory tracking system. This will allow the City to better assign costs to work
orders rather than estimating, reduce lead time, staff time, and take advantage of bulk ordering
discounts. This will also significantly reduce the number of purchases made with procurement
cards. Finally, the City should investigate whether the warehouse module in CentralSquare could
be used to track inventory.
Management Response:
Contact Person: Diane Samples, Todd Blair, Daren Frank
Anticipated Completion Date: June 2024
Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with the finding and has identified the
following corrective action steps:
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 18
1. Give technicians access to open purchase orders at nearby supply houses so they can
place orders for parts/materials and pick them up or have them delivered. And create the
process where the technicians will use the work order number as the reference number
and upload the receipt and amount into CentralSquare.
2. Develop a system for storing inventory, either on the trucks or in bays.
3. Create new training documents for technicians and supervisors.
Finding:
5. The Priority Matrix is not shared with requesters who are tasked with judging the
severity/priority of their work requests. This has resulted in inconsistencies in setting priorities,
which dictates the order in which work orders are addressed by technicians. Additionally,
incorrect assignment of priorities makes it difficult to assess whether the City is responding to
work orders in a timely fashion. The Priority Matrix is also not widely shared within facilities
making it difficult for staff to properly update the priority when necessary. During our discussions
with staff, review of system documentation, and sample of work orders, priorities were only
changed by staff some of the time.
Recommendation:
We recommend automating the assignment of priorities based on the “problem” classification
assigned to the work order. Facilities staff should have access to the Priority Matrix to equip them
to change the priority when necessary. Finally, its recommended that the Priority Matrix be
updated with additional common problems/repairs experienced since implementation of the
system.
Management Response:
Contact Person: Diane Samples, Daren Frank
Anticipated Completion Date: Step 1 was completed in April 2023. Step 2 and 3 will be completed
by December 2023.
Planned Corrective Action:
Management partially concurs with the finding and plans to review and update the Priority
Matrix. Management has identified the following corrective action steps:
1. Review the current Priority Matrix and update it as needed.
2. Formalize the process, detailing the priorities and the expectations associated with them.
Explain to the Building Maintenance Leads and supervisors that they can adjust the
priority based on the matrix and personal knowledge of the building/asset and its use.
3. Create new training documents for technicians and supervisors.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 19
Finding:
6. During review of work orders there were instances of work orders being attached to a building
rather than a specific piece of equipment which failed or roof that was damaged. Additionally,
for one of 35 work orders reviewed, the technician left comments and pictures of asset record
updates but did not place the work order in "asset update needed" status to ensure the asset
database was updated.
Recommendation:
We recommended that work orders are documented at their lowest level to maintain a robust
work history on assets. The responsibility should be on the technicians to properly make updates
to the work order. Additionally, its recommended that proper statuses are used to ensure asset
updates are made by the Planner/Scheduler.
Management Response:
Contact Person: Diane Samples
Anticipated Completion Date: December 2023.
Planned Corrective Action:
Management concurs with the finding and will develop policies and procedures for technicians
and supervisors. Management has identified the following corrective action steps:
1. The equipment list has already been modified so that the technicians will have an easier
time finding the equipment, and the Planner/Scheduler has scheduled their training.
Formalize the work order process, including how to attach equipment to a work order,
and what to do with a work order if the asset needs updating in CentralSquare.
2. Create the process for properly updating the asset information.
3. Create new training documents for technicians and supervisors.
Finding:
7. The customer survey response rate is low at approximately 4%.
Recommendation:
The City may consider making some changes to the survey process or using incentives to increase
participation.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 20
Management Response:
Contact Person: Diane Samples
Anticipated Completion Date: Completed in May 2023.
Planned Corrective Action:
Management does partially concur with the finding. We have updated the instructions and
emailed them to current requesters with added information about the survey. These instructions
will be sent to new requesters as they are added. We noticed an immediate uptick in responses
once the new instructions were sent. Requesters should not be incentivized to complete the
survey as we want honest feedback when our customers want to provide it.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 21
Are work orders and preventive maintenance being
completed in a timely manner?
Methodology
We conducted interviews with staff to develop an understanding of whether corrective maintenance
and preventive maintenance is being completed timely. We discussed how timeliness is determined and
reviewed the Priority Matrix and Preventive Maintenance Schedules. We reviewed work order statistics
in CentralSquare and compiled data for report presentation.
