Interesting, work wherever there's a need until the needs are full? Is that
what you are suggesting? For instance, my heat might be 2, but I can work
wherever there's space? I don't want to work in the first heat, nor the
third, so I select the 4th, in the afternoon? ...just as an example.
--Pat k
> From: Kevin Stevens <autox@pursued-with.net>
> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:41:50 -0800
> To: Pat Kelly <lollipop487@comcast.net>
> Cc: Donald McKenna <donbarbmckenna@earthlink.net>, <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
> Subject: Re: SFR, new run/work format
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2006, at 04:27, Pat Kelly wrote:
>
>>> The latter isn't an obvious nor necessary benefit. You don't have
>>> any more or fewer total work assignments (volunteers aside) with the
>>> work groups divided up differently.
>> actually, there are more jobs to be assigned these days, including the
>> waiver sign-ups at the gate, kid kart manager, novice instructor or
>> advisor,
>> yadda yadda.
>
> That's absolutely true, but I was trying to point out something
> different to Don - a couple of responses have given me the impression
> I didn't do very well, so I'll try again.
>
> If you have 220 entrants, you have 220 man-positions to work with
> without asking for assistance (volunteers). That number doesn't
> change whether you're running eight groups, six groups, or two groups
> - it is dependent on the number of entries, not the run groups.
>
> What Don was saying is that, with more run groups, y'all were finding
> instances where some task was going unfilled in a sparsely populated
> group - so the chosen remedy was to make fewer groups, which
> hopefully would a) help average out the attendance in each group, and
> b) leave more workers on hand for each group so a sparse group would
> still be able to handle the course. You still have 220 man-positions
> to deal with, you've just made the tasks fewer but longer.
>
> That's fine as a practical matter, but understand that the base
> assumption is invalid - the "solution" only pertains because work
> groups are artificially tied to run groups in the first place. There
> is no necessary reason to do this beyond convention.
>
> Now, Pat, to get back to your point: yes, you have to have all the
> positions covered, and that may force you to fewer/longer work
> assignments anyway. As a rough estimate, you need 4 people in the
> trailer per run group, and about 12 other non-course assignments
> (gate, tech, sound, reg, etc.). Course worker stations is usually
> determined by number of radios, 6-8 typically, with ideally three
> people at each. So, at 40 man-positions per run group, you certainly
> would be overtaxed for eight run groups, and would have to either
> change the run group count or decouple the work assignments from the
> run groups. OTOH, if you can get by with six stations with two
> workers, you're down to 28 man-positions per run group and eight
> groups becomes more feasible again.
>
> KeS
|