not on facebook
ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (UPDATED 2017)... HERE

ANNOUNCEMENT : NEW CORONAVIRUS FORUM... HERE



Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

22 Jul 2011, 20:28

80% of the office moan about the other 20%

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

22 Jul 2011, 20:38

I've just read 20% of Postman's posts and 80% were rubbish.

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

22 Jul 2011, 21:42

80 % of bonuses go to less than 20 % of workforce

I'll call that the Parasite principle

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

22 Jul 2011, 22:11

80% of Avatars are ok,19.99 are okable 0.1 get...

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

23 Jul 2011, 14:16

jessicarabbit wrote:At a Pareto efficient allocation (on the Pareto frontier), the marginal rate of substitution is the same for all consumers. A formal statement can be derived by considering a system with m consumers and n goods, and a utility function of each consumer as zi = fi(xi) where is the vector of goods, both for all i. The supply constraint is written for . To optimize this problem, the Lagrangian is used:

where λ and Γ are multipliers.

Taking the partial derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to one good, i, and then taking the partial derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to another good, j, gives the following system of equations:

where ƒx is the marginal utility on ƒ' of x (the partial derivative of ƒ with respect to x).

aye. thats what i thought.

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

23 Jul 2011, 14:25

jessicarabbit wrote:At a Pareto efficient allocation (on the Pareto frontier), the marginal rate of substitution is the same for all consumers. A formal statement can be derived by considering a system with m consumers and n goods, and a utility function of each consumer as zi = fi(xi) where is the vector of goods, both for all i. The supply constraint is written for . To optimize this problem, the Lagrangian is used:

where λ and Γ are multipliers.

Taking the partial derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to one good, i, and then taking the partial derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to another good, j, gives the following system of equations:

where ƒx is the marginal utility on ƒ' of x (the partial derivative of ƒ with respect to x).

........... is this available in Welsh ? :cuppa

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

23 Jul 2011, 16:22

Pinky 1 wrote:
jessicarabbit wrote:At a Pareto efficient allocation (on the Pareto frontier), the marginal rate of substitution is the same for all consumers. A formal statement can be derived by considering a system with m consumers and n goods, and a utility function of each consumer as zi = fi(xi) where is the vector of goods, both for all i. The supply constraint is written for . To optimize this problem, the Lagrangian is used:

where λ and Γ are multipliers.

Taking the partial derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to one good, i, and then taking the partial derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to another good, j, gives the following system of equations:

where ƒx is the marginal utility on ƒ' of x (the partial derivative of ƒ with respect to x).

........... is this available in Welsh ? :cuppa


Be nice if it was available in English :Very Happy

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

23 Jul 2011, 16:23

Bloody Hell Jessica expect a call from Rupert Murdoch, he needs someone to confuse them MPs.

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

24 Jul 2011, 02:27

Steviea34 wrote:
fishtank wrote:That's not individual performance stevie.....it's individual duty resourcing.
It's purely a "should take" measurement not a target that members have to meet.
It was never designed to measure performance.



Sorry fishtank, but what is the difference between
" should take time" and a performance measure.

It's the nueanced distinction we're reduced to making since we agreed to use IWT without getting movement from RM on their unreasonable performance standards first. :arrrghhh
clashcityrocker wrote:One is a conduct issue, the other isn't.

Thought it was a retraining issue?

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

24 Jul 2011, 07:21

Pinky 1 wrote:
jessicarabbit wrote:At a Pareto efficient allocation (on the Pareto frontier), the marginal rate of substitution is the same for all consumers. A formal statement can be derived by considering a system with m consumers and n goods, and a utility function of each consumer as zi = fi(xi) where is the vector of goods, both for all i. The supply constraint is written for . To optimize this problem, the Lagrangian is used:

where λ and Γ are multipliers.

Taking the partial derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to one good, i, and then taking the partial derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to another good, j, gives the following system of equations:

where ƒx is the marginal utility on ƒ' of x (the partial derivative of ƒ with respect to x).

........... is this available in Welsh ? :cuppa


Here you pinky in Welsh :

Ar dyraniad Pareto effeithlon (ar y ffin Pareto), y gyfradd ymylol y cyfnewid yr un fath ar gyfer yr holl ddefnyddwyr. Gall datganiad ffurfiol yn deillio drwy ystyried system gyda defnyddwyr m a nwyddau n, ac un o swyddogaethau gwasanaethau o bob defnyddiwr fel Zi = fi (xi) lle yn y fector o nwyddau, ar gyfer pob i. Mae'r cyfyngiad cyflenwad ei ysgrifennu ar gyfer. Er mwyn gwneud y gorau y broblem hon, mae'r Lagrangian yn cael ei ddefnyddio:

lle λ a Γ yn lluosyddion.

