energy efficiany versus less usage

[KasseemF]

A company has brought a team together to investigate whether cutting the work day by 2 hours will help them to cut utility costs.

While this may be true if you punch in the numbers i realise the building owned by this company are not energy efficient.

I would like to ask if which would cut cost more; making the building more energy efficient or by cutting the work hours.

 

[Jraef]

Cutting the work hours does absolutely nothing for efficiency, