Order 939073: Performance Measurement and Management Strategy Project

The Greater Cleveland

Regional Transit Authority

Paratransit Scheduling/Call Taking Performance and Productivity Study

Final Report May 2007

Office of Management & Budget

Submitted By:

Office of Management and Budget Grace Gallucci, Executive Director

Project Team Leader

Floun’say R. Caver, Ph.D. Manager of Budgets

Project Team Members

Kay Sutula Budget Management Analyst

William Miller

Budget Management Analyst

Herlinda Bradley Budget Management Analyst

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

Office of Management & Budget

Accurate, Timely, Professional

Executive Summary Introduction As part of its compliance efforts, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), through its Office of Civil Rights, conducts periodic assessments of American with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary Paratransit services. In March 2000, the Office of Civil Rights conducted such a review of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (Authority) to assess whether capacity constraints existed in its ADA complementary Paratransit services. The FTA reported several violations with the Authority, including deficiencies in trip denials, on-time performance, and telephone capacity (telephone wait times). Since March 2000, the Authority has submitted, to the FTA, quarterly progress reports on the deficient areas. In July 2006, the FTA notified the Authority that deficiencies still existed and that immediate action was needed to address the issues. In response, the Authority developed and submitted to the FTA, a corrective action plan. A major component of this plan was for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to conduct an in-depth productivity analysis of the call-taking/reservation functions and develop performance management standards. This report is a culmination of the productivity and performance analysis of the call-taking function of the Paratransit District. Findings OMB analyzed call data and department/agent performance and conducted site visits, interviews and surveys. In addition, OMB conducted a peer group analysis with other Great Lakes transit authorities. OMB identified key gaps in the call-taking/reservation functions and the Paratransit District’s policies and procedures. Specifically, key findings included (1) the current culture is not conducive to a high performance environment, (2) the department lacks a consistent organizational structure, which weakens productivity, communication, and administrative authority, (3) agent productivity varied widely, where top performers were up to 100 percent more productive than the lowest performers, (4) average talk time analysis exhibited large variations, where the most productive agent had an average talk time of 2:59 and the lowest performing agent’s average was 6:13, (5) call taker availability differed widely among agents, from 32 percent to 83 percent availability, (6) the average telephone call wait time was nine minutes, and (7) compared to peer transit agencies, the Authority has the highest pay structure for call-takers/reservationists. Recommendations After a full analysis of the data and performance, four major improvements were recommended. These include (1) call takers must take the first trip option suggested by Trapeze (scheduling software), (2) combine Paratransit’s call-takers/reservationists with those in the Telephone Information Center to create a unified call center, (3) reclassify all CARSS Operator (0457) positions as Grade 3 CRT Telephone Information Clerks, a title and function similar current Telephone Operators (0371), and (4) create and track performance related to average wait time, talk time per call, number of calls taken per hour, and percent of time available. Using the above recommendations, the department will not need additional staff to reduce wait time to the FTA standard.

1

Table of Contents

METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................................2 SITE VISITS/OBSERVATIONS/INTERVIEWS ...................................................................................................................2 SURVEYS..................................................................................................................................................................2 DATA ANALYSIS & DOCUMENT ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................2

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................................3 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................4

SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................................6 JOB FUNCTION ANALYSIS .....................................................................................................................................7

SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................................9 PARATRANSIT DEPARTMENT CULTURE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................10

CARSS OPERATORS ..............................................................................................................................................10 Interpretation of Survey Results - CARSS Operators...............................................................................12

DISPATCHERS .........................................................................................................................................................13 Interpretation of Survey Results - Dispatchers ..........................................................................................15

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................16 INDIVIDUAL AGENT PERFORMANCE ..........................................................................................................................16

Number of Calls Answered per Hour ..........................................................................................................16 Average Talk Time per Call ..........................................................................................................................17 Percentage of Time Available ......................................................................................................................19

DEPARTMENTAL PERFORMANCE ..............................................................................................................................22 Incoming vs. Answered Calls .......................................................................................................................22 Abandoned Calls ............................................................................................................................................23 Average Wait Time.........................................................................................................................................24

ANALYSIS OF PEER TRANSIT AGENCIES..........................................................................................................25 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................25

QUEUING THEORY AND STAFFING ANALYSIS .................................................................................................28 QUEUING THEORY ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................28 SUMMARY...............................................................................................................................................................30

RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................................31 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................31 MAJOR RECOMMENDATION # 1 ................................................................................................................................32 MAJOR RECOMMENDATION # 2 ................................................................................................................................32 MAJOR RECOMMENDATION # 3 ................................................................................................................................32 MAJOR RECOMMENDATION # 4 ................................................................................................................................33 OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................................34

POST ANALYSIS UPDATE.....................................................................................................................................35 APPENDIX I – CARSS/SCHEDULERS SURVEY...................................................................................................36 APPENDIX II – DISPATCHERS SURVEY ..............................................................................................................38

2

Methodology In order to obtain a complete picture of the call taking/reservation operation, culture, and performance, our research team employed a multi-method research technique. This process included site visits and observations, interviews, surveys, data analyses, and document analyses. The multi-method research technique allows for triangulation, thereby strengthening our ability to understand the section’s demands and issues. In addition, the multi-methods technique strengthens our ability to make recommendations that incorporate a holistic understanding of the business unit. Site Visits/Observations/Interviews Our team spent over 60 person-hours conducting site visits, observations, and interviews. The bulk of the hours were spent directly observing the CARSS1 Operators and Dispatchers. In addition, we spent time off site observing LakeTran’s call-taking and dispatch functions. Our interviews included Paratransit personnel, the Supervisors of Telephone Information and Supervisor of the Customer Service Center (both in the Marketing Department) along with LakeTran’s Customer Service Manager. Surveys OMB conducted two separate surveys. The first was an organizational culture survey given to the Paratransit scheduling and dispatch personnel. The second was an email survey sent to Great Lakes peer Agencies. We collected 11 surveys (out of 14) from the CARSS Operators, a 79 percent response rate; and 4 surveys (out of 6) from the Dispatchers, a 67 percent response rate. The objective of these questionnaires was to assess the organizational culture. Specifically, the questions were designed to test for a performance culture and to test the state of relationships in the sections. The primary survey methodology used Likert Scale questions. Respondents were asked to rate their agreement with each question. The scale used the following format: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, and 4 = Strongly Agree. In addition, the survey allowed for three open-ended questions.

1) How can the Scheduling Section improve customer call-wait time, the number of calls taken each day, the number of trips booked, and reduce the number of abandoned calls?

2) Other suggestions for improvements? 3) Identify the strength and weaknesses of the scheduling/dispatch section.

We also distributed surveys to comparable transit properties in the Great Lakes region2. We distributed, via email, seven surveys and received five (71 percent response rate). The surveys gathered information on functional testing, outsourced vs. in-house call centers, and call-taking metrics. Data Analysis & Document Analysis Our team analyzed 2005 and 2006 call performance data provided by the Paratransit and Information Systems departments. The data came from the telephone information system. The main reports used were the ACD (Auto Call Distribution) Incoming Activity (#9) and the Calls Waiting (#54). In addition, we analyzed current job descriptions, organizational charts, staffing, and budget data. This helped us in understanding the job requirements, accountability structures, and budgetary impacts.

1 CARSS = Computer Assisted Routine Scheduling System 2 See page 26 for a copy of the survey.

3

Financial Analysis The Transportation section is roughly 71 percent of the entire Paratransit District budget. Included in this section are salaries, purchased transportation, and a minimal amount for office supplies, training, and leases. The functions include Bus Operations, Dispatch, CARSS Operations, and Transportation Administration. The section’s expenses have increased 11.7 percent from 2004 to 2006 (end of year estimate) and 8.2 percent from 2005 (Table 1).

The scheduling and dispatch sections account for a significant portion of the Transportation section budget. The total cost (direct labor) is 13.7 percent of the budget at $1.28 million.

Bus Operations 85.3%

Administration 1.0%

Dispatch 4.6%

CARSS Operations

9.1%

Figure 1

2006 Paratransit Transportation Section Budget

Tansportation FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 Administration $92,095.38 $97,464.94 $96,396.60 Operations $7,099,058.58 $7,460,586.56 $7,954,163.66 Dispatch $379,795.26 $388,360.51 $430,956.00 CARSS Operations $783,142.24 $677,382.73 $851,945.51

$8,354,091.46 $8,623,794.74 $9,333,461.77

Table 1

Paratransit Transportation Section Budgets

4

Organizational Structure Analysis During our analysis of the organizational structure, we noticed inconsistencies in the department’s structure. Our analysis identified three distinct organizational structures, seen below. The resulting effect of multiple organizational configurations is a lack of accountability, communication, and performance. Figure 2 represents the Authority-approved organizational plan seen in the Budget Book, Department Budget section. In this plan, the Transportation Manager reports directly to the District Director and supervises the CRT Road Supervisors, CRT Dispatchers, and CARSS Operators.

Staff Assistant 505 (1)

CRT Operator 137

(106)

CRT Road Supervisor

658 (2)

CRT Dispatcher 557 (6)

CARSS Operator 457 (14)

Transportation Manager

29 (1)

District Director 30 (1)

Figure 2

Budget Book Organizational Structure

5

Figure 3 illustrates the organizational structure as determined by the job descriptions. In this plan, the Transportation Manager directly supervises the CRT Road Supervisors and CRT Dispatchers. The CARSS Operators are supervised by the Dispatchers, rather than the Transportation Manager, as seen in Figure 2. The structure, as identified by the department Director presents a third structure. In 2005, a Transportation Scheduling Coordinator position was eliminated during the budget process. The responsibilities of this position were reassigned to the Transportation Manager. Since that time, an “Acting Transportation Scheduling Coordinator” was created with a CARSS Operator filling this position. Figure 4 illustrates this structure.

Staff Assistant 505 (1)

CRT Operator 137

(106)

CRT Road Supervisor

658 (2)

CARSS Operator 457 (14)

CRT Dispatcher 557 (6)

Transportation Manager

29 (1)

District Director 30 (1)

Figure 3

Job Description Organizational Plan

Staff Assistant 505 (1)

CRT Operator 137

(106)

CRT Road Supervisor

658 (2)

CRT Dispatcher 557 (6)

CARSS Operator 457 (13)

Acting Transp. Sched. Coord.

457 (1)

Transportation Manager

29 (1)

District Director 30 (1)

Figure 4

District Director Organizational Structure

6

In addition to the organizational structure analysis, the communication flow was analyzed. Under the communication structure (Figure 5), we noticed that the CARSS Operation section was isolated. This limited the communication from the Transportation Manager and Director. The buffer between management and the CARSS Operators is an “Acting Transportation Scheduling Coordinator” who is in the same bargaining unit and job class as the other CARSS Operators. This inhibits positional authority, accountability, and communication. Summary The CARSS section operates at a lower performance level for a variety of reasons. The department lacks a single and unified organizational structure. This creates inefficiency, confusion, lack of accountability, and low performance. In order to improve performance, supervision and performance management is imperative. The needed level of supervision is drastically deficient under any of the current structures. In addition, the Acting Transportation Scheduling Coordinator is in the same job class/code as the other CARSS Operators. As a result, the limited communication, positional authority and accountability are questionable.

Staff Assistant 505 (1)

CRT Operator 137

(106)

CRT Road Supervisor

658 (2)

CRT Dispatcher 557 (6)

CARSS Operator 457 (13)

Acting Transp. Sched. Coord..

457 (1)

Transportation Manager

29 (1)

District Director 30 (1)

Direct Communication Flow

Limited Communication Flow

Staff Assistant 505 (1)

CRT Operator 137

(106)

CRT Road Supervisor

658 (2)

CRT Dispatcher 557 (6)

CARSS Operator 457 (13)

Acting Transp. Sched. Coord..

457 (1)

Transportation Manager

29 (1)

District Director 30 (1)

Direct Communication Flow

Limited Communication Flow

Direct Communication Flow

Limited Communication Flow

Figure 5

Transportation Section Communication Flow Chart

7

Job Function Analysis Four main job functions were reviewed during this analysis: District Director, Transportation Manager, Paratransit Dispatcher, and Computer Assisted Routine Schedule System (CARSS) Operator. District Director: Reports to the Deputy General Manager of Operations.

• Plans, directs and manages the entire Paratransit District operation • Manages coordination between functions (transportation, equipment, facilities and general

business) • Ensures services are operating at maximum efficiency • Develops and implements goals and objectives

Transportation Manager: Oversees all of the transportation section functions.

• Manages the transportation daily operations • Ensures services are on schedule and passengers are provided safe, reliable and courteous

service • Adheres to safety standards and regulatory requirements • Provides feedback, coaches, and communicates to ensure compliance of performance

standards • Improves performance and develops staff skills • Evaluates goals and objectives

Paratransit Dispatcher: Schedules and dispatches Paratransit Bus Operators and obtains relevant information from MIDAS BID and KRONOS systems.

Dispatchers have seven primary job responsibilities: • Schedule and dispatch bus operators • Answer radio and telephone calls and assists public with information • Complete daily work reports, absence lists, extra board assignments & split runs • Complete mid-day reports • Monitor garage conditions and operator behavior • Initialize scheduling system for following week by changing the date and updating status • Observe and supervise operation of CARSS Operators.

8

Dispatchers run on three shifts: AM, Mid-Day, and PM. Although each shift has similar responsibilities, some duties are particular to one shift (Figures 6,7,8).

AM Dis patchers

Schedules & Dispatches Bus

Operators 30%

Com pletes Work Reports & Lis ts

30%

Answers Radio & Telephone Ass is ting

Operators /Public 40%

Mid-Day Dispatchers

Undefined 25.5%

Initializes Scheduling System for

Following Week 1.5%Observes &

Supervises CARSS Operators

1.5%

Monitors Garage Conditions &

Operator Behavior 1.5%

Com pletes Mid- Day Reports

30.0%Answers Radio & Telephone Assisting

Operators/Public 40.0%

PM Dispatchers

Observes & Supervises CARSS

Operators 1.5%

Undefined 5.5%

Initializes Scheduling System for Following Week

1.5%

Monitors Garage Conditions &

Operator Behavior 1.5%

Ans wers Radio & Telephone As s is ting

Operators /Public 90.0%

AM Dispatchers

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

9

Computer Assisted Routine Schedule System (CARSS) Operator: Schedules bus service for senior citizens and handicapped Paratransit passengers on the computer from phone requests.

This position receives calls, registers passengers, trains passengers on using the system, and has the ability to turn down requests for rides, if space is not available, after considering important variables. CARSS Operators plan Paratransit bus routes to pick up and drop off passengers considering such variables as:

• Travel Time • Number of passengers • Number of wheelchairs • Traffic conditions • Construction areas • Road blockages • Passenger traffic

Summary As seen on page 8, one of the Dispatcher’s primary responsibilities from the job description is to observe and supervise CARSS Operations. During our site visits and interviews, this was not observed. If the Dispatchers were to perform these duties, it might help with the CARSS section performance. The Dispatcher’s responsibilities vary widely between shifts. Where the AM Dispatchers had an even distribution of time between functions, the Mid-Day and PM Dispatchers had some undefined time, up to 25 percent. The PM Dispatcher’s main function (90 percent) is answering the radio and phone calls and to assist operators and the public. From our observations and interviews, very few phone calls occurred during this time. This suggests an ability to shifts some of the scheduling duties to the dispatchers. In particular, tasks such as inputting subscription trips and new customer information. Some of the Dispatcher’s job functions, including observing and supervising CARSS Operators and Monitoring Garage Conditions and Operator Behavior, may not be conducive to their environment. This is mainly because the Dispatchers are confined to a small room overlooking the break room. In order for the Dispatchers to monitor the garage or supervise CARSS Operators, they would need to leave their post and the phones and radios unmanned. It would seem that these tasks would be more conducive to the functions of the Transportation Manager, who can move around more easily. One of the CARSS Operator’s primary job responsibilities, from the current job description, is the ability to turn down ride requests if space is not available. Per FTA, “There should be no substantial number of denials for any trip request made up to close of business the day before a person wishes to travel.”3 This job description is in current violation of the FTA ADA regulations and should be revised to accommodate all Paratransit requests. 3 DOT ADA Regulations, Section 37.131

10

Paratransit Department Culture Analysis

CARSS Operators On July 27, 2006, a team from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) surveyed the CARSS Operators/Schedulers section of the Paratransit District. The OMB survey analyzed the managerial- employee relationship dynamics, performance, and the overall attitudinal culture of the CARSS Operators/Schedulers section. The survey (Appendix I), was comprised of 25 questions using a Likert Scale evaluation system of: 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree. The CARSS Operators/Schedulers were also asked three Open Ended questions, which were:

1. How can the Scheduling Section improve customer call wait time, the number of calls taken each day, the number of trips booked, and the number of abandoned calls?

