Fall 2011 New Mexico State University Facilities and Services Las Cruces Campus Customer Satisfaction Survey Results

Transcription

1 Fall 2011 New Mexico State University Facilities and Services Las Cruces Campus Customer Satisfaction Survey Results Institutional Analysis Page i

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents About This Survey... 1 General Response Rates and Results... 2 General Results by Survey Section:... 3 Custodial:... 3 Building Environment and Utilities:... 3 Grounds:... 3 Project Development and Engineering:... 3 Administrative Services:... 4 Environmental Health and Safety Services:... 4 Write In Question Summary:... 4 Question by Question Detailed Analysis: Section 1: General Satisfaction Scale Table 1: General Satisfaction with Facilities and Services, Respondent Percentages Section 2: Primary Building Section 3: Custodial Care Table 2: Satisfaction with FS Custodial Services, Respondent Percentages Section 4: Building and Environment Table 3: Satisfaction with FS Building Environmental and Utilities Services, Respondent Percentages Section 5: Grounds Services Table 4: Satisfaction with FS Grounds Services, Respondent Percentages Section 6: Project Development and Engineering Table 5: Satisfaction with FS Special Projects and Engineering Services, Respondent Percentages.. 17 Section 7: FS Administrative Services Table 6: Satisfaction with FS Administrative Service Areas, Respondent Percentages Section 8: Environmental Health and Safety Table 7: Satisfaction with Environmental Health and Safety, Respondent Percentages Final Question: Write-In Comment Summary by Building: Institutional Analysis Page ii

3 Appendices Appendix A: Survey Form Appendix B: Buildings indicating some dissatisfaction broken out by survey question B.1 Custodial B.2: Building and Environment B.3: Grounds Institutional Analysis Page iii

4 About This Survey: In mid October, 2011, New Mexico State University s (NMSU) Facilities and Services Office (FS) and the Office of Institutional Analysis (OIA) worked together to update the 2010 FS customer satisfaction survey. FS then sent survey invitations to all faculty and staff on the Las Cruces campus as a follow up to the prior two years surveys. The survey was designed according to specifications of a Facilities and Services audit and standards set by APPA, the facilities professional organization to which NMSU belongs. The 2011 survey focused on the same questions and functional areas as in prior years, but was expanded to include questions regarding sustainability efforts on the NMSU Las Cruces campus. A copy of the full survey can be found in Appendix A. The survey was hosted on the IRPOA website, and FS director Glen Haubold sent out two invitations over the course of two weeks asking the university community to take the FS survey. The distribution list was set up and determined by his office in conjunction with the University Communications Department at NMSU. The survey was made available to participants between October 10 and October 21, This was both fewer invitation and reminder s and a shorter survey period than in the 2010 administration. The survey itself dealt with six specific areas of university life that FS is responsible for: custodial care, the environment inside of campus buildings, university grounds and landscaping services, project development and engineering services, Facilities and Services administration, and environmental health and safety services. Additionally, respondents were given the opportunity to write in specific comments they may have about FS services on the last survey page. All respondents were asked for their opinions on custodial care, building and environment, and grounds and landscaping, but for the areas of project development and engineering, administrative services, and environmental health and safety services, respondents were given the option to opt out of that portion of the survey if they had not used the services in the prior 12 month period. Institutional Analysis Page 1

5 General Response Rates and Results: There was not a lot of publicity or build up prior to the start of the survey, and after some complaints following the 2010 administration regarding the number of reminders sent out, both the survey availability period and the number of invitations sent were cut in half this year. As a result, the number of responses was only about a third of that in the prior year, which was a similar number to the 2009 survey administration. 286 NMSU faculty and staff members responded to the survey and 44.1% (126) of these individuals took the time to write in specific comments that specified areas they either felt needed extra FS attention or were areas in which respondents felt that FS was excelling. This included five individuals who wrote in comments for FS instead of identifying which building they worked in at the beginning of the survey. Because a significant portion of respondents felt there were issues important enough to comment on, it is important to look at the comments as well as the raw numbers and percentages of respondents, to gain deeper understanding of the issues that FS may wish to address in the future. Overall, the results of the survey were favorable, and the majority of respondents had a good opinion of FS, particularly of FS staff. When there were issues cited with FS services, the nature of many of them tended to be specific instances that had caused issues and not larger systematic issues. There were however, a lot of comments that specifically had to do with recent scheduling and staffing changes which many respondents seemed to feel left FS with too few staff to complete their jobs, and was resulting in some issues in terms of cleanliness and grounds appearance on the NMSU campus. The freeze over the winter of was cited as having caused some grounds issues that have not yet been resolved. A new theme this year in the written in comments was one exploring potential issues with handicap accessibility and with the maintenance of handicap facilities around campus. It is also important to note that many of the people who wrote in responses at the end of the survey took time to commend FS staff for a job well done. Overall respondents had positive attitudes about the courtesy, knowledge, and skills possessed by FS staff in all areas of the survey. Within the survey, the areas that more closely related recent cutbacks and schedule changes of custodial and maintenance work tended to have the highest rates of dissatisfaction. There were also specific issues cited with the new FS work order submittal form and with pricing and contracting of FS services. Institutional Analysis Page 2

