[reccom] End-of-year analysis

[Merrill Webb]

To the committee,
Milt's observations are 'right on'.  As an out-going
member of the committee I have appreciated working
with all of you, and especially Milton, who puts in a
lot of time to make the records committee function. 
He has been such an improvement over the previous
secretary.  Hope you all have a nice Christmas season
and a productive new year in terms of species seen and
also in terms of species added to the state list.
Merrill Webb
--- David Wheeler <dswheeler at utah.gov> wrote:

> Dear Milt,
>  
> Thank you for that reminder.  It must be one of the
> less enjoyable aspects of your position as
> secretary, whipping the troops into obedience. 
> Hopefully, you won't, in this Christmas season, have
> to resort to crucifying one of us at the crossroads
> as an example to the others.  I also hope we can be
> excused in delaying a couple more weeks on the
> Tufted duck vote so to give Mark an opportunity to
> triumphantly pull a slide out of his hat.
>  
> Thank you,
>  
> David
> 
> >>> Milt Moody <miltonmoody at yahoo.com> 12/8/2006
> 11:21 AM >>>
> 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,
> 
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> reccom mailing list
> reccom at utahbirds.org
> http://utahbirds.org/mailman/listinfo/reccom



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com