Gan gymryd y deilliad rhannol y Lagrangian mewn perthynas ag un da, i, ac yna cymryd y deilliad rhannol y Lagrangian o ran arall da, j, yn rhoi'r canlynol i'r system o hafaliadau:

lle ƒx yw'r cyfleustod ymylol ar ƒ 'x (deilliad rhannol ƒ mewn perthynas ag x).
:Very Happy :cuppa

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

24 Jul 2011, 15:25

That's got to be a Google translation postmanplod .... aint it ? Although there's no direct translation between the languages we can usually understand each other. Then again, in this case i'm none the wiser :crazy: :chuckle :chuckle

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

26 Jul 2011, 18:03

So our office is stating that the IWT is an individual performance tool. Thus they are saying we can't cut off and leave mail because the traffic etc says it is achievable. Our managers insist that they are being told by the upper echelon that it's an individual tool to measure performance.

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

26 Jul 2011, 21:08

Postal1 wrote:So our office is stating that the IWT is an individual performance tool. Thus they are saying we can't cut off and leave mail because the traffic etc says it is achievable. Our managers insist that they are being told by the upper echelon that it's an individual tool to measure performance.



tell him otherwise, put the ball in his court and work your hours.
what can he do? :cuppa

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

26 Jul 2011, 22:14

Postal1 wrote:So our office is stating that the IWT is an individual performance tool. Thus they are saying we can't cut off and leave mail because the traffic etc says it is achievable. Our managers insist that they are being told by the upper echelon that it's an individual tool to measure performance.

I'm sure they are.
What a surprise.
Anyone who is not a senior union official surprised about this. :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh

If they say you must take everything out, then thats fine.
Just be sure to inform them that you do not intend to work overtime, and that you don't consider it acheavable.
(i know it's eaiser said than done but try not to have an argument about it just tell them matter of fact.)

Then return to the office at your finnishing time with anything you have still to deliver.
If you return undelverd mail to the office you must inform them about it on your return, but you can return mail to the office!

PS. On the occasions that IWT and Pegasus say that workload is achievable in contracted hours are they paying O/T to staff who work extended?

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

27 Jul 2011, 22:08

Do managers understand the performance tool or have RM just made it up ???? Computer packages don't work.

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

28 Jul 2011, 20:42

[quote][/quote]PS. On the occasions that IWT and Pegasus say that workload is achievable in contracted hours are they paying O/T to staff who work extended?

This happened to me, Yes O/T was paid to them but I cut off,
Tomorrow I get my decision about why I did not complete, my dom used the IWT to say I should have finished in time.
also saying I deliberatly went slow :arrrghhh.
Essex mum :cuppa

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

29 Jul 2011, 00:01

jessicarabbit wrote:At a Pareto efficient allocation (on the Pareto frontier), the marginal rate of substitution is the same for all consumers. A formal statement can be derived by considering a system with m consumers and n goods, and a utility function of each consumer as zi = fi(xi) where is the vector of goods, both for all i. The supply constraint is written for . To optimize this problem, the Lagrangian is used:

where λ and Γ are multipliers.

Taking the partial derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to one good, i, and then taking the partial derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to another good, j, gives the following system of equations:

where ƒx is the marginal utility on ƒ' of x (the partial derivative of ƒ with respect to x).

no wonder noone understands, you didn't include the equations!

also use leibniz notation, not the inferior newtonian, increases clarity when about multiple derivations.

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

29 Jul 2011, 09:02

Understanding Pareto’s Law


Checklist

This checklist describes what Pareto’s Law is and how it is applied in business logistics. It is also known as the Pareto principle, or the 80–20 rule.


Definition

Pareto’s Law is an inexact rule that, in a given situation, 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto noted that 80% of Italian income went to 20% of the population. Pareto’s Law was named after him by business management specialist Joseph M. Juran, who spotted that the 80–20 rule was common across many areas of business. For example, 80% of sales generally come from 20% of one’s clients.

Pareto’s Law has many useful applications in business. A Pareto chart is a type of bar chart, used to illustrate the 80–20 assumption, in which the values plotted are in descending order with a line graph showing the cumulative totals of each category from left to right. Such charts are used to monitor, for example, logistics, procurement, stock control, or quality control.