6 General Results by Survey Section: Custodial: Respondents indicated that overall, they were satisfied with FS custodial services, and over 50% of respondents were very or extremely satisfied with the job FS custodial staff do. Respondents were more likely to indicate dissatisfaction with the frequency of cleaning services and with the cleanliness of bathrooms, offices, and classrooms than they were with FS staff themselves. These sentiments were echoed in the written in comments at the end of the survey, where respondents said that FS staff were doing an excellent job, but that budget and staff cutbacks have left FS custodial employees overextended without enough time or materials to keep their assigned areas as clean as they should be. Building Environment and Utilities: Overall, respondents indicated that they were satisfied with the building environment and utilities provided by FS in their primary building. However, they were not as likely to have strong positive feelings about this area as they were to have strong feelings about custodial services. As in the prior year s survey administration, when respondents indicated they were dissatisfied with this area, they tended to be the most critical of the temperature and energy conservation measures in their building. Written in comments that tended to relate to this area of the survey echoed this finding, as many respondents indicated dissatisfaction and issues with the regulation of temperature and with the heating and cooling system in their primary building. Respondents this year were also more likely to indicate seeing issues with handicap access than in the past. Comments suggest some of these issues may relate to the maintenance of outside handicap services such as inaccessible and dirty parking spaces, overgrown ramps, and faulty doors. Grounds: Again, the majority of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with the services that the FS grounds department was providing on campus. However, in all areas except maintenance of the recycling program, respondents were much more likely to indicate dissatisfaction in this area than they were in the prior year. More comments were written about grounds service issues than any other area FS addresses. Comments centered on issues with NMSU s sprinkler system and watering schedule, with the desire for better landscaping, and with maintenance needed to address issues from the February 2011 freeze. Several respondents specifically mentioned that they felt that the grounds keeping department was understaffed which they believed was resulting in many areas of the campus being neglected. Project Development and Engineering: Overall respondents indicated they were satisfied with the services provided by FS Project Development and Engineering Staff, but were more likely to indicate dissatisfaction with these services than they were in earlier survey administrations. In both the multiple choice and written in portions of the survey, respondents tended to indicate dissatisfaction with the time to Institutional Analysis Page 3

7 receive estimates and with the time taken to complete jobs. Specific instances of poor follow up or feedback and with delays due to changes in the work order system were cited. Administrative Services: Again, the majority of respondents indicated satisfaction with the administrative services provided by FS. Respondents were less likely to indicate dissatisfaction with this area than they were in the prior year, but for the second year in a row were less likely than in the prior year to indicate they were extremely satisfied with staff courtesy in this area. Written in responses relating to this area tended to center on poor communication and follow up by FS staff, problems with timely follow up to work order requests and inquiries, with pricing that was considered to be high and non-competitive, and with the new work order system. Multiple comments indicated a feeling that lower level employees do a better job of relating to the customers than do management. Environmental Health and Safety Services: Respondents who answered the survey questions relating to Environmental Health and Safety Services were likely to indicate they were satisfied with the services being provided. More than 50% of all responses in this area indicated respondents were Very Satisfied or Extremely Satisfied with Environmental Health and Safety services. Respondents were more likely to indicate high levels of satisfaction than in prior survey administrations. Issues raised tended to center around communication and timely follow up issues. Write In Question Summary: There were a total of 127 written in comments either at the end of the survey or in the building selection box, written by a total of 126 individuals. The most common themes in the write in questions follow. Responses are counted in multiple categories if they dealt with multiple issues. Full text of the responses is found in Appendix C. 33.9% of comments centered on issues with FS Grounds and Landscaping services. o The most common complaints about the FS Grounds department centered on landscaping issues (32.6%). 42.9% of respondents who complained about landscaping services felt that weeds, leaves and dead trees are not properly being taken care of. And one third of these cited goat heads as being a problem on campus. 28.6% wanted to see more xeriscaping done on campus. 28.6% felt that issues from the February freeze had not been adequately addressed. Other complaints about landscaping included: Complaints that handicapped areas are overgrown The desire to have dead trees replaced Complaints that trees are not trimmed, especially near parking lots A desire to see Salt Cedars removed from campus Institutional Analysis Page 4