2. Other suggestions for improvements?

Finally, the CARSS Operators/Schedulers were asked to identify strengths and weaknesses of the CARSS Operators/Schedulers’ Section (Appendix IX). Responses were received from 11 out of 14, or 79 percent of CARSS Operators/Schedulers. The respondents were not allowed to give their names or employee number, so the survey was completely anonymous eliminating any threats to validity. There were two types of questions asked in the survey, questions related to performance (P) and relationships (R). The survey results were tabulated to yield the mean, median4, and mode5. The results of the survey are displayed in Table 2.

4 Median equals the response that represents 50% of the responses above it, and 50% below it. 5 Mode equals the response that was given the most number of times.

11

Number Question Type Mean Median Mode

1 Management recognizes good performance and informs and gives feedback promptly.

P 1.36 1 1

2 High performance in your section is rewarded and/or recognized.

P 1.36 1 1

3 Everyone clearly knows the Scheduling Section's performance objectives.

P 1.91 2 2

4 People genuinely like one another. R 2.64 3 3

5 Everyone clearly knows Paratransit's performance objectives.

P 2.18 2 2

6 People know a lot about each other's families. R 2.50 2.5 3

7 People follow clear guidelines and processes in the work they do.

P 1.91 2 2

8 People get along very well with one another and disputes are rare.

R 2.59 3 3

9 Poor performance in your section is dealt with quickly and firmly.

P 1.60 1.5 1

10 People often socialize with each other outside of work.

R 2.59 2.5 2

11 People perform favors for one another because the really like each other.

P 2.64 3 3

12 People capitalize on opportunities for performance improvement.

P 1.80 2 2

13 People make friends for the sake of friendship, not personal gain.

R 2.73 3 3

14 Strategic goals and objectives are widely known and shared with all.

P 1.55 2 2

15 People often confide in each other about personal matters.

R 2.41 2 2

16 People build close, long-term relationships that someday may be of benefit to them.

R 2.41 2 2

17 Standards for reward and punishment are clear to everyone.

P 1.45 1 1

18 The Scheduling Section is determined to be the best at what it does.

P 1.64 2 2

19 Achieving goals and targets is extremely important to all.

P 2.09 2 2

20 You can "work around" the system to get things done.

P 2.45 3 3

21 Poor performance at your facility is dealt with fairly.

P 1.55 1 1

22 When people leave the department, colleagues stay in contact to see how they are doing.

R 2.60 3 3

23 It is clear where one person's job ends and another's begins.

P 2.09 2 2

24 People protect each other in your section. R 2.45 3 3

25 People enjoy working in the Paratransit Scheduling Section at RTA.

R 2.36 2 2

Scale: 1: Strongly Disagree

2: Disagree 3: Agree 4: Strongly

Agree

Table 2

CARSS Operator Culture Survey

12

Interpretation of Survey Results - CARSS Operators In order to appreciate the significance of the responses, several questions shall be stated subsequently, with the corresponding type, mean, median, mode, and interpretation. The questions will be presented with the response value going from the lowest to the highest.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree Management recognizes good performance, informs, and gives feedback promptly. Type: Performance; Mean: 1.36; Median: 1; Mode: 1

Interpretation - CARSS Operators do not believe Management recognizes them for good performance. Since there is a large performance gap between individual operators, performance recognition should have positive effects. The managers should focus on those that are performing at a high level and replicate their techniques with other operators.

High performance in your section is rewarded and/or recognized. Type: Performance; Mean: 1.36; Median: 1; Mode: 1

Interpretation - CARSS Operators do not believe Management recognizes them for high performance. This threatens any sense of belonging, achievement, and commitment to professionalism.

Standards for reward and punishment are clear to everyone. Type: Performance; Mean: 1.45; Median: 1; Mode: 1

Interpretation - If there are no clear performance objectives, there cannot be standards for reward and discipline. Clear performance objectives for the position need to be established and enforced.

The Scheduling Section is determined to be the best at what it does. Type: Performance; Mean: 1.64; Median: 2; Mode: 2

Interpretation – There is overall low group esteem. This suggests that management will need to work to energize the staff around high quality and high performance.

Everyone clearly knows the Scheduling Section's performance objectives. Type: Performance; Mean: 1.91; Median: 2; Mode: 2

Interpretation – CARSS Operators do not know the section’s performance objectives. In order to create a performance-based culture, management must monitor and display weekly goals and actuals.

13

Dispatchers On August 3, 2006, a team from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) surveyed the Dispatchers section of the Paratransit Department. The OMB survey analyzed the managerial- employee relationship dynamics, performance, and the overall attitudinal culture of the Dispatchers section. The survey (Appendix II) was comprised of 25 questions using a Likert Scale evaluation system of: 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree. The Dispatchers were also asked three Open Ended questions, which were:

1. What efficiency and productivity improvements can you suggest in regards to the

Dispatch Section?

2. What efficiency and productivity improvements can you suggest in regards to the Scheduling Section?

Finally, the Dispatchers were asked to identify strengths and weaknesses of the Dispatchers’ Section. Responses were received from 4 out of 6, or 75 percent of Dispatchers. The respondents were not allowed to give their names or employee number, so the survey was completely anonymous eliminating any threats to validity. There were two types of questions asked in the survey, questions related to performance (P) and relationships (R). The survey results were tabulated to yield the mean, median6, and mode7. The results of the survey are displayed in Table 3.

6 Median equals the response that represents 50% of the responses above it, and 50% below it. 7 Mode equals the response that was given the most number of times.

14

Number Question Type Mean Median Mode

1 Management recognizes good performance and informs and gives feedback promptly.

P 1.50 1.5 1

2 High performance in your section is rewarded and/or recognized.

P 1.50 1.5 1

3 Everyone clearly knows the Dispatch Section's performance objectives.

P 1.50 1.5 2

4 People genuinely like one another. R 2.50 2.5 2

5 Everyone clearly knows Paratransit's performance objectives.

P 2.00 2 2

6 People know a lot about each other's families. R 1.75 2 2

7 People follow clear guidelines and processes in the work they do.

P 1.25 1 1

8 People get along very well with one another and disputes are rare.

R 2.00 2 2

9 Poor performance in your section is dealt with quickly and firmly.

P 2.00 2 1

10 People often socialize with each other outside of work.

R 2.25 2 2

11 People perform favors for one another because the really like each other.

P 2.75 3 3

12 People capitalize on opportunities for performance improvement.

P 1.75 1.5 1

13 People make friends for the sake of friendship, not personal gain.

R 3.00 3 3

14 Strategic goals and objectives are widely known and shared with all.

P 1.75 2 2

15 People often confide in each other about personal matters.

R 2.50 2.5 2

16 People build close, long-term relationships that someday may be of benefit to them.

R 2.75 3 3

17 Standards for reward and punishment are clear to everyone.

P 1.75 1.5 1

18 The Dispatch Section is determined to be the best at what it does.

P 2.25 2 2

19 Achieving goals and targets is extremely important to all.

P 2.25 2 1

20 You can "work around" the system to get things done.

P 2.25 2.5 3

21 Poor performance at your facility is dealt with fairly. P 1.50 1.5 1

22 When people leave the department, colleagues stay in contact to see how they are doing.

R 2.75 3 3

23 It is clear where one person's job ends and another's begins.

P 1.50 1.5 2

24 People protect each other in your section. R 2.75 3

3

25 People enjoy working in the Paratransit Dispatch Section at RTA.

R 2.75 3 3

Scale: 1: Strongly Disagree

2: Disagree 3: Agree 4: Strongly

Agree

Dispatcher Culture Survey

Table 3

15

Interpretation of Survey Results - Dispatchers In order to appreciate the significance of the responses, several questions shall be stated subsequently, with the corresponding type, mean, median, mode, and interpretation. The questions will be presented with the response value going from the lowest to the highest. People follow clear guidelines and processes in the work they do. Type: Performance; Mean: 1.25; Median: 1; Mode: 1

Interpretation - Dispatchers do not believe they have clear guidelines. They need defined guidelines, performance objectives, and procedures in order to work efficiently and effectively.