Summary of Observations
One of the difficulties we encountered with evaluating work order response times was the frequency of
not using work order statuses properly. For example, of the 2,972 completed corrective work orders on
the fiscal year 2022 Timing Report, 1,990 were never put into progress. Also listed in the work orders is
a manually entered start date. This field is less reliable due to human error; however, we determined
using this field would be most advantageous as we have data for the entire population. There were some
instances of start dates entered after creation dates; which showcases the susceptibility to error;
however, most of the start dates appeared reasonable.
Another challenge of evaluating timeliness of corrective work orders based on priority is the potential
for a work order to be misclassified by requesters and not updated by facilities staff. See
Recommendation #5. We also noted a few misclassifications of priority during our sampling of work
orders.
Corrective Maintenance:
As previously mentioned, there are five priorities assigned to work orders by requesters. See below for
response times for each priority.
Immediate < 24 hours
High < 48 hours
Moderate < 7days
Routine < 30 days
Low ‐ No specific time frame
During calendar year 2022, 3,549 corrective maintenance work orders were started, most of which were
completed. Response times were mostly in alignment with priority standards. Overall 91% of work orders
were completed on time. The low priority work orders have a variable time frame and thus a different
approach was taken in evaluating timeliness. Out of 160 low priority work orders, the average response
time was approximately three days. Detailed analysis of each priority is presented below.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 22
Immediate: These work orders are considered very serious and need to be started within 24 hours. Of
the 480 work orders in this category there were only 34 that fell outside the priority standard. This means
93% were started within 24 hours. Upon further analysis of the late work orders only 13 were completed
by City staff, the remainder were contracted.
High: These work orders are considered serious and need to be started within 48 hours. Of the 1,655
work orders in this category there were 188 that fell outside the priority standard. This means 86% were
started within 48 hours. Upon further analysis of the late work orders 113 were completed by City staff,
the remainder were contracted.
Moderate: These work orders are considered important but not serious and need to be started within
7 days. Of the 1,051 work orders in this category there were 92 that fell outside the priority standard.
This means 91% were started within 7 days.
Routine: These work orders need to be started within 30 days. Of the 1,356 work orders in this category
991 are preventive maintenance work orders which are excluded from this analysis. Only 18 of the
corrective maintenance work orders were not completed within the priority standard. This means 95%
were started within 30 days.
In addition to reviewing response times in relation to priority, we also analyzed response times by
problem code. The graph below shows the top eight problem codes for calendar year 2022 with their
respective response times. The response times appear to be appropriate considering the severity of the
problem codes assigned.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 23
Preventive Maintenance:
During calendar year 2022, a total of 1,864 preventive maintenance work orders were started, most of
which were completed. The graph below shows the work orders by crew. Electrical has the most work
orders. Part of the reason for this is due to how preventive work orders are structured. Work orders can
be assigned by room, floor, building, etc. While HVAC may have one work order for a building, electrical
in that same building could have 10 different work orders. Work orders can also be as a simple as a walk
through to ensure lights are operational, or something more in depth like checking equipment readings.
Of the completed work orders, 170 were started late. This is a 91% on time completion rate. Below is a
breakdown by crew of late preventive maintenance work orders.
0 200 400 600 800
Total
4 252
406 499
703
PMs January ‐December
2022
Contracts PLUMBING CARPENTRY HVAC ELECTRICAL
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 24
Conclusions, Findings and Recommendations
The City is responding to corrective maintenance work orders in a timely manner and completing most
preventive maintenance work orders on time. We have the following recommendation to improve the
City’s process for monitoring timeliness of work order completion. See recommendation #8 below.
Findings and Recommendations:
Finding:
8. The City evaluates timeliness of corrective work order response and completion using the Timing
Report. This report does not consider the priority assigned to the work order. Additionally, the
City's preventive maintenance is not being evaluated for timeliness as it’s not represented on the
Timing Report.
Recommendation:
We recommended the City consider work order priority when evaluating the timeliness of work
order response times. This would include updating the monthly timing report to include
priorities. Additionally, we recommend the City review preventive maintenance completion
times compared to the projected completion date in the system which varies depending on the
schedule assigned to the preventive maintenance. Finally, we recommend the City assign a
priority status of low rather than routine to preventive maintenance as frequency varies from
weekly to annually.
Management Response:
Contact Person: Diane Samples, IT Staff
Anticipated Completion Date: Step 1 was completed in March 2023. Step 2 was completed in
May 2023. Step 3 will be completed by December 2023.