8 o o o o o o o o Feelings that oleanders and other toxic plants should not be near livestock A desire to see more stumps removed Concerns that drip hoses are exposed and are not aesthetically pleasing Frustration that sand in new plant beds washes away when watered A feeling that the grass is over fertilized and over mowed 23.2% of respondents citing issues with FS Grounds services complained about the way that NMSU uses water on campus. 50% of comments in this area suggested that watering should not occur during the hottest part of the day. 40% felt that NMSU overwaters their plants and grass. 30% complained that poor placement and maintenance of sprinklers results in areas of campus flooding. The intersection of Stewart and Espina streets was given as a specific example. There were also concerns that in some cases, empty beds are still being watered. 20.9% of respondents commenting on FS Grounds services felt that litter control is a problem. One third of these commented that parking lots are not picked up, and one comment suggestion that handicapped spaces are not maintained. Other concerns included: Trash bins outside not regularly being emptied, causing a littering problem A desire to see FS Grounds removing old and unauthorized ads from outside displays Concerns that ashtrays are not emptied frequently enough 11.6% of respondents with comments about Grounds services indicated they did not like the use of leaf blowers. One of these respondents felt that blowers should not be used on paved areas. 9.3% of responses in this area suggested that the Grounds crews needed to do a better job of cleaning bird droppings up around campus. 7% of respondents commenting about Grounds services felt that the roads and parking lots were not being adequately maintained. 7% also complained that ponds on campus are dirty and not regularly maintained. 7% indicated that there are issues with handicapped accessibility on campus. Concerns included: Trees overhanging ramps Inaccessible ramps ADA routes not being adequately marked 4.7% indicated that dumpsters in some areas do not close. Institutional Analysis Page 5

9 o o 4.7% of responses regarding Grounds services felt that outside lighting is poor on campus. Other responses in this area included the following themes: Grounds services needs to do more to address the skunk problem on campus Buildings have been billed for work their offices did because grounds staff could not get there in a timely manner Feelings that some areas of campus are ignored Feelings that Grounds services are poor in student housing Feelings that the quality of grounds maintenance is poor the farther away from the building a person goes A desire for more bike racks on campus A desire for benches and tables in the horseshoe 19.7% of comments addressed issues with custodial services. o The most common concern (48% of comments in this area) was that restrooms are not being cleaned as they should be. Comments suggest that: Supplies are not being replenished as frequently as they should Broken items are not fixed or replaced Restrooms are not regularly cleaned Restrooms need more frequent cleaning and are bad by the afternoon There is a desire to have restrooms cleaned prior to the start of the working day o 40% of responses in this section dealt with concerns regarding floor cleaning. 30% of comments regarding floor cleaning said that the carpets are filthy 20% felt that halls are dirty 20% felt that floors are not regularly cleaned 20% complained about the cleanliness of the stairs One respondent did not like that vacuuming occurred during the lunch hour. o 16% of comments regarding custodial services suggested that more frequent trash pick-up is needed. o 8% of comments regarding custodial services indicated that the activity center is not properly cleaned. The bathrooms and the men s locker room were cited as particularly dirty areas. o 8% of concerns in this area dealt with perceptions that custodial staff spends more time taking breaks and visiting than they do working. o Other concerns regarding custodial services included: Custodial staff forgetting to turn off the lights when they leave a room or building Feelings that offices are not regularly cleaned Feelings that spills and stains are ignored for weeks at a time Feelings that custodial staff are inefficient Concerns that custodial staff are not properly supervised A desire for custodial staff to clean chalkboards during the day Institutional Analysis Page 6

10 18.9% of written in comments suggested there are perceived issues with campus facilities and maintenance services. o The most common concern in this area (50% of comments about facilities and maintenance) indicated that HVAC systems are not in good working order. One respondent indicated they had repeatedly contacted FS and the problem was not resolved. This individual provided contact information and expressed a desire that someone would call. One respondent complained that the vents in their area spew black stuff out of them. o 12.5% of comments about facilities and maintenance were complaints regarding broken fixtures. These complaints centered around: Broken bathroom fixtures Windows that no longer open Desks and chairs that are broken and not replaced or fixed. o 12.5% of comments in this section indicated that campus lighting is not adequate. One respondent felt that interior lighting was too bright One respondent indicated that there is not enough light outside buildings. o 12.5% of respondents with concerns about facilities and maintenance noted they felt buildings are in a general state of disrepair. Specific comments dealt with problems in bathrooms and with the ceiling in the engineering complex. o Other concerns regarding maintenance and facilities included: Problems with mold are not addressed to the root of the problem Entire areas of campus are ignored for years at a time Need better and more efficient toilets Tile should be used instead of carpets especially when carpets are not regularly cleaned 16.5% of all comments addressed concerns about Facilities and Services Staff. o The most common concern in this area (47.6% of respondents) was that many areas of FS are understaffed. The most commonly cited area was custodial services (50% of these responses) Other areas cited as being understaffed included: Trades Grounds Secretarial Electric HVAC One respondent felt that FS is not replacing people like they should when people leave or retire Institutional Analysis Page 7