Management recognizes good performance and informs and gives feedback promptly. Type: Performance; Mean: 1.50; Median: 1.5; Mode: 1

Interpretation - Dispatchers do not believe Management recognizes them for good performance. This creates a sense disenfranchisement, suppresses achievement, and reduces the commitment to professionalism.

Everyone clearly knows the Dispatch Section's performance objectives. Type: Performance; Mean: 1.50; Median: 1.5; Mode: 2

Interpretation - There needs to be a set of high, but attainable, performance objectives set for the position and the individuals have to meet the standard. However, Dispatchers do not know the section’s performance objectives. In order to create a performance-based culture, management must display weekly performance goals and objectives, then monitor and display the goals and actuals.

Poor performance at your facility is dealt with fairly. Type: Performance; Mean: 1.50; Median: 1.5; Mode: 1

Interpretation - There is a prevailing sentiment of favoritism towards certain individuals. If performance standards were in place it would help to fairly assess performance objectively.

It is clear where one person's job ends and another's begins. Type: Performance; Mean: 1.50; Median: 1.5; Mode: 2

Interpretation - There needs to be clear job descriptions and titles for each of the positions. Overlapping of duties should be done sparingly to avoid confusion.

16

Performance Analysis Our analysis reviewed various aspects of the Paratransit District’s call taking/scheduling performance. Through observations and interviews, our team was able to discern those performance metrics that have direct impacts on call wait times, call abandoning rates, and individual performance goals. This section will present an analysis of the department’s call taking performance. The call taking performance measures created, reviewed, and analyzed were as follows:

1. Average number of calls taken per hour per operator 2. Average talk time per call per operator 3. Average percent of time available per operator 4. Number of incoming calls vs. Number of calls answered by day of the week 5. Percent of calls abandoned by day of the week 6. Average wait time

Individual Agent Performance The analysis of individual agent performance revealed a substantial performance gap. In particular, there is nearly a 100 percent difference in the productivity of the department’s highest performer as compared to the lowest performer. This large variation indicates that performance monitoring, goal setting, and positive discipline should be employed in order to change the current course. Number of Calls Answered per Hour This indicator is at the core of call taking performance. It identifies the productivity of each CARSS Operator and allows for comparison with others in the department. Table 4 presents the 2005 individual performance. Agent 4800 vastly outperforms the lowest tier agents: 88 percent more productive than Agent 74011; 90 percent more productive than Agent 171; and 96 percent more productive than Agents 83013 and 7152. A sizeable performance gap also exits between Agent 4800 and the second tier agents. Agent 4800 is 38 percent more productive than Agent 64652. Productivity gaps this large suggest the immediate need for increased supervision, which entails detailed performance monitoring and goal setting. The performance of the top tier employees (Agents 4800, 3512, and 116) indicates that the second and third tier employees can increase output. Table 5 presents the same data for 2006. Similar to 2005, the top performers are more than 85 percent more productive than the lowest performers. More striking, the top individual performer (Agent 4800) is 115 percent more productive than the lowest (Agent 171). As a group, the top performers (Agents 4800, 1116, 3512, and 622), on average, answered more calls per day than the lowest tier performers (Agents 171, 74011, 83013, and 7152). They were able to accomplish this while being on the ACD (Auto Call Distribution) system less time per day.

17

Average Talk Time per Call The average talk time per call is directly linked to the number of calls answered per hour. The data on Tables 4 and 5 show a clear correlation between the two. As the average talk time per call increases, the number of calls per hour decreases. In both 2005 and 2006, the top performers (Agents 4800, 1116, 3512, and 622) had three-minute average talk times. The average talk times of the lowest performers (Agents 171, 74011, 83013, and 7152) were double at or near six minutes. The performance in this area allows the highest performer to answer as many calls per day as the lowest performers, while being on the system 2-2.5 hours less.

2005 Number of Calls Answered per Hour & Average Talk Time

FT/ Fill-In Agent ID

Number of ACD Calls Answered

Avg Number of Answered ACD

Calls/Day

Avg Talk Time/ ACD

Call

Avg Time in

ACD (Hrs)

Number of Calls per Hour on

ACD

FT 4800 2755 81 0:03:00 4.06 19.93

FT 3512 10715 48 0:03:03 2.45 19.81

FT 1116 10873 54 0:03:19 2.96 18.39

FT 622 6016 29 0:03:34 1.70 17.13

FT 64652 8992 50 0:04:10 3.47 14.49

FT 1155 13029 58 0:04:14 4.10 14.27

FT 9808 13831 69 0:04:18 4.94 14.00

FT 6121 512 57 0:04:32 4.30 13.23

FT 1562 10361 50 0:04:38 3.90 12.89

FT 74011 12906 58 0:05:44 5.42 10.62

FT 171 8786 45 0:05:49 4.32 10.48

FT 83013 8707 50 0:05:58 4.91 10.19

FT 7152 7907 38 0:06:05 3.74 10.17

Fill-In 1111 3854 41 0:05:15 3.50 11.71

Fill-In 4444 379 38 0:04:21 2.51 15.10

Fill-In 2222 2206 49 0:04:44 3.86 12.70

Fill-In 830 13334 62 0:04:57 5.05 12.28

Fill-In 406 5915 31 0:04:31 2.32 13.39

Table 4

18

2006 Number of Calls Answered per Hour & Average Talk Time

FT/ Fill-In Agent ID

Number of ACD Calls Answered

Avg Number of Answered ACD

Calls/Day

Avg Talk Time/ ACD

Call

Avg Time in

ACD (Hrs)

