Quote:
Someone please explain why it's more difficult to do worker coordination in the 2+2 format. Same number of workers, same number of stations, same number of worker changes (assuming 4 run groups in the AAO format). Seems more a lack of communication in establishing the process than being more difficult. Maybe a handout is in order?
Here's a stab at it Chuck. In our current configuration (fixed run groups) are not equal, there are more folks in prepared and modified than in the stock/ tire/x/ladies group. So before we ever start workers in runs 2&4 are already in short supply. Add to that the confusion caused by A&B grids, especially for novices, and we now have people comming when they're called up to twenty minutes later, after the last car in group 1 or 3 has run. At Sanford we had to stop the event to get the six people on two work stations out to work, more than half of them said they were still running when we called them. Its a pure T fact most people don't understand fixed run group/ A&B grid. And to go a little further if you question ten novices on this subect I doubt that half will know what your talking about. If you put people in numbered groups as in AAO and run them twice to get your 2+2 run format, it is easier to understand. Then no one would have to work immediately after they've run, there would always be one run group between run and work or work and run. Thats why I see AAO working smoother than 2+2. Its just a more simple way of doing things. At least from the work coordinators position and the folks who are out there working. No one at either the Greenville event or at the NCAC was out of step with the work order and thats why they ran as smooth as they did. Along with great courses with low, cone counts and reruns