11 o o And one indicated that being understaffed is resulting in delays to get work done 42.9% of responses in this area related to complaints about staff and customer service Of these, 44.4% felt that FS staff was not doing a good job of communicating with clients, and several indicated that even after contacting FS offices multiple times, no response was received. 22.2% of respondents with complaints about staff and customer service indicated that they felt lower level staff was doing a good job, but that management was not. Comments suggest that some individuals may perceive management as being defensive and unwilling to listen. Other complaints about staff and customer service included: FS staff is not locking buildings on a consistent schedule. Fill ins for custodial services are not closing and locking doors Feelings that it takes multiple calls and trips by FS to get a job done. Concerns that FS staff is not properly trained to operate university vehicles. 9.5% of respondents with concerns about FS staff indicated they feel FS staff does not have the resources they need to do their jobs. In particular, they felt that custodial staff is not given the proper tools to keep buildings, and especially floors clean; and that moving trucks need to be equipped with proper ventilation and heating/air-conditioning to keep staff safe. There was also a concern that FS staff is underpaid. 14.2% of written in comments dealt with issues surrounding special projects and Engineering Services. o 55.6% of these indicated that it takes too long for jobs to be completed. The restroom remodel at PSL was specifically cited as a case where this happened. One respondent felt that all projects take twice as long as quoted. One respondent complained that work had stopped on a project even though there was ample money to finish the project. o 38.9% of comments regarding special projects and engineering indicated feelings that projects are too expensive and are not competitively priced. One respondent t went on to add that FS projects usually come in over budget o 11.1% of responses in this category indicated frustrations that routine maintenance had to be considered a special project. In particular, respondents did not feel that floor cleaning and waxing, or repair of fixtures should have to be a special project, but instead that these were services that FS custodians should provide. Institutional Analysis Page 8

12 o o o o o 11.1% of responses with concerns about special projects and engineering services complained that the chilled water pipe replacement project was not handled properly. In particular, one respondent felt that communication about the project had been lacking and one felt that road and sidewalk repairs are not happening like they should be in the wake of piper replacement. 11.1% of responses indicated there were feelings that FS did not properly plan for projects. Instances where the wrong type of staff (a carpenter instead of a plumber) had been sent to fill a work order. 11.1% of responses in this section indicated some members of the university community would prefer to have the option to hire independent contractors instead of FS. There was also a concern that FS staff is overworked. One respondent complained that FS does not have enough spare parts in inventory which causes project delays. 13.4% of written in responses indicated issues with sustainability measures and/or recycling programs at NMSU. o 35.3% of these responses indicated issues with the current recycling program including: 50% who wanted NMSU to recycle more materials, and one respondent who indicated they would like to see the university recycling everything the city recycles. 33.3% wanted to see recycling picked up more frequently. Other respondents were concerned that recycling was not properly sorted, that recycling was being stored in unsafe places such as stairwells, and that more staff than were needed came to pick up recycling. o 23.5% of responses regarding sustainability and recycling suggested that more recycling bins are needed around campus, and that these bins should be found at more locations. o 17.6% of responses regarding sustainability and recycling issues indicated a perception that more energy conservation measures are needed on campus. o 17.6% also wanted to see more motion sensor lights used on campus. o 11.8% wanted to see NMSU use more renewable energy, and solar energy was cited as a preferred source. o Respondents also indicated they would like to see better temperature set-point regulations and that they would like an energy audit to be completed. 6.3% of comments dealt with issues surrounding the survey. o Two respondents indicated confusion as to what the special projects being referred to were. o One wanted a n/a option as a choice o One wanted a dissatisfied instead of a very dissatisfied option. o One respondent felt that the questions were too constrained to get a full picture of opinions about Facilities and Services. Institutional Analysis Page 9

13 o o o One respondent was upset that Firefox did not support the survey. One respondent indicated they liked the survey One respondent wanted to see the results of the survey shared with the campus community. 3.9% of comments identified other issues with Facilities and Services. Of these: o Two were complaints about the new AiM system. One respondent felt that it made things hard to track and that it complicated the procedure to access needed reports. One felt that the new system takes too long to get work orders closed. o One respondent complained of transportation services and indicated they did not like the license renewal process. o One respondent indicated the new gas pump system is not user friendly. o One felt that motor pool is too slow. o And one respondent cited having bad experiences serving on committees with FS staff. 33.9% of all written in comments centered on the good job that FS does. o 30.2% of these comments indicated custodial services are doing a good job. One respondent cited the extra time that staff takes to clean the handicap ramp as being a good thing. o 16.3% of these responses indicated feelings that the Grounds department is doing a good job. o 7.0% felt that improvements had been made to the recycling program and were appreciative of this effort. o 4.7% indicated they appreciated FS communications to the university community, especially regarding construction projects. o Other responses included: Low level staff are great FS is prompt Like the new signage around campus Electrical is good Like the new xeriscaping around campus FS is responsive o There were also multiple responses that singled out specific FS staff as doing a good job. Glen Haubold and Bud Green were cited most frequently as doing an excellent job. Mr. Green s staff were also singled out as staff that are appreciated. Other staff singled out included: Eric in HVAC Ramon Alvarez Esther in Mechanics Custodial o Dolores o Michelle Institutional Analysis Page 10

