Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

120155Re: [XP] Re: Like Garlic for Vampires

Expand Messages
  • Ron Jeffries
    Jun 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Interesting ... evocative ... not far off, I'd guess. Thanks!

      Ron Jeffries
      Hold on to your dream. --ELO

      On Thursday, June 1, 2006, at 6:03:06 AM, Philip Doherty wrote:

      > I didn't even count the time spent on the interruption just the
      > time taken to get back into flow.

      > So, It was the number of interruptions multiplied by the stated
      > 15 mins to get back into flow which gives
      > the time. I multiplied this by the charge out rate per day which
      > is approx 3 times the salary per day.

      > A lot of calls were only re-directing to someone else, i.e.
      > complete waste of our time and the callers time.
      > It was surprising how many times these calls happened. Of course
      > some times the calls were useful and
      > necessary so after looking at the detail recorded by each person
      > on their interruption log I decided that
      > around half the calls were unavoidable. So I calculated the
      > figure on trying to reduce the interruptions to
      > half.

      > If you think you answer 4 calls a day during work you are
      > immersed in then its 4 x 15 mins (Dimarco) that's
      > an hour a day.

      > 356 days a year - 104 (weekends) - 35 (holidays) = 222 working days

      > So one hour a day x 222 days = 222 hours

      > 222 * hourly rate = Cost

      > Work out the percentage of calls you find to be not useful (in my
      > case 50%) and that's how I came up with my
      > figure of 10,000 per year. (we had more than 4 calls a day)

      > 1) The assumptions I made were that the person was in flow at the
      > time of interruption. 2) The saved time
      > would be spent on chargeable work.
    • Show all 25 messages in this topic