Crew Late PM WOs
Carpentry 9
Electrical 54
HVAC 79
Plumbing 28
Total 170
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 25
Planned Corrective Action:
Management partially concurs with the finding. Priorities will be added to the Timing Report for
corrective maintenance work orders and edit the preventive maintenance completed on time
report so that it pulls accurate data. The following corrective action steps have been identified:
1. The priority field has been added to the Timing Report, we have revamped how the report
is created and viewed.
2. Planner/Scheduler has changed the priority on PMs to low.
3. We will request an edit of the Timing Report to include PM work orders, from a vendor
with assistance from the City’s IT department we will likely run these reports separately.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 26
Is CentralSquare (formerly Lucity) being used by Facilities
Management to accomplish the department’s objectives?
Methodology
We conducted interviews with staff to develop an understanding of how CentralSquare is being used to
measure and manage relevant key performance indicators in the Department’s fiscal year 2023 Balanced
Scorecard. We reviewed system workflow and data in CentralSquare to corroborate our discussions with
staff.
Summary of Observations
During review of the Facilities fiscal year 2023 Balanced Scorecard, we noted the following Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) which are connected to the work order process:
1.1 Customer Engagement.
2.1 Asset Management.
2.2 Maintenance Program Performance.
2.3 Carpentry Preventive Maintenance
Schedule Compliance.
2.4 Electrical Preventive Maintenance Schedule
Compliance.
2.5 HVAC Preventive Maintenance Schedule
Compliance.
2.6 Plumbing Preventive Maintenance Schedule
Compliance.
2.7 Facilities Condition Index.
3.2 Carpentry Corrective Maintenance.
3.3 Contracts Corrective Maintenance.
3.4 Custodial Corrective Maintenance.
3.5 Electrical Corrective Maintenance.
3.6 HVAC Corrective Maintenance.
3.7 Plumbing Corrective Maintenance.
3.9 Community Outreach.
Below we have documented how Facilities is using CentralSquare to accomplish each of the relevant
objectives.
1.1 Customer Engagement – Starting in October 2022, the City is sending out customer surveys. The City
wrote a script to send out surveys to requesters using Survey 123 after the work order status was
changed to complete. See Task I for additional information and analysis of customer surveys.
2.1 Asset Management ‐ The City is in the beginning phases of using CentralSquare for asset
management. Per review of the asset listing in CentralSquare, the City has 162 buildings and nearly 3,000
pieces of equipment in the database. Information tracked in the database includes Asset ID, a unique ID
which identifies the asset as a facility asset, location of the asset, and type of asset. Also included in the
database is the location, equipment category, status, condition, manufacturer, model, serial number,
installed date, probability of failure rating, consequence of failure rating, etc. It was noted that some of
the asset records in the system appear to be incomplete missing fields such install date (230 records),
serial numbers (1,242 records), condition assessments (210 records), probability of failure ratings (240
records).
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 27
It is clearly a goal of the Department to build out the database per review of the KPIs and in discussions
with management. Having a robust asset database will inform decisions such as repair or replace and
budgeting, as well as equip the technicians with useful information in responding to calls. During our
interviews with technicians they were in support of building asset histories that are accessible when
responding to trouble calls.
2.2 Maintenance Program Performance – The City is using the system to track completed work orders.
The metric monitors total opened to total closed; but does not consider whether the work orders were
performed timely.
2.3‐2.6 Preventive Maintenance Schedules Compliance ‐ The City is using the system to track completed
preventive maintenance work orders. It should be noted that contracted preventive maintenance is not
currently tracked in the system.
2.7 Facilities Condition Index (FCI) – The City is not connecting corrective work orders (labor and
materials) to the asset level, and the asset database is not completely built out with asset replacement
values.
3.2‐3.7 Corrective Maintenance – The City is using the system to track completed work orders.
3.9 Community Outreach – Requesters have access to the CentralSquare system to review the status of
submitted work orders at any time. In discussions with department requesters, they expressed the status
was not always clear. This is due to minimal comments left in the work orders and only receiving
automated email updates when a work order is created and completed.
Conclusions, Findings and Recommendations
CentralSquare is being used by facilities management to accomplish the department’s objectives. We
have identified some recommendations to further leverage the capabilities of the system in pursuit of
department objectives. See recommendations #9‐11 below.