14 o Magenta o Rosa o Roger o Mike Michael Paul Three respondents also wrote in to indicate they did not have any comments at this time. Question by Question Detailed Analysis: The following provides a more detailed analysis of the survey questions. Each section specifies the question asked and lists the overall percentages and response rates. For those questions about maintenance service, custodial service, and grounds service, a list of buildings that indicated any measure of dissatisfaction with the particular area of FS service can be found in Appendix B. Section 1: General Satisfaction Scale This question read, How would you rate your overall satisfaction level with the work you have seen completed facilities and services in the last twelve (12) months? Table 1 lists the overall percentage of responses for this question. Overall, respondents indicated they were satisfied with FS services, and about 51% of respondents indicated they were either Very Satisfied or Extremely satisfied with the service they had received from FS over the course of the prior year and fewer than 13% of respondents indicated any measure of dissatisfaction with the services provided by FS. Respondents were slightly more likely to indicate they were dissatisfied with Facilities and Services overall than they were in the prior survey administration. Table 1: General Satisfaction with Facilities and Services, Respondent Percentages Extremely Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied Extremely Satisfied Total Respondents Overall Satisfaction with FS in last year 2.5% 9.6% 37.1% 35.7% 15.0% 280 Institutional Analysis Page 11

15 Section 2: Primary Building Question two asked respondents to respond to the following: In order to better meet your facilities service needs, it is important that we be able to evaluate responses to see which areas of campus may need special attention. With this in mind, please choose your primary building on NMSU from the following drop down list. If your building is not listed, please type the name of your building into the write-in box. Written in responses were categorized to the correct building if they were already represented in the given choices. The buildings written that were not included in the drop-down menu that were written in included: Central Utility Plant, Wind Tunnel, Facilities and Services Paint Shop, Anderson Hall/ PSL, The property office and Warehouse, Stan Fulton Athletic Center, Monagle Hall, Vista del Monte, Corbett Center Student Union, Auxiliary Services/ the Bookstore, Facilities and Services Grounds Department, and the Pan Am Annex. There were also responses indicating people were confused regarding the name of Engineering Complex Two, and that people considered themselves to have multiple primary buildings. The following is a listing of the number of responses by each building, and has been updated to include the written in responses. In the event of multiple written in selections, respondents are only counted in the primary building they selected. Building Number of Respondents Hadley Hall 20 Educational Services Center 18 Gerald Thomas Hall 18 Milton Hall 11 Anderson Hall/ PSL 10 Academic Research Center A, B, C 10 Breland Hall 9 Health and Social Services Building 9 No Building Selected 8 Business Complex 8 Knox Hall 8 Regents Row 8 Chemistry Building 7 Computer Center 7 Guthrie Hall 7 O Donnell Hall 7 Ed and Harold Foramen Engineering Complex 6 Jett Hall 6 Branson Library 5 Foster Hall 5 Garcia Annex 5 Facilities and Services Office 5 Science Hall 5 Institutional Analysis Page 12

16 J.B. Delamater Activity Center 4 New Mexico Department of Agriculture 4 Skeen Hall 4 Zuhl Library 4 Astronomy Building 4 Campus Police / Ag. Institute 3 Engineering Complex I 3 Equine Education Center 3 Gardiner Hall 3 Jacobs Hall 3 Stan Fulton Athletic Center 3 Corbett Center Student Union 3 Cervantes Village, Building A 2 Herschell Zohn Theatre 2 John Whitlock Hernandez Hall 2 Natatorium 2 Facilities and Services Construction Office 2 Facilities and Services Lock Shop 2 Facilities and Services Motor Pool 2 PGEL Headhouse and Lab 2 Speech Building 2 W.B. Conroy Honors College 2 Property Office and Warehouse 2 Facilities and Services Grounds Department 2 Central Utility Plant 1 Wind Tunnel 1 Facilities and Services Paint Shop 1 Community Colleges 1 DW Williams Hall 1 Dove Hall 1 Genesis Center, Building C 1 Genesis Center Offices 1 Goddard Hall 1 Music Building 1 Neale Hall 1 O Laughlin House 1 Rentfrow Gymnasium 1 Alumni and Visitors Center 1 Wells Hall 1 Auxiliary Services and Bookstore 1 Monagle Hall 1 Vista del Monte 1 Pan Am Annex 1 Institutional Analysis Page 13

17 Section 3: Custodial Care The first large set of questions in the survey asked respondents about custodial services provided by FS in their primary building. The lead-in to this section read: Facilities and Services provides basic cleaning, recycling, and routine pest control services for Instruction and General Buildings on the Las Cruces Campus. This is done according to a published schedule on the FS website. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the following custodial care areas as they pertain to the building you identified as your primary building. Table 2 lists the areas that respondents were asked about as well as the percentages of responses for each question. In all cases, more than 50% of respondents indicated they were Very or Extremely satisfied with FS custodial services. Over 50% also indicated that they were very satisfied with custodial staff. When respondents indicated dissatisfaction with custodial services, they were most likely to be dissatisfied with the frequency of custodial services and with the cleanliness of restrooms, offices, and classrooms. Table 2: Satisfaction with Facilities and Services Custodial Services, Respondent Percentages Extremely Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied Extremely Satisfied Number of Responses Cleanliness of Public 2.5% 7.4% 32.2% 29.8% 28.1% 285 areas (entryways, lobbies, lounges etc.) Cleanliness of 4.6% 8.5% 34.2% 27.2% 25.4% 283 Restrooms Cleanliness of 1.4% 11.1% 36.1% 28.2% 23.2% 280 offices/classrooms Courtesy of Custodial 0.7% 2.5% 20.1% 24.0% 52.7% 283 Staff Frequency of Custodial 4.6% 8.9% 31.2% 24.1% 31.2% 282 Services Overall Quality of 3.2% 8.1% 29.4% 27.3% 31.9% 282 Custodial Services Sustainability Please rate the effectiveness of the recycling program 1.1% 9.0% 36.6% 32.5% 20.9% 268 Because custodial services are specific to each building on campus, it is also important to look at those buildings where respondents indicated some measure of dissatisfaction with custodial services at NMSU. Please see Appendix B.1 for this breakdown. Institutional Analysis Page 14

