Question

1. Is Findley overworked? Why or why not? Should another technician be hired?

Answer 1

Findley is not overworked; he works inefficiently. There is also a quality problem. It is not necessary to hire another technician, because the problem is not workload. Consider the following:

• Findley’s typical test sequence is ECHO, ECHO, OPG, ECHO, ECHO, PVR, ECHO, ECHO, OPG, and so forth. This sequence breaks Findley’s workday into the following pattern: 2 hours (ECHO, ECHO), 10 minutes (setup time), 30 minutes (OPG), 10 minutes (setup time), 2 hours (ECHO, ECHO), 10 minutes (setup time), 30 minutes (PVR), 10 minutes (setup time), 2 hours (ECHO, ECHO).
• Because of cramped space, Findley spends 10 minutes moving equipment in and out of the room to set up for different tests.

In performing this sequence of tests and ignoring the telephone interruptions and test restarts, each day Findley spends 7 hours performing tests, spends 40 minutes in setup time moving equipment, and has 20 minutes of idle time (equipment for the first test is in place from the end of the previous day). Better layout and increased space would eliminate the need to move equipment and would reduce nonproductive time. A 40-minute-per-day increase in productive time over a 5-day work week would provide 200 minutes, or 31/3 hours, of extra time each week. Findley could perform three more ECHOs per week (156 per year) or six more OPGs or PVRs per week (312 per year), or some combination of these. There is underutilized space (50%) in the next room—the stress laboratory. Switching locations might be appropriate, or a door could be cut in the wall and part of the stress laboratory could be used.

Findley wastes a lot of time scheduling tests. On average, three of four tests Findley administers are interrupted by telephone calls. Each time, he loses 10 minutes: 2 minutes to talk and 8 minutes to restart a test. At the preceding year’s annual rate of 800 ECHOs, 200 OPGs, and 200 PVRs, Findley performs 1,200 tests per year. If he loses 8 minutes restarting the test 75% of the time, that is 120 hours of lost time per year (1,200 × 0.75 × 8 minutes = 7,200 minutes/60 = 120 hours). If that time were used for testing, Findley could perform 120 more ECHOs or 240 more OPGs or PVRs per year.

Standard times and projected annualized volume are as follows:
1,200 ECHOs × 1 hour each = 1,200 hours/year
300 OPGs × ½ hour each = 150 hours/year
300 PVRs × ½ hour each = 150 hours/year
Total = 1,500 hours/year

Excluding breaks and 2 weeks of vacation, Findley has 2,000 work hours per year (40 hours/week × 50 weeks). The projected hours of work are 1,500. Thus Findley does not need a full-time assistant. In fact, he could work at 75% utilization (1,500/2,000) and still perform the expected workload. Stated another way, Findley could increase his present workload by 331/3% [(2,000 – 1,500)/1,500].

Findley could improve scheduling by decreasing the number of different setups. For example, he could group ECHOs from 8:00 a.m. to noon, PVRs from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., and OPGs from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. However, he should not lose perspective—meeting customers’ needs/expectations (convenience) should be a prime concern with any scheduling system. Because Findley works by appointment, he has a degree of control and can make improvements.

Another technician might be hired for reasons other than present workload. It is desirable to have someone else trained so that service to customers (patients and physicians) will continue
uninterrupted should Findley resign or become ill. A better solution is to cross-train another employee to perform tests when Findley is sick or on vacation and to serve as a backup. Why not use the underused (40%) employee in the stress laboratory?