Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Cumulative <br />($000,000) <br /> <br />Table II <br />FY 1994 Repayment Status <br />[Combining PAO and SLCAO] <br /> <br /> Net <br /> Principa Number Revenue <br /> 1 Repaid of per <br /> Employee Employee <br /> s <br />BAO $ 898 390 $ 2.30 <br />LAO $ 0 280 $ 0.00 <br />PAO and SLCAO $ 1,007 384 11 $ 2.62 <br />SAO $ 317 197 $ 1. 61 <br />Area Office $ 2,222 1, 251 $ 1. 78 <br />Totals <br /> <br />Comparing the numbers in this table with Table I, you see that <br />management's recommendations would increase overall productivity <br />per employee, but only marginally (HQ employees contribute <br />nothing to revenue, so I'm leaving them out of these figures). <br />Average cumulative revenue per employee goes up just $10,000. <br />That's not even enough to cover the cost of the reorganization. <br /> <br />This is where 'management' comes in. Part skill, and part art. <br />Rather than accepting the first proposal you see, experiment. <br />Try to find if some other combination of your organization's <br />resources would be more beneficial. <br /> <br />Let's see.. .Table I shows that the office with the least revenue <br />is Loveland. It also has the second-largest staff. The <br />combination makes it a good candidate for some re-tooling. Since <br />Loveland's biggest job is selling power from Billings' Pick-Sloan <br />Project, why not combine those two offices? How would that look? <br /> <br />II Assumes continuation of PAD's greater per-employee productivity in new, combined AQ. average <br />of two preceding offices' productivity in new, combined, AD. <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />01134 <br />