18 Section 4: Building and Environment The next large survey section asked respondents questions about the building environment and utilities services in their primary campus building. The beginning of this survey section told respondents: Facilities and Services strives to maintain a comfortable and functional environment for all members of the NMSU community. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the following building and environmental utilities areas of the building you identified as your primary building. Table 3 lists the areas that respondents were asked about as well as the percentages of responses for each question. In all cases, more than 80% of respondents indicated they were at least satisfied with the building and environmental utilities provided by OFS, though respondents were much less likely to indicate high levels of satisfaction with these areas than they were to indicate similarly high satisfaction levels with custodial services. When respondents indicated dissatisfaction with this area, it was most likely that this was related to temperature or energy conservation. Respondents were less likely this year than in the prior year to indicate they were very or extremely satisfied with handicap access. Comments also suggest that this was a potential issue on the NMSU campus. Table 3: Satisfaction with Facilities and Services Building Environmental and Utilities Services, Respondent Percentages Extremely Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied Extremely Satisfied Temperature 5.3% 14.2% 46.8% 20.2% 13.5% 282 Lighting (is it adequate for the task) 1.1% 6.8% 40.2% 34.2% 17.8% 281 Handicap Access 2.2% 4.7% 54.2% 22.9% 16.0% 275 Reliability of utilities (electrical power, heating, cooling meet our needs and have minimal interruptions) 1.4% 7.6% 45.8% 27.1% 18.1% 277 Sustainability Please rate the effectiveness of energy conservation measures 1.8% 13.5% 56.7% 17.1% 10.9% 275 Number of Responses Because environmental and utilities services are specific to each building on campus, it is also important to look at those buildings where respondents indicated some measure of dissatisfaction with these services at NMSU. Please see Appendix B.2 for this breakdown. Institutional Analysis Page 15

19 Section 5: Grounds Services The third large survey section asked respondents questions about FS provided grounds service at NMSU. The beginning of this survey section told respondents: Facilities and Services provides landscape and grounds maintenance, exterior trash receptacle management and concrete and asphalt maintenance. In addition Facilities and Services maintains the walkways and roadways around campus and is responsible for the care of lawns, trees, and shrubs. Facilities and Services is also funded to maintain campus drainage systems. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the following areas as they relate to Facilities and Services grounds maintenance in your area of the university. Table 4 lists the areas that respondents were asked about as well as the percentages of responses for each question. In all cases, more than 75% of respondents indicated they were at least satisfied with these areas. In all areas except management of the recycling program, respondents were more likely to indicate dissatisfaction with this area than in prior years. Comments suggest that much of this dissatisfaction may relate to damage from the February 2011 freeze which has not yet been addressed. Table 4: Satisfaction with Facilities and Services Grounds Services, Respondent Percentages Extremely Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied Extremely Satisfied Number of Responses Maintenance of grounds 3.9% 10.6% 37.3% 28.2% 20.1% 284 (mowing, weeding, trimming, edging, etc.) Quality of landscape 3.9% 10.9% 38.9% 27.7% 18.6% 285 design and maintenance (trees, flowerbeds, etc.) Litter management 4.7% 10.1% 41.3% 30.1% 13.8% 276 Management of recycling 1.8% 8.2% 41.9% 28.7% 19.4% 279 and recycling receptacles Quality of pest control 2.5% 10.8% 41.6% 29.3% 15.8% 279 (indoors and outdoors) Overall quality of 2.5% 10.8% 41.6% 29.3% 15.8% 279 grounds services Courtesy of Grounds staff 2.5% 7.7% 42.6% 30.6% 16.5% 284 Sustainability Please rate the effectiveness of the water efficient landscaping and our other water conservation measures 4.9% 13.8% 47.8% 19.8% 13.8% 268 Because grounds service is specific to varied areas of campus, it is also important to look at those buildings where respondents indicated some measure of dissatisfaction with the services provided by the FS grounds crew. Please see Appendix B.3 for this breakdown. Institutional Analysis Page 16