Findings and Recommendations:
Finding:
9. The City is working towards building out the asset database in CentralSquare.
Recommendation:
The City should consider the following in its development of the asset database in CentralSquare:
Incorporate asset ID conventions into the formal policies and procedures and training
materials.
The City should perform a full inventory of assets in conjunction with the task to ensure
completeness of the asset database.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 28
Once the asset database is completed, we recommended the City utilize the data to assist
the technicians in responding to work orders including requiring the review of warranty
information and asset history before a work order is started and updating the asset record
each time its accessed. Additionally, corrective maintenance work orders should be
connected back to the equipment that failed, if applicable.
Management Response:
Contact Person: Diane Samples, Todd Blair, Daren Frank
Anticipated Completion Date: June 2024
Planned Corrective Action:
Management concurs with the finding and plans to add all City equipment to CentralSquare. The
following corrective action steps have been identified:
1. Set dates with the technicians on when equipment sheets are due.
2. Staff will add the equipment to CentralSquare.
3. Formalize procedure to adding the equipment to the work orders and train technicians to
review the history of the asset prior to completing the repair.
4. Create new training documents for technicians and supervisors.
Finding:
10. The Tier III Balanced Scorecard Key Performance Indicator 2.2 – Maintenance Program
Performance is measuring the percentage of work orders completed without consideration of
timeliness.
Recommendation:
We recommended the KPI be changed to percentage of on‐time work orders per the Priority
Matrix and to be completed date for preventive maintenance. This data is readily available in the
system. Furthermore, the Department should ensure any revisions to Tier III Balanced Scorecard
KPIs are in alignment with the recently revised Tier II Balanced Scorecard.
Management Response:
Contact Person: Diane Samples, Daren Frank, IT Staff
Anticipated Completion Date: July 2024
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 29
Planned Corrective Action:
Management concurs with the finding. The KPI will be added to the Tier III Balanced Scorecard
for fiscal year 2024. Diane will work with IT staff to edit the PMs Completed On‐time Report.
Finding:
11. We identified opportunities for the City to increase communication with requesters.
Recommendation:
Encourage technicians to leave comments each time a work order is accessed and provide
updates in the comments when delays are experienced. Consider providing more automated
email alerts to requesters of changes to status such as “waiting for contractor” and "in progress".
Management Response:
Contact Person: Diane Samples and Todd Blair
Anticipated Completion Date: December 2023
Planned Corrective Action:
Management partially concurs with the finding. Policies and procedures will be created for
technicians and supervisors. The following corrective action steps have been identified:
1. Formalize the work order process. Including examples of good effective comments.
However, the current version of CentralSquare will not allow for email updates to
requesters when a status is changed. Staff would consider adding this in the future if this
enhancement becomes available.
2. Create new training documents.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 30
Does CentralSquare provide meaningful reporting to
determine whether the department's objectives are met?
Methodology
We conducted interviews with staff to determine whether CentralSquare is providing meaningful
reporting to determine whether the department's objectives are met. We reviewed reporting
functionality in the CentralSquare system to corroborate interviews with staff. Finally, we gained an
understanding of the process and internal controls over creating new reports.
Summary of Observations
CentralSquare System:
The CentralSquare system has over 200 built‐in reports. The system also allows users to make
customizable reports. These are created in a different software, Crystal Reporting, then uploaded into
CentralSquare. The system does allow for much of the data to be exported. Additionally, the
Planner/Scheduler uses the filter function which allows for drill down into the data.
Per our interviews with facilities staff and the IT Analyst who supports the software; no employee has
been identified with the expertise needed to create a custom report in Crystal Reporting. Reports that
were created for Facilities were created from existing Water Department reports with some tailoring by
a former Water employee. Currently, there is not a formal process in place to update or create new
reports including subjecting them to scrutiny before use.
Reports in Use:
The City generates five reports monthly which include the Timing Report, Aging Report, Monthly Report,
Location Cost Report, and Labor Hour Report. The reports are emailed to management after they are
created and manipulated by the Planner/Scheduler. For a period of time management and the lead
technicians received the Aging Report in conjunction with their bi‐weekly meetings. Below is a
description of each report and its uses.
Timing Report ‐ This report shows how long it took to close work orders for a date range selected. The
following data is captured: time to create a work order from a work request, time to begin a work order
once it’s been created, time to close a work order from the time the request was made, and time to
close a work order from the time the work order was started.