Number of Calls per Hour on

ACD

FT 4800 9268 74 0:02:59 3.63 20.26

FT 1116 6302 46 0:03:13 2.49 18.45

FT 3512 6161 49 0:03:20 2.69 18.20

FT 622 3839 28 0:03:28 1.62 17.41

FT 9808 8331 65 0:03:50 4.17 15.50

FT 64652 6411 62 0:04:04 4.19 14.85

FT 6121 8065 61 0:04:20 4.34 13.96

FT 1155 7221 55 0:04:23 4.04 13.64

FT 1562 6436 52 0:04:53 4.19 12.37

FT 7152 3657 28 0:05:35 2.50 11.10

FT 83013 5361 50 0:05:52 4.84 10.34

FT 74011 8140 54 0:06:03 5.42 10.01

FT 171 4990 41 0:06:13 4.34 9.43

Fill-In 4444 427 39 0:04:19 3.56 10.92

Fill-In 406 2350 23 0:04:27 1.82 12.64

Fill-In 2222 165 41 0:04:50 3.32 12.42

Fill-In 1111 1735 43 0:04:57 3.55 12.23

Fill-In 830 7999 59 0:05:11 5.08 11.67

Table 5

19

Percentage of Time Available8 Similar to average talk time per call, the percentage of time available has a direct impact on individual and departmental performance. The current phone system allows agents to enter and exit the ACD mode9 at will. If an agent exits the ACD mode and goes into work or break mode, calls in the queue will not be routed to him/her. Therefore, increased time in non-ACD modes (work, other, and break) will have direct negative impacts on call waiting, the number of calls answered, and the abandonment rate. Tables 6 and 7 present the percent of time available for 2005 and 2006. The indicator excludes two 15- minute breaks and one 30-minute lunch. Therefore, the maximum time available is seven hours. During our field observations, we noticed and acknowledge that some CARSS Operators perform tasks outside of answering the telephone. However, if call-taking performance is the most critical (as identified by the FTA’s priority), the department needs to have a large percentage of agents in ACD mode for more time per day. In 2005, full-time CARSS Operators were available to answer the phone, on average, 57.5 percent of the time. In 2006, that number dropped to 54.4 percent. Agent 74011 logged the maximum percent of time available in both years. The availability of the middle tier ranged between 50 percent and 65 percent. An important finding relative to agent availability is that every agent was unavailable more than one hour per day, net of his or her lunch and break. In fact, 12 of the 13 were unavailable, on average, more than two hours per day. In addition, the details suggest that agents are misusing the non-ACD modes. For instance, in 2005, Agent 622 was in break mode for 4.39 hours per day. In 2006, Agent 7152 was in break mode 5.12 hours per day. It is unlikely that these agents were actually on break for this long; however, by being in break mode, they were unable to accept incoming calls. This suggests the need to retrain and monitor individual agents phone usage and how long they are in each mode.

8 John Tolbert (Training Department) suggested this metric. Progressive Insurance and other professional call centers use it as a productivity measure. 9 ACD (Auto Call Distribution) mode allows agents to answer incoming calls.

20

2005 Percent of Time Available

FT**/ Fill-In

Agent ID

Number of ACD Calls Answered

Avg Time in ACD

Mode/Day (Hrs)

Avg Time in Work

Mode/Day (Hrs)

Avg Time in Break

Mode/Day (Hrs)

Total Time Unavailable

% Time Available*

FT 74011 12906 5.42 0.85 1.31 1.22 82.54%

FT 83013 8707 4.91 0.83 1.70 1.98 71.69%

FT 4800 2755 4.06 1.48 1.40 2.10 70.05%

FT 9808 13831 4.94 1.97 1.38 2.49 64.48%

FT 6121 512 4.30 1.96 1.31 2.62 62.56%

FT 171 8786 4.32 0.46 2.63 2.77 60.45%

FT 7152 7907 3.74 0.14 3.84 3.05 56.41%

FT 64652 8992 3.47 1.42 2.63 3.29 53.07%

FT 1155 13029 4.10 2.48 1.29 3.30 52.88%

FT 1562 10361 3.90 2.55 1.52 3.36 51.97%

FT 1116 10873 2.96 1.29 3.37 3.86 44.90%

FT 3512 10715 2.45 3.29 1.69 4.04 42.24%

FT 622 6016 1.70 1.17 4.39 4.59 34.42%

Fill-In 1111 3854 3.50 0.75 0.88 0.72 89.67%

Fill-In 4444 379 2.51 1.62 0.55 1.29 81.58%

Fill-In 2222 2206 3.86 1.33 1.33 2.19 68.66%

Fill-In 830 13334 5.05 1.56 1.02 2.33 66.72%

Fill-In 406 5915 2.32 1.40 1.89 2.45 65.00% * Excludes two 15 minute breaks and 30 minute lunch ** The FT Employees does not include the Acting Scheduling Coordinator, who only answered phones 4 days in 2005 (Total 16 minutes) Table 6

21

2006 Percent of Time Available

FT**/ Fill-In

Agent ID

Number of ACD Calls Answered

Avg Time in ACD

Mode/Day (Hrs)

Avg Time in Work

Mode/Day (Hrs)

Avg Time in Break

Mode/Day (Hrs)

Total Time Unavailable

% Time Available*

FT 74011 8140 5.42 0.51 1.63 1.21 82.68%

FT 83013 5361 4.84 0.67 1.86 2.05 70.78%

FT 171 4990 4.34 0.08 3.28 2.43 65.26%

FT 64652 6411 4.19 1.08 2.15 2.61 62.67%

FT 9808 8331 4.17 1.66 2.09 2.87 59.00%

FT 1562 6436 4.19 2.17 1.42 2.89 58.71%

FT 6121 8065 4.34 2.46 1.42 3.04 56.57%

FT 4800 9268 3.63 2.06 2.02 3.19 54.39%

FT 1155 7221 4.04 2.07 1.69 3.26 53.36%

FT 3512 6161 2.69 2.87 2.00 3.97 43.24%

FT 1116 6302 2.49 1.20 4.02 4.50 35.68%

FT 622 3839 1.62 1.27 4.39 4.70 32.83%

FT 7152 3657 2.50 0.14 5.12 4.75 32.09%

Fill-In 4444 427 3.56 0.44 0.54 0.02 99.76%

Fill-In 2222 165 3.32 0.72 0.47 0.37 94.73%

Fill-In 1111 1735 3.55 0.74 0.86 0.77 88.96%

Fill-In 406 2350 1.82 1.30 1.16 1.47 78.98%

Fill-In 830 7999 5.08 1.26 1.07 2.41 65.59% * Excludes two 15 minute breaks and 30 minute lunch ** The FT Employees does not include the Acting Scheduling Coordinator, who only answered phones 3 days in 2006. (Total 4 hrs 18 minutes) Table 7

22

Departmental Performance Incoming vs. Answered Calls This metric assesses the variation in performance and demand by day of the week. It is important because it helps identify peak call days. Figures 9 & 10 present data on daily call volume and performance. The results indicate that the highest call volume occurs on Wednesdays. In 2005, the average number of calls on Wednesday was 674, and in 2006, the average was 662. Although, the highest call volume is on Wednesday, there is not much variation on the weekdays. The difference between the number of incoming calls and answered calls is the calls abandoned. There are three types of abandoned calls: during the greeting, after the greeting, and during the ring. The calls we are mainly concerned with are those that were abandoned during the ring, which means, a customer was on-hold to schedule a trip and hung up before the call was answered. These abandoned calls are discussed on the next page.

Average Number of Incoming Calls / Day of the Week 2005

0

200

400

600

800

N um

be r

of C

al ls

# Calls 345 652 641 674 658 645 337 654 341

# Ans 277 541 526 559 553 539 252 543.6 264.5

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Wk Day

Wk End

Figure 9

Average Number of Incoming Calls / Day of the Week 2006

0

200

400

600

800

N um

be r

of C

al ls

# Calls 274 632 640 662 648 634 317 643.2 295.5

# Ans 247 539 552 562 557 554 276 552.8 261.5

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Wk Day

Wk End

Figure 10

23

Abandoned Calls Figure 11 presents data on call abandonment rates. In 2005, 18.3 percent of calls were abandoned. More specifically, 16.8 percent were abandoned on weekdays and 22.0 percent were abandoned on weekends. In 2006, 13.1 percent of calls were abandoned. The weekday average was 13.7 percent and the weekend average was 11.3 percent. During this time period, the weekend average dropped significantly. However, with Saturday’s lower call volume there is the potential for increased performance. Since there are fewer calls received on the weekends, better performance would be expected. However, the weekend abandonment rate identifies an area of concern, which may suggest the need for more supervision for the weekend staff.

Average Pct. of Calls Abandoned / Day of the Week 2005 & 2006

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

P er

ce nt

2005 19.5% 17.0% 18.0% 17.1% 15.8% 16.3% 24.4% 16.8% 22.0% 18.3%

2006 9.9% 14.0% 13.2% 15.1% 13.9% 12.5% 12.7% 13.7% 11.3% 13.1%

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Wk Day

Avg Wk End

Avg Total Avg

Figure 11

24

Average Wait Time Table 8 presents the 2006 average customer wait time10. The average wait time for all incoming calls was 8 minutes and 24 seconds. The average wait time for answered calls was 9 minutes and the average wait time for abandoned calls was 5 minutes 10 seconds. These times indicate serious concern as the FTA guidance suggest that such times should be less than one minute.