Where there is a large enough data set, Pareto’s Law can be expressed as a mathematical formula. Here, k is a number between 50 and 100 and k% is (100 – k)% of the data set. The number k can be any value between 50 (where 50% of sales comes from 50% of a company’s customers) to almost 100 (where, for example, k = 98, or 98% of sales are to just 2% of clients). Most of the time, in most data sets, k seems to hover around the 80 mark.

Sometimes when logistics are examined, a Pareto calculation may show up a ratio of 80–15 or 80–25. There is no need to panic about this as there is no requirement for the figures to add up to 100. The two figures measure different data sets, such as amount of sales versus number of clients. So, for example, 80–15 would mean 80% of sales coming from 15% of your customers, the remaining 20% of sales being made to 85% of clients.


Advantages

The 80–20 rule is a handy tool for making a quick assessment of almost any measurable logistic before going on to make a more in-depth calculation and assessment of the facts.


Disadvantages

Pareto’s Law is only a rule of thumb application and therefore must never be used as a stand-alone means of calculation. The principle is often misused. For example, it would be inaccurate to assume that if a solution to a problem fits 80% of cases it must be the right solution. There is a clear implication, instead, that the solution should need just 20% of available resources to solve all cases.


Dos and Don’ts
Do

Remember that Pareto’s Law is only a guide and rarely 100% accurate.

Carry out proper in-depth research to back up any findings produced by Pareto’s Law.

Don’t

Don’t make assumptions with Pareto’s Law and base important strategies or policies on basic findings.

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

29 Jul 2011, 12:11

ive been tested loads now ,every time there sneeky about it standing quietly behind me. most recent one was, just starting sorting ,eyes still half shut ,was a very light day ,didnt notice him behind me testing me . Well i was chatting to friend for first 25 seconds of test ,so i failed ,,just .Well all i heard was****** youve failed,,,,in front of everyone,,surely thats wrong ??
Last edited by POSTMAN on 29 Jul 2011, 12:44, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Took your name out.

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

29 Jul 2011, 16:25

spoodoo wrote:ive been tested loads now ,every time there sneeky about it standing quietly behind me. most recent one was, just starting sorting ,eyes still half shut ,was a very light day ,didnt notice him behind me testing me . Well i was chatting to friend for first 25 seconds of test ,so i failed ,,just .Well all i heard was****** youve failed,,,,in front of everyone,,surely thats wrong ??


YES.

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=11602

HANDOUT 8

CAPABILITY CHECK FOR OPERATIONAL GRADE


Following the introduction of Individual Performance Standards, managers and employees should have a clear understanding of what the standards are and what is expected of them. Therefore there will not be a requirement to carry out formal performance checks on fully trained employees, giving managers the opportunity to focus on their principal leadership skills.

The only exception to this will be when an individual’s capability to meet the standard is brought into question due to the length of time they have been away from the task they are due to perform, e.g.: the individual has been performing other duties for a year and the use of a formal one minute check may indicate to the manager that they may require support or refresher training. Where a check is necessary in these circumstances, they should be carried out in the following way.

Please note: this is the only formal process for checking the work rate in respect of capability, which is acceptable both to RMSD and the CWU.

1. The individual is observed working below normal standard.
2. The Manager should approach the individual discreetly and discuss informally with the individual whether they are having any difficulties that are preventing them from working at the normal performance level.
3. Where appropriate carry out a formal one minute check that is applicable to the task being performed
4. Before starting each check, the manager should inform the employee what is happening, i.e. inform the individual when the check has started and that the number of items sorted in a one-minute period will be counted.
5. They should also make sure an adequate head of work is available and that no other known issues are likely to impact on the individual’s performance.
6. On completion of the check, the manager should again take the individual aside and tell them how they have performed. It is vital that this is handled sensitively.
7. Managers should take the opportunity to congratulate the employee where the standards are met.

Points to remember

If you feel an individual’s capability to meet the standard is brought into question;
Due notice should be taken if the employee is new to the area, a reserve, a triallist, a casual or perhaps on a special duty where allowances should be made.
Managers need to have a frank discussion, but be sensitive to the potential reaction and focus on helping employees to improve.
If there are concerns on either side about accuracy, a P40 check should be run as soon as possible.
It is vital to continue to support employees through coaching / counselling / additional training as appropriate.
Managers should be aware of the full range of support services available through the line manager, advice from the EHS on health/welfare issues and employment policy managers for personnel procedures.



So they failed on 2 counts.

Previous page Next page


Page 2 of 4   1, 2, 3, 4