20 Section 6: Project Development and Engineering The fourth large section of the survey asked respondents questions dealing with special projects and engineering services that may have been provided by FS offices over the course of the prior year. This section was introduced to respondents with the following text: Facilities modifications and enhancements are provided on a reimbursable basis when requested by the user. Please evaluate Project Development and Engineering if you have used their services. In the last twelve (12) months, have you/ your office utilized any of these types of projects and engineering services? 282 respondents answered this question. Of those, 69.9% indicated they had not used FS special projects or engineering services in the prior year, and were directed to the next survey section. The remaining respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction level with the listed FS Project Development and Engineering areas. Respondents were asked first to rate their satisfaction level with Project Development and Engineering, and were then asked to rate the project with respect to the criteria of on time and within budget. Over 60% of all respondents indicated that they were at least satisfied with Project Development and Engineering Services, though respondents were less likely to indicate higher levels of satisfaction with these processes than with Custodial services. Overall respondents were more likely to indicate they were dissatisfied with these services than last year s respondents were. Over 27% of respondents indicated they were dissatisfied with how on time and on budget". Table 5 shows a breakdown of responses for this section. Table 5: Satisfaction with Facilities and Services Special Projects and Engineering Services, Respondent Percentages Extremely Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied Extremely Satisfied Number of Responses Initial Response time for 9.4% 20.0% 36.5% 25.9% 8.2% 85 estimating cost Preparedness of project 8.2% 9.4% 43.6% 27.1% 11.8% 85 workers Knowledge and Skill of Project staff 1.2% 14.1% 40.0% 32.9% 11.8% 85 Please rate the project with respect to the criteria of on time and within budget Did the finished product 4.9% 13.4% 47.6% 24.4% 9.7% 82 meet your expectations? Was the project on time 15.9% 17.0% 40.2% 19.5% 7.3% 82 and on budget? How well were you kept 11.1% 17.3% 38.3% 19.9% 13.6% 81 informed throughout the project? How important is sustainability to your project (extremely satisfied = you would be willing to pay extra)? 9.9% 9.9% 50.6% 22.2% 7.4% 81 Institutional Analysis Page 17

21 Section 7: Facilities and Services Administrative Services The fifth large section of the survey asked respondents questions regarding their experiences with the project administration side of FS. The section lead-in read: In the last twelve (12) months, have you had contact with FS business office staff regarding the administrative side of any maintenance project or Special Projects or Engineering Work (i.e. scheduling, purchase orders, cost and/or payments)? 279 respondents answered this question. Of those, 74.9% indicated they had not used FS special projects or engineering services in the prior year, and were directed to the final write in option on the survey. The remaining were asked to rate their satisfaction level with the listed FS Administrative areas. At least 45% of respondents to this question indicated they were Very Satisfied or Extremely Satisfied with FS Administrative services. Respondents were the most likely to indicate dissatisfaction with the timeliness of inquiries to work status and billing. Table 6 shows a breakdown of responses for this section. In general, respondents had higher levels of satisfaction with respect to the customer services provided by FS administration than in the prior year. Table 6: Satisfaction with Facilities and Services Administrative Service Areas, Respondent Percentages Extremely Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied Extremely Satisfied Number of Timeliness of responses to inquiries about work status Timeliness of responses to inquiries about billing Courtesy of Facilities and Services staff towards customer Accuracy of information provided by Facilities and Services employees Professional Attitude of Facilities and Services employees Knowledge / Skill of Facilities and Services staff Responses 5.4% 9.5% 29.7% 28.4% 27.0% % 9.6% 41.1% 20.5% 26.0% % 2.7% 28.0% 25.3% 42.7% % 12.0% 28.0% 28.0% 33.3% % 5.3% 29.3% 29.3% 36.0% % 7.9% 30.3% 27.6% 32.9% 76 Institutional Analysis Page 18

22 Section 8: Environmental Health and Safety The final large section of the survey dealt with issues relating to Environmental Health and Safety services. The introduction to this section read: Environmental Health & Safety is responsible for facilitating University safety by implementing programs that will serve the students, employees and clients within the state. The objectives of NMSU s safety policy are to prevent personal injury or death, to reduce costs caused by inadequate safety procedures and to reduce environmental pollution. Environmental Health & Safety fulfills its mission to make NMSU a safe environment by implementing programs and services in eight major areas: Education, Training and Protective Equipment, hazardous Waste and materials Management, Health and Safety Inspection/ Faculty Audits/ Activity and Work Reviews, Regulatory Compliance, Accident and Exposure Investigations, Exposure Prevention/Indoor Air Quality, Radiation Licensing & Permitting, and Safety Standard & Procedures. Because there was the potential that not all respondents would have utilized these services in the last year, respondents were first asked the following: In the last twelve (12) months, have you/ your office utilized Environmental Health & Safety Services? 283 respondents answered this question. Of those, 66.1% indicated they had not used FS Environmental Health and Safety services in the prior year, and were directed to the next survey section. The remaining respondents were asked, Please rate your satisfaction level with Environmental Health & Safety Services. In all cases, more than 55% of respondents indicated they had high levels of satisfaction with these areas. Overall respondents were less likely to be dissatisfied with Environmental Health and Safety Services than they were in the prior year s survey. Table 7 lists the areas that respondents were asked about as well as the percentages of responses for each question. Table 7: Satisfaction with Environmental Health and Safety, Respondent Percentages Extremely Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied Extremely Satisfied Number of Responses Initial Response time of 0.0% 2.1% 40.2% 27.8% 29.9% 97 Environmental Health & Safety staff Preparedness of 2.1% 1.0% 36.1% 29.9% 30.9% 97 Environmental Health & Safety staff Knowledge/skill of 2.1% 1.0% 32.0% 30.9% 34.0% 97 Environmental Health & Safety staff Timely completion of work 3.1% 2.1% 41.2% 26.8% 26.8% 97 Follow-up communications 2.1% 1.0% 39.6% 29.2% 28.1% 96 by Environmental Health & Safety Staff Courtesy of Environmental Health & Safety staff toward the customer 1.0% 1.0% 35.1% 29.9% 33.0% 97 Institutional Analysis Page 19