2006 Average Wait Time Day Incoming Answered Abandoned Sunday 0:06:15 0:06:31 0:04:06 Monday 0:08:41 0:09:22 0:05:18 Tuesday 0:08:32 0:09:09 0:05:15 Wednesday 0:09:46 0:10:36 0:05:31 Thursday 0:08:41 0:09:20 0:05:18 Friday 0:08:11 0:08:44 0:05:15 Saturday 0:08:41 0:09:17 0:05:28 Average 0:08:24 0:09:00 0:05:10

Table 8

10 Due to unreliable data relate to this indicator, this study omits 2005 data.

25

Analysis of Peer Transit Agencies Our research team distributed a Paratransit survey, via email, to transit properties in the Great Lakes Region, including:

1. Columbus, OH - COTA 2. Akron, OH - Metro RTA 3. Indianapolis - IndyGo 4. Lake County, Ohio - LakeTran 5. Cincinnati, OH - SORTA 6. Detroit, MI 7. Pittsburgh, PA

We received 71 percent of the responses back (COTA, Metro RTA, IndyGo, LakeTran, and SORTA). Results Table 9 presents the peer group comparables. The survey responses suggest four areas of interest. First, three of the peer agencies use Functional Testing for their Paratransit/ADA clients. Akron Metro and IndyGo use an outsourced testing site and SORTA’s functional testing site is in-house. Second, the data suggests that at other agencies call-takers and schedulers are different job classes and pay grades. Although LakeTran indicated that its call-takers are schedulers, during our site visit we noticed that the call-takers are better described as customer service reservationists whose main function was entering data into the scheduling software. This noted, 4/5 of the respondents had separate schedulers and call takers. Third, the salary data indicated that RTA Paratransit CARSS Operators (call-takers) are paid a large premium, as compared to other Great Lakes properties. The highest average pay identified by the surveyed properties for Paratransit schedulers was $15.87. The average pay for RTA’s schedulers is $21.58, which is 36 percent higher. However, we are paying 63 percent more than SORTA for the same job function. In addition, the analysis also reveals a premium paid for the reservationist function. The highest average pay for Paratransit call-takers was $14.45. At RTA, the call-takers and schedulers are the same position, where again, the average pay is $21.58. As a result, we are paying 49 percent more than the highest responding property (Akron Metro). Moreover, we are paying 116 percent more than the COTA. Lastly, our survey captured data related to call taking performance. The important findings here are related average talk time per call and average hold time per call. Only three properties reported the times; however, the results suggest that RTA is severely underperforming its peers. SORTA, which outsources its functions, reports a 2-minute average talk time and a 1-minute average hold time. IndyGo and Akron Metro report average talk and hold times of 1.95 and 3.33 minutes, respectively. The average hold time for IndyGo is 2.85 minutes. Our average talk time is 34 percent higher than IndyGo, 123 percent higher than SORTA, and 129 percent higher than Akron Metro. Our average hold time is even worse. Our customers wait more than 9 times longer than SORTA.

26

Paratransit Call-Taking/Scheduling Performance Great Lakes Region Comparables Analysis

COTA Akron Metro IndyGo LakeTran SORTA

Cleveland RTA

Paratransit Data Is your Paratransit Dispatch/Call Taker/Schedule Section in-house? (Y/N) N Y Y Y N Y Do you have established performance goals & measures for Call Takers, Schedulers, & Dispatchers? (Y/N) Y N Y N Y N Do you provide Functional Testing for your Paratransit/ADA clients? (Y/N) N Y Y N Y N

If so, is your Functional Testing outsourced or in-house? N/A Outsourced

Out sourced

but performed

on site N/A In House N/A

Number of FTEs (Full-Time Equivalent) for Paratransit/ADA Schedulers 1 8 1

Same as Call

Takers 3 14 Number of FTEs for Paratransit/ADA Call Takers 4 8 6 9 9 14 Number of FTEs for Paratransit/ADA Dispatchers 6 2 6 5 7 6

Total Number of clients enrolled 3,039 325 N/A 17,302 4,595 N/A

Number of clients - ADA 3,039 199 N/A 64 2,193 N/A

Number of clients - Elderly N/A 126 N/A 8,449 2,390 N/A

Salary Data

Average Salary for Paratransit/ADA Scheduler $14.00 $14.45 $15.35- $15.87 N/A $13.26 $21.58

Average Salary for Paratransit/ADA Call Takers $10.00 $14.45 11.20 N/A $10.20 $21.58

Average Salary for Paratransit/ADA Dispatcher $12.50 $21.94 12.31 N/A $11.35 $24.21 Table 9

27

Table 9 (cont)

COTA Akron Metro IndyGo LakeTran SORTA

Cleveland RTA

Performance Data

Average number of calls taken per week day 650 1488 458 639 400 651

Average number of calls taken per month 13,000 12,100 15,523 14,472 10,407 13,950

Average number of trips booked per week day 800 69 n/a 1,358 989 1,534

Average number of trips booked per month 15,000 799 9,640 30,481 23,841 32,872

Average number of calls dropped per week day N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.4

Average number of calls dropped per month N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 70 Average number of calls abandoned per week day 120 13.4 N/A 57 111 73

Average number of calls abandoned per month 1,250 268 2,348 1378 2,293 2146

Average telephone talk time per call N/A 1.95 3:20 N/A 2 Minutes 0:04:28

Average telephone hold time per call N/A N/A 2:51 N/A 1 Minute 0:09:32 * Information as of June 30, 2006

28

Queuing Theory and Staffing Analysis Currently, 14 CARSS Operators are budgeted, an increase of 2 positions from the previous year (Table 10). Six Dispatchers are budgeted in 2006 with no change from the previous year. A Transportation Scheduling Coordinator position was eliminated from the budget in 2005, with these responsibilities returning to the Transportation Manager. Queuing Theory Analysis Queuing theory is a probability tool used to evaluate and optimize performance and the management of queues (waiting lines). The tool is used in call centers, grocery stores, movie theaters, and other places where waiting lines are found. The results are often used when making business decisions about the resources needed to provide desired levels of service. Our team employed queuing theory to answer questions related to additional staffing needs. The Paratransit District currently has 14 full-time CARSS Operators. The call taking/scheduling office is open Monday through Sunday. During the week, 10 CARSS Operators are scheduled each day. In addition to taking phone calls, two CARSS Operators leave the telephone system to work on schedule improvement, one leaves the system to input subscription trips, and one leaves the system to place trips left out due to system capacity. Other operators also enter and exit the system to perform other schedule-related tasks such as run posting. As a result, we estimate that during an average (non-peak) hour 7 operators are available to answer the phone. Our study found that the actual average wait time at Paratransit was 9:00 minutes. Table 11 analyzes the actual versus predicted results using queuing theory. The queuing predictions closely resemble the actual experience.

31 - PARATRANSIT DISTRICT 2006 - 2005

POSITION 2004 2005 2006 Variance

CRT Operator 104 104 102 (2) CARSS Operator 14 12 14 2 Dispatcher - CRT 6 6 6 0 Transportation Scheduling Coordinator 1 0 0 0 Manager - Transportation 1 1 1 0

Total 126 123 123 0

Table 10

Paratransit District Staffing

29

In the following tables, off-peak is defined as 75 incoming calls per hour and peak is defined as 100 incoming calls per hour. The service times are 3.25 (3 minutes per call plus a 0.25 minute recovery) for the recommended performance and 5.25 (4.5 minutes per call plus 0.75 recovery) for current performance. Table 12 presents predicted call and queue metrics and the variation from current performance and recommended performance metrics during off-peak hours. The optimal staffing level is determined using a goal of answering 95 percent of call in less than one minute. The information from the Table 12 suggest the following:

• Under current performance (5.25 service time), the department will need 11 call takers available to answer 95 percent of calls in one minute or less, during off-peak times.

• Under recommended performance (3.25 service time), the department will need 8 call

takers available to answer 95 percent of calls in one minute or less, during off-peak times.

• If the department decreases service time to the recommended performance level, the

department can reach the service goal (95 percent of calls answered in one minute or less) with three (3) less call takers.

