U.S. Office of Personnel Management - Ensuring the Federal Government has an effective civilian workforce

Team Award Process

Presented by:Thomas Geloneck
VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Phone # 734-761-7937

Fiscal Year 2001 Activity

• Approximately 4200 inpatient admissions
• 200,000 Ambulatory Care Visits
• 1290 Full Time Equivalent Employees
• Major teaching affiliation is with the University of Michigan medical School

Our Strategic Goals

• Improve patient access to specialty care
• Facilitate patient focused care
• Provide a safe environment for patients, employees and visitors
• Recruit and retain high quality staff
• Cultivate research and education programs
• Maintain financial stability

Purpose of the Team Award Process

• Encourage teamwork
• Mechanism to encourage front line staff to engage in performance improvement activities
• Link award system with strategic goals
• Provide known rewards for successful outcomes- a contract for performance
• Encourage employees to understand organizational goals

Incentive Award Committee(see Handout)

• Oversees team award process
• Reviews team proposals and recommends award amounts
• Evaluates final team reports
• Has multidisciplinary membership

Team Formation

• Employees empowered to form cross-departmental teams to meet strategic goals
• Management may also encourage team formation to meet a performance improvement need

Team Proposal (see handout)

• Easy to use, computerized template
• Identify: activity to improve, steps to take, and outcomes they hope to achieve
• Incentive award committee helps with proposals as needed

Evaluation Process

• Each proposal is evaluated on the basis of...- Relationship to goals and performance measures, whether or not the activity is a normal duty function, interdisciplinary involvement, and whether work responds to an external recommendation for improvement.
• Rating determines award amounts

Point System for Team Proposals (see handout)

• Related To Strategic Goals
  • Total - 5 points
  • Part. related - 3 points
• Related To A Performance Measure
  • 5 points
• Not A Normal Duty Function
  • Total - 5 points
  • Part. related - 3 points
• Interdisciplinary/ Interdepartmental
  • > 5 depts. - 5 points
  • >2-4 depts. - 3 points
• External Review Recommendation
  • Actual - 5 points
  • Potential - 3 points

Employee Involvement

• Since the program began in 1998, 67 teams have completed their work
• Teams had an average of 7.6 members
• 512 total participants
• Average individual award: $315
• Total expended: $161,000+
• Participants may be on more than one team

Results Achieved(Tangible examples)

• Over $2.6 M in tangible savings
• Improved energy efficiency
• Reduction in worker’s compensation costs
• Decrease interest payments
• Decrease inventory; bulk purchasing

Results Achieved(Intangible examples)

• Decrease lab specimen processing time
• Improve ventilator care
• Patient education results in changes in diet and improved lab values - Dialysis
• Reduced use of patient restraints

Pros...

• Encourages teamwork
• Awards linked to goals
• Mechanism for "ground up" performance improvement
• Consistency in payouts

Cons...

• May not apply for all jobs
• Employee resistance if viewed as a replacement for other awards
• Viewed as a lot of work

Lessons Learned

• Market to supervisors; they need to help and encourage employee participation
• Treat as a supplement to existing award programs, not in lieu of individual recognition
• Applaud successes and publicize