[reccom] End-of-year analysis

[Milt Moody]

Here's a little end-of-year analysis, presented with the best of
intentions and in good holiday cheer:

I think we’re doing a good job of reviewing the records we receive, but
I think we can improve on the length of time it take to review the
records, without decreasing the quality of the reviews.  I think the
people who submit the records deserve a “timely” review and I believe
that it will help to facilitate records submissions to the Committee
(and it’s just a good thing to do).  Here’s what I’m thinking:

I’m concerned that we, as a committee, are not reviewing the records in
a “timely manner” as is required by the bylaws.  Although the meaning
of “timely” is up to interpretation, I think we should all be able to
estimate what would be a reasonable time it would take to review a
record of a distinct species with a good photo or something like that. 
I’ve gone through the records that were reviewed this year and done a
little analysis on the first-round records that passed 7 to 0 (I assume
they would be the “easiest” records) and here’s what I found:

- 25 of the 36 records completed so far this year are in this group –
the  “(7-0)” group.
- 13 of the 25 (7-0) records took more than 2 months to review.  (Four
of those had photos).
- The shortest time it took to complete any record was 36 days.
(Painted Redstart in Zion NP).

I think if we take the record with the shortest completion time and
estimate how long it would take to throughly review this record we
might get a pretty good estimate of a reasonable time for a very “easy”
record.  
     This record had three photos of the bird from different angels. 
It was reported by six different groups over about a month period. The
description was very short (so it would take even less time to review)
but included the phrase “black with white wing bars, bright red breast”
 the photos show a black warbler-shaped bird with white wing bars, an
extra long tail and a bright red breast.  I figure the longest time any
committee member could read this record and look at the pictures
without being completely convinced could not possibly be more than 10
minutes, tops. If a committee member could find 10 minutes or so within
the first week (or two) that this record was posted then the completion
time would be under 14 days at the very most.  Could that possible be
under estimating a reasonable completion time for this record?  A
completion time of 36 days for the SHORTEST completion time this year
couldn’t even be close to being “timely” (am I completely out of it
here?) Would anyone disagree with that?  Seems like we’re not even
close to fulfilling the bylaws requirement of voting in a “timely
manner.”  (Any explanation why this would NOT be a generous estimation
of completion time  for an “easy” record, would be much appreciated).

Here are some more “stats” for ALL of the records:

- Average days to complete the first round = 60.7 days
- Average days for (7,0) records (the easy ones) = 60.3 days
- Average days to review 2nd and 3rd round records = 64.7 days per
review.
- Average reviews done each week per member = .94 (including 2nd and
3rd round reviews)
- The first round for 19 of the 36 records reviewed so far took more
than 2 months.

The two month deadline:

Although in the bylaws both phrases “in a timely manner” and “vote on
each record expeditiously” were given  to describe the “normal”
expectation of how a member should vote, a  a two-month deadline was
also set up for “unusual circumstances.”  In these cases where  such
“unusual circumstances” would prevent a member from voting before this
(very generous)  deadline, an extension was supposed to be requested, I
assume before the deadline arrived.  Here are more stats:

- Number of records exceeding the two-month deadline  = 19 (of 36)
- Number of extensions requested = 0
- Number of explanations given for going past the deadline  = 1
- The average review times for the 2nd and 3rd rounds exceeded the
deadline. (Ave. 64.7 days/review)

I’m concerned about the performance of the committee as a whole, so I
don’t want to point out any individuals who need to improve, rather I’d
like to make some general suggestion that I think would possibly be
helpful and it is up to each one individually to make sure they’re
doing their part to help the committee function like it should.

Here’s what I’d suggest:

- When you get the announcement of a new record, go through the link
provided to check out what kind of record it is, so you can see how
much it will take to do a thorough review.
- Try to find time each week to vote on one or two records. (Average
this year has been about one record per week)
- Vote sooner rather than later.
- When a record goes to the 2nd or 3rd round and the comments are
available, go immediately to read the comments to see if they change
your mind and if you are convinced one way or the other, vote
immediately. (If you need to do more research then that’s a different
matter).
- If there are circumstances that will prevent you from voting before
the deadline, please contact the secretary or the whole committee, as
is required by the bylaws, so that you can be granted an extension for
that record.
- Adjust your expectation of what a “timely vote” is to days rather
than weeks or months. Plan on getting  to a record the same week it is
posted if you possibly can.

If anyone else has suggestion on how we can improve in this area (or
any other area), that would be much appreciated.

Thanks to all for the excellent work you do.  Except for the “timely
thing” (said with a smile and a wink) it’s a pleasure to work with this
great bunch of bird lovers,
Milt


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Have a burning question?  
Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.