Validating Queuing Theory

Metric Current

Performance Queuing Theory

Prediction - Off-Peak Queuing Theory Prediction - Peak

Number of Agents 7 7 9 Service Time (mins) 5.25 5.25 5.25 Arrival Rate (customers per hour) 75 75 100 Avg. Time Customer is in Queue (ASA) (mins) 9.0 8.4 9.9 Avg. Time Customer is in System (mins) 14.3 13.6 15.1 Avg. Number of Customers in Queue * 10.44 16.29 Avg. Number of Customers in System * 16.99 25.00 Pct. Of Calls answered in 1 min or less * 25.5% 17.8% Utilization * 93.5% 96.4%

Table 11

Analysis of Optimal Staffing During Off-Peak Times: Current vs. New Performance Metrics Off - Peak - 75 calls per hour

Goal: To answer 95% of calls in less than 1 minute

Metric Current

Performance Recommended Performance

Variance (Rec. - Current)

Service Time (mins) 5.25 3.25 -2.00 Predicted Optimal Number of Agents 11 8 -3.00 Arrival Rate (customers per hour) 75 75 0.00 Avg. Time Customer is in Queue (ASA) (mins) 0.1 Min 0.05 Min * Pct. Of Calls answered in 1 min or less 96.4% 98.1% 1.7% Utilization 59.7% 50.8% -8.9%

Table 12

30

Table 13 presents predicted call and queue metrics and the variation from current performance and recommended performance metrics during peak hours. The optimal staffing level is determined using a goal of answering 95 percent of call in less than one minute. The information from the Table 13 suggest the following:

• Under current performance (5.25 service time), the department will need 14 call takers available to answer 95 percent of calls in one minute or less, during peak times.

• Under recommended performance (3.25 service time), the department will need 9 call

takers available to answer 95 percent of calls in one minute or less, during peak times.

• If the department decreases service time to the recommended performance level, the department can reach the service goal (95 percent of calls answered in one minute or less) during peak call times with five (5) less call takers.

Summary The Paratransit District currently schedules 10 CARSS Operators during the week. In a given non- peak hour it is likely that seven operators are available. This creates average wait time of nine minutes. The predicted results, using queuing theory, indicate that if the department continues with its current service rate (5.25 minutes), the department will be unable to meet the performance goal of 95 percent of calls answered in one minute or less without additional staff. The department will require 11 call takers available during off-peak hours and 14 call takers during peak hours, not including the additional staff needed for schedule improvement, subscription trips, and run posting. By implementing a performance management system and reaching the recommended service time of 3.25 minutes, the department will only need 8 call takers during off-peak hours and 9 call takers during peak hours. These findings suggest that the department can meet the current performance goal of answering 95 percent of calls in one minute or less with its current staff allocation. Again, the department currently schedules ten operators during the week. By reducing the service rate to 3.25, the department will only need eight CARSS Operators on the phone during off-peak hours. This will leave two operators free to perform other tasks such as schedule improvement, subscription trips, and run posting.

Analysis of Optimal Staffing During Peak Times: Current vs. New Performance Metrics Peak - 100 calls per hour

Goal: To answer 95% of calls in less than 1 minute

Metric Current

Performance Recommended Performance

Variance (Rec. - Current)

Service Time (mins) 5.25 3.25 -2.00 Predicted Optimal Number of Agents 14 9 -5.00 Arrival Rate (customers per hour) 100 100 0.00 Avg. Time Customer is in Queue (ASA) (mins) .07 Min .11 Min * Pct. Of Calls answered in 1 min or less 97.3% 96.0% -1.3% Utilization 62.5% 60.2% -2.3%

Table 13

31

Recommendations Introduction Technological advances create an environment where change is needed. A natural reaction to change is fear and anxiety, where individuals seek to continue processes that worked in the past. However, technology is major component of performance. Therefore, performance improvement is heavily influenced by acceptance and use of available technology. During our observation of the Paratransit scheduling and reservation employees, we noticed that employees frequently ignored the optimal trip solution provide by Trapeze (the scheduling software). The employees indicated that the “computer” was often incorrect and that they could find better places for individual trips. Their search for better solutions took extra time, thereby increasing the average talk time and increasing the wait time for customers in the queue. In addition, their real-time schedule modifications contributed little value, as the individuals scheduled for a specific bus would change each day until the actual service date. As a result, a trip that looks good now will look very different at the end of the day, as new customers will be scheduled. Moreover, the department has staff dedicated to schedule improvement, which will modify trips one to three days away. Therefore, the call takers who search for “better” trips are wasting precious time. Our team spent a morning observing the LakeTran call taking and scheduling process. LakeTran has separate call takers (reservationists) and schedule improvers. The reservationist takes the customer’s information, types it into the scheduling software, and takes the first option presented by the software. During our visit, the call taker took approximately 2-3 minutes per call. The schedule was then optimized by a batching process and lastly improved by a dispatcher. Secondly, management scholars have concluded that organizational structure is extremely important. Structure projects an organization’s value system. Moreover, it creates the rules of the game, thereby determining the reward and discipline systems. As a result, organizational structures have major effects on individuals and performance. The structural location of the Paratransit call taking function inhibits its performance. The call taking function is situated in a bus garage. The values inherent in a bus garage are dominated by transit metrics such as on-time performance, safety, maintenance reliability, and operator work issues. This is perfectly appropriate since these metrics are related to the garage’s core mission. However, in this structure, it is easy for other metrics to be pushed aside for the immediacy of the garage core measures. As for the Paratransit call-taking function, in its current location it will always be difficult to make its issues and performance metrics paramount. This occurs not as a result of individual choice but instead as a result of structural programming. However, RTA does have a function and structure that values the call-taking metrics that the FTA wants improved. The Telephone Information Center of the Marketing Department has as its core values, the number of call answered, average hold time, percent of calls abandoned, and customer service. The Telephone Information Center is a true call center. As a result, any individual working in the center will be forced to value call taking metrics. Moreover, the supervisory, reward, and discipline systems are built on these metrics. Our study revealed that the central function of the CARSS Operators has migrated away from scheduling to answering the phone and taking reservations. Over time, the individual scheduling skill needed for the job has eroded and replaced by the scheduling software. Therefore, CARSS Operators are better described as telephone reservations than scheduling professionals.

32

Major Recommendation # 1 Recommendation: CARSS Operators take the first option presented by the scheduling software (Trapeze). Productivity Benefit: By not searching for “better” trip placement, operators will decrease the time taken per call. As a result, operators will be able to answer more calls and reduce the customer’s wait time. Moreover, by allowing the software to choose the optimal trip placement it will increase trip quality. Currently, each CARSS Operator has his/her individual trip preference. The accumulation of these disparate ideas of what constitutes a “good” schedule decreases the probability of an overall quality set of schedules/trips. Major Recommendation # 2 Recommendation: Due to our findings of large variations in individual performance, the organizational culture is one where employees do not understand or appreciate call-taking performance. Due to the FTA mandate to immediately improve call taking performance, it is our recommendation that the Paratransit call-taking function be removed from the Operations Division and be placed in the Telephone Information Center in the Marking Department. Productivity Benefit: The Paratransit call-taking function will be placed in a call center structure and culture which values call taking performance. Therefore, performance management will be easier since call taking metrics and tracking are core functions of a call center. In addition, the supervisory level of the call center will always be trained in call center management. This will also have a positive effect on performance. Major Recommendation # 3 Recommendation: The core job skill of the CARSS Operator is to enter scheduling information into the computer system and retrieve data. This is the same core skill of the 0371 Telephone Information Clerk. Therefore, we recommend that RTA reclassify all 0457 CARSS Operators as Grade 3 CRT Telephone Information Clerks. The CARSS Operator’s 8.6 percent premium over the Grade 3 Telephone Information Clerk is no longer valid. We recommend that the new CRT Telephone Information Clerks move to the Marketing Department with the 0371 Telephone Information Clerks. Productivity Benefit: By reclassifying the CARSS Operators and as essentially Telephone Information Clerks, RTA will also get a more efficient general call center. The Supervisor of the Telephone Information Center will be able to more efficiently use the entire staff to control performance and react to demands on both the telephone information side and CARSS/ADA side of the business. Financial Benefit: By classifying all new Paratransit call-takers as, essentially, Telephone Information Clerks, RTA will save 8.6 percent for each new person hired. The current CARSS Operator position is a Grade 4 while the Telephone Information Clerk is a Grade 3. Moreover, the CRT Telephone Information Clerk is more likely to be hired from the outside, whereas CARSS Operators have been hired from the Operator ranks. This being the case, the potential savings could be 45 percent because new telephone information clerks will likely start at Grade 3, Step 1 ($11.83), whereas new CARSS Operators are likely to start at Grade 4, Step 6 ($21.58). This may explain the large discrepancy between RTA’s Paratransit call-takers pay versus the comparable agencies.