This report would be more valuable to the City if it included work order priority. Additionally, the report
does not include preventive maintenance work orders. Currently the report is modified by the
Planner/Scheduler with a macro which is one more step creating inefficiencies and opportunities for
error.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 31
Aging Report ‐ This report lists all work orders, both preventive maintenance and corrective
maintenance that have not been completed. This report is used to ensure the City is still working on
older work orders. This report would be more valuable to the City if it included work order priority and
preventive maintenance completion dates. This would signify work orders that are aged beyond priority
standards and due dates rather than days agreed from creation. This report also requires manual editing
to properly filter for relevant data.
Monthly Report ‐ This report shows how many preventive maintenance and corrective maintenance
work orders were assigned and completed by each crew in the previous month and current fiscal year
to date. This report is run two times and then combined. This is an extra step which is inefficient and
more error prone.
Location Costs Report ‐ This report shows how much Facilities spent on each building from work orders
for a date range selected. It was noted that the report required manual editing to utilize the report.
Labor Hours Report ‐ This report provides the total number of labor hours and tasks performed for each
Facility technician for a date range selected.
Balanced Scorecard Reporting:
The only report that is used to report on performance KPIs is the Monthly Report. It is not appropriate
to use this report for KPIs 2.3‐2.6 as it does not measure whether preventive maintenance was on time.
Additionally, the City has not developed asset management reports including one to report on KPI 2.7
Facilities Condition Index.
Conclusions, Findings and Recommendations
CentralSquare has the capabilities to provide robust reporting on the department’s balanced scorecard
objectives. Facilities is not fully utilizing the system’s reporting functions due to a lack of training and
guidance. Furthermore, the City has not designed appropriate policies and procedures over testing
reports for accuracy before they are used. See recommendations #12‐15.
Findings and Recommendations:
Finding:
12. The City is limited in creating new system reports due to a lack of training and guidance of Crystal
Reporting. Additionally, there is not a formal process in place to test and review the accuracy of
reports before they are used.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 32
Recommendation:
The City should train an employee on Crystal Reporting in order to properly write reports that
are on demand, assist management in providing appropriate oversight, and measure the
effectiveness of the work order process against established KPIs. We recommended the City also
establish policies and procedures over reviewing the accuracy of reports before they are widely
used to support decision making and measure performance.
Management Response:
Contact Person: Diane Samples, IT Staff
Anticipated Completion Date: Fiscal Year 2024
Planned Corrective Action:
Management concurs with the finding and a future staff member will be added to IT in fiscal year
2024 who will be assigned this responsibility.
Finding:
13. Report distribution is limited within the department. The managers and supervisors receive the
standard reports monthly. The lead technicians previously received the Aging Report bi‐weekly.
In our interviews with the technicians and contract monitors they do not receive any reports from
the system.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that facilities staff receive training on the usefulness of the current reports
and future reports, how to use them, and where they can be accessed. For example, it would be
helpful for technicians and contract monitors to periodically review the Aging Report.
Management Response:
Contact Person: Diane Samples, Todd Blair, Sonia Sarmiento, Daren Frank
Anticipated Completion Date: December 2023
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 33
Planned Corrective Action:
Management partially concurs with the finding. Reports are currently distributed to City
Manager’s office, throughout the department, including the Facilities supervisors to manage the
load. Management may decide which reports they would like shared with Technicians and
Contract Monitors, how often and how they would like them shared, then we will distribute the
reports.
Finding:
14. The City has not created asset management reports.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City build reports that will assist management in decision making
such as repair or replace decisions, lookup warranty information, and provide relevant asset
history and condition reports to assist technicians in responding to work orders.
Management Response:
Contact Person: Diane Samples, Daren Frank
Anticipated Completion Date: October 2023
Planned Corrective Action:
Management concurs with the finding. There are reports in the system that will report on assets.
Staff will review these reports and decide which ones will accomplish the goals.
Finding:
15. The City is improperly using the Monthly Report to report work order performance for Tier III
KPIs 2.3‐2.6. The City is reporting preventive maintenance completed rather than preventive
maintenance that was completed on time.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City build a report that will effectively report on percentage of on‐
time preventive maintenance work orders completed.
City of Glendale, Arizona
Field Operations ‐ Facilities Management Performance Audit Page | 34
Management Response:
Contact Person: Diane Samples, IT Staff
Anticipated Completion Date: March 2024
Planned Corrective Action:
Management concurs with the finding. The City will utilize the vendor or internal IT staff to edit
the PM Completed On‐Time Report (same report in finding #10).