Both scenarios offer the same number of level-1 support staff (6 staff), however scenario 2 offers 6 level-2 support staff while scenario 1 only offers 3. This one change of having 3 more employees in scenario 2 impacted every aspect rather drastically.
The cycle time of a process is measured between its start and end. Scenario 1 was 6 days and 59 minutes, while the cycle time for scenario 2 was 27 days 6 hours and 54 minutes. Scenario 1 is significantly shorter, however in a logical sense if one was to add more employees, the cycle time should begin to decrease. (Note: Signavio simulation runs off probability, and in this case I think they cycle time of 6 days and 59 minutes is not correct in completing the whole process successfully. As …show more content…
Each of the two scenarios differs again. Scenario 1 costs $10,068.77 to complete while scenario 2 costs $11,809.27. This is a $1,740.50 difference. Scenario 1 seems to be cheaper because they are employing less staff. Their cycle time is also shorter for scenario 1, so less time means less money. Obviously, hiring more staff means the project becomes more expensive. However, it would be worth doing so if it decreased the cycle time.
Both scenario 1 and scenario 2 have a bottleneck for level-2 support staff. The process might be delayed due to a shortage of resources. The issue is that an activity might be ready for execution but all resources are already allocated therefore, there is a delay in waiting for the resources to free up. If they were to add one more level-2 employee (total of 7), then this produces no bottlenecks (proven after running through Signavio).
Essentially, one needs to be able to employee enough staff in order to ideally have no bottlenecks. Cost does need to be considered but in this case by adding an addition employee (to 7) it will cost $11,526.81 which is actually cheaper than employing just 6, due to the fact that adding the extra employee creates no bottlenecks. This demonstrates that bottlenecks end up making a process less efficient, as once bottlenecks are eliminated cycle time, resource consumption and cost all
The cycle time of a process is measured between its start and end. Scenario 1 was 6 days and 59 minutes, while the cycle time for scenario 2 was 27 days 6 hours and 54 minutes. Scenario 1 is significantly shorter, however in a logical sense if one was to add more employees, the cycle time should begin to decrease. (Note: Signavio simulation runs off probability, and in this case I think they cycle time of 6 days and 59 minutes is not correct in completing the whole process successfully. As …show more content…
Each of the two scenarios differs again. Scenario 1 costs $10,068.77 to complete while scenario 2 costs $11,809.27. This is a $1,740.50 difference. Scenario 1 seems to be cheaper because they are employing less staff. Their cycle time is also shorter for scenario 1, so less time means less money. Obviously, hiring more staff means the project becomes more expensive. However, it would be worth doing so if it decreased the cycle time.
Both scenario 1 and scenario 2 have a bottleneck for level-2 support staff. The process might be delayed due to a shortage of resources. The issue is that an activity might be ready for execution but all resources are already allocated therefore, there is a delay in waiting for the resources to free up. If they were to add one more level-2 employee (total of 7), then this produces no bottlenecks (proven after running through Signavio).
Essentially, one needs to be able to employee enough staff in order to ideally have no bottlenecks. Cost does need to be considered but in this case by adding an addition employee (to 7) it will cost $11,526.81 which is actually cheaper than employing just 6, due to the fact that adding the extra employee creates no bottlenecks. This demonstrates that bottlenecks end up making a process less efficient, as once bottlenecks are eliminated cycle time, resource consumption and cost all