33

Major Recommendation # 4 Recommendation: What is monitored is done. Therefore, we recommend that a performance monitoring system be developed. This system should identify current baseline performance as well as goals. This monitoring system should include the following performance metrics (Table 14).

Performance Monitoring

Measure Baseline Target Ideal % Time Available 80% 90% 100% Average Talk Time 3 minutes 2.5 minutes 2 minutes Average Wait Time 2 minutes 1 minutes 0 minutes Number of Calls Answered per Hour (per Agent) 20 24 30

Table 14

These performance metrics should be monitored daily, weekly, and monthly for the department and individual agents. The departmental performance should be presented in a public place on a Preliminary Visual Display (PVD) board (Table 15) so that every member of the team knows how the department is performing. The individual status reports should be distributed each day so that each operator knows his/her contribution to the team.

Productivity Benefit: A performance monitoring and goal monitoring system will ensure that all employees are focused on the critical metrics. This is similar to the TEAM11 performance monitoring system for the Agency. The public presentation and sharing of performance information will create buy- in from both management and labor. An example of the PVD board’s information is as follows:

ADA Call-Taking Performance

Measure Yesterday This Week This Month Running

Avg.

Target

Avg. Wait Time 4.5 mins 4.6 mins 4.8 mins 4.5 mins 1 min

Every second counts.

Table 15

11 TEAM = Together Everyone Achieves More

34

Other Recommendations 1. During our observations, we noticed that CARSS Operators would take customer information and first write it all on call logs, then input the information into the scheduling system. This increased the time taken per call. In discussion with the department, we found that the call logs are used to verify information in cases of customer and management complaints regarding schedule requests. Recommendation: The department should discontinue using the call log sheets and input the call data directly into the scheduling system. All customer complaints should be addressed using the telephone recording system and data in the scheduling software. 2. During our site visit to LakeTran, we noticed that their dispatchers were proficient at multi-tasking. In particular, the dispatcher performed their normal dispatch functions while also making scheduling changes and improving the schedules. This suggests that our dispatchers can likely support the scheduling function. In particular, they can aid in the inputting of subscription trips. Recommendation: Have dispatchers aid in the inputting of subscription trips. Create performance metrics and goals as to how many trips they must book per week.

35

Post Analysis Update This analysis was completed and presented on October 4, 2006. The Executive Management Team chose to mandate that the CARSS Operators take the first option presented by Trapeze and relied on this study to postpone any additional staffing. They did not choose to reorganize the department and create a unified RTA call center. They decided to give the new procedures and performance goals a chance. Below (Figure 12) are the departmental results through April 2007. The study’s recommendations and predictions were proven correct as the department immediately reduced performance by more than 50 percent. As noted earlier, the department’s average wait time was 9 minutes for 2006 (January – July). As of April 2007, the January 2007 – April 2007 average wait time is 1.5 minutes. This is an outstanding 83.3 percent reduction in time. During this time, the department has experienced days where the average wait time was 13 seconds (January 19, 2007), 24 seconds (February 1, 2007), and 23 seconds (March 2, 2007). There were many other days where the average wait was also less than one minute. In order to consistently achieve times under one minute, continued supervision of call takers, their breaks, and their use of other call modes, which take them away from the queue, is needed.

Average Wait Times

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Jan- 06

Feb- 06

Mar- 06

Apr- 06

May- 06

Jun- 06

Jul- 06

Aug- 06

Sep- 06

Oct- 06

Nov- 06

Dec- 06

Jan- 07

Feb- 07

Mar- 07

Apr- 07

Month

Ti m

e (m

in ut

es )

Before Study After Study

Figure 12

36

Appendix I – CARSS/Schedulers Survey Introduction: Listed below are some items that are related to your job and work environment. Thinking only about the last 2 years at Paratransit, please check the box that you believe indicates how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Your participation is completely voluntary and anonymous. Your survey responses will be coded and remain strictly confidential. Thank you for your time.

Number Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree

Strongly Agree

1 Management recognizes good performance and informs and gives feedback promptly.

2 High performance in your section is rewarded and/or recognized.

3 Everyone clearly knows the Scheduling Section's performance objectives.

4 People genuinely like one another.

5 Everyone clearly knows Paratransit's performance objectives.

6 People know a lot about each other's families.

7 People follow clear guidelines and processes in the work they do.

8 People get along very well with one another and disputes are rare.

9 Poor performance in your section is dealt with quickly and firmly.

10 People often socialize with each other outside of work.

11 People perform favors for one another because the really like each other.

12 People capitalize on opportunities for performance improvement.

13 People make friends for the sake of friendship, not personal gain.

14 Strategic goals and objectives are widely known and shared with all.

15 People often confide in each other about personal matters.

37

Number Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree

Strongly Agree

16 People build close, long-term relationships that someday may be of benefit to them.

17 Standards for reward and punishment are clear to everyone.

18 The Scheduling Section is determined to be the best at what it does.

19 Achieving goals and targets is extremely important to all.

20 You can "work around" the system to get things done.

21 Poor performance at your facility is dealt with fairly.

22 When people leave the department, colleagues stay in contact to see how they are doing.

23 It is clear where one person's job ends and another's begins.

24 People protect each other in your section.

25 People enjoy working in the Paratransit Scheduling Section at RTA.

26 How can the Scheduling Section improve customer call wait time, the number of calls taken each day, the number of trips booked, and reduce the number of abandoned calls?

27 Other suggestions for improvements?

* Please write the next page if you need additional space.

38

Appendix II – Dispatchers Survey

Introduction: Listed below are some items that are related to your job and work environment. Thinking only about the last 2 years at Paratransit, please check the box that you believe indicates how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Your participation is completely voluntary and anonymous. Your survey responses will be coded and remain strictly confidential. Thank you for your time.

Number Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree

Strongly Agree

1 Management recognizes good performance and informs and gives feedback promptly.

2 High performance in your section is rewarded and/or recognized.

3 Everyone clearly knows the Dispatch Section's performance objectives.

4 People genuinely like one another.

5 Everyone clearly knows Paratransit's performance objectives.

6 People know a lot about each other's families.

7 People follow clear guidelines and processes in the work they do.

8 People get along very well with one another and disputes are rare.

9 Poor performance in your section is dealt with quickly and firmly.

10 People often socialize with each other outside of work.

11 People perform favors for one another because the really like each other.

12 People capitalize on opportunities for performance improvement.

13 People make friends for the sake of friendship, not personal gain.

14 Strategic goals and objectives are widely known and shared with all.

15 People often confide in each other about personal matters.

39

Number Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree

Strongly Agree

16 People build close, long-term relationships that someday may be of benefit to them.

17 Standards for reward and punishment are clear to everyone.

18 The Dispatch Section is determined to be the best at what it does.

19 Achieving goals and targets is extremely important to all.

20 You can "work around" the system to get things done.

21 Poor performance at your facility is dealt with fairly.

22 When people leave the department, colleagues stay in contact to see how they are doing.

23 It is clear where one person's job ends and another's begins.

24 People protect each other in your section.

25 People enjoy working in the Paratransit Dispatch Section at RTA.

26 What efficiency and productivity improvements can you suggest in regards to Dispatch Section?

27 What efficiency and productivity improvements can you suggest in regards to Scheduling Section?

* Please write the next page if you need additional space.