23 Final Question: Write-In The final question on the survey awarded respondents the opportunity to write in any comments, questions, or suggestions they had about FS services. The text for this question read: If you have any further concerns or comments regarding the work provided by Facilities and Services, or recommendations for services you feel Facilities and Services should explore providing in the future, please feel free to share them here. Respondents were limited to 5,000 characters in their responses. Because there exists the potential for different buildings to have different needs, a summary of responses by building can be found below. Respondents who wrote answers to this question in the initial building write in box are counted here as well. Numbers in parenthesis indicate the numbers of written in responses falling into this category, no number means just one person answered this way. Responses are counted in all categories they fall into. A more general summary may be found earlier in the document, and the full text of the write in comments can be found in Appendix C. Comment Summary by Building: Academic Research A, B, C (3) Facilities and Services does a good job (2) Grounds Issues (1) o Few of the trees that died as a result of February s freeze have been removed o Weeds and goat-heads are a problem and have not been removed o There is lots of trash that is not picked up Anderson Hall / PSL (3) Issues with special projects and engineering services (3) o Work on the restrooms took too long (2) o Projects take twice as long as they should and come in over budget due to poor planning (1) Custodial Issues (1) o More frequent trash pick-up is needed (1) o Restrooms are poorly cleaned (1) o Do not like vacuuming being done over the lunch hour (1) HVAC system is poor and the air is too dry (1) Issues with grounds and landscaping (1) o Lawns are over watered, over fertilized, over mowed (1) o Empty beds are still being watered (1) o Do not like blowers (1) o Poor litter control (1) Would like to have a N/A option on the survey (1) Institutional Analysis Page 20

24 Astronomy (3) Issues surrounding sustainability and recycling (2) o Need more recycling bins (2) o Want to see more solar panels being used (1) Issues with grounds and landscaping (2) o We waste too much water (2) o Should not water in hot parts of day (1) o Should not use leaf blowers (1) o Want more xeriscaping (1) Custodians are too busy and overtaxed to do beyond the minimal job (1) Like improvements to recycling program (1) Special projects are too expensive. It should not cost $500 to hang a door or $132 to replace a hinge (1) The wrong staff come for work orders (e.g. Carpenter for a plumbing issue) (1) Branson Library (1) Breland Hall (7) Issues with special projects and engineering (1) o Upset with chilled water pipe replacement feel there has been poor communication and the timing was poor Other Issues (1) o Have been serving on a FS committee which has been disorganized (1) Upset that Firefox didn t work for the survey (1) FS is doing a good job (3) o Custodial services is great (1) o Staff is professional and takes time to listen (1) o Grounds does a good job (1) o Like that there is more xeriscaping happening(1) o Leadership is good (2) Custodial Issues (3) o Custodians not doing a good job (2) o Bathrooms should be cleaned before the start of the workday (1) Grounds Issues (2) o Do not like blowers, they are messy, noisy, and create pollution (1) o Want more xeriscaping (1) o Sprinklers flood areas of campus (1) Issues with special projects and engineering services (2) o Routine maintenance should not have to be a special project, plus it is difficult to get done and is too expensive (1) Institutional Analysis Page 21

25 o Baseboards as part of a remodel project have still not been attached more than a year later (1) Grounds is understaffed (1) Want to see survey results shared with campus community (1) Issues with buildings and maintenance (1) o HVAC system has problems (1) Recycling builds up and gets in students way Business Complex Building (4) FS does a good job (3) o Employees are courteous and helpful (1) o Custodial crew is great (1) o Like the recycling program Issues with Recycling and sustainability (3) o Issues with recycling program (2) Need more bins (1) Recycling is not well sorted (1) Recycling collects under the stairwell and poses a safety issue (1) Recycling needs to be picked up more frequently (1) o Need better electricity conservation (1) Use motion sensing lights (1) o Want to see an energy audit done (1) Issues with Grounds services (1) o Landscaping and concrete is poorly maintained, breaking up, and poses a safety issue (1) o Watering should not be done during the hottest part of the day (1) Campus Police / Ag. Institute (1) Grounds have not been properly cleaned in the wake of February s freeze (1) Cervantes Village, Building A (1) FS does a good job and is very responsive (1) Chemistry Building (3) Custodial Issues (3) o Would like chalkboards cleaned during the day 91) o Bathrooms are not cleaned (1) o Halls and stairs are dirty and have dust bunnies in them (1) o Custodial services are poor all year (1) FS does a good job (2) o Specialty shops are great (1) Institutional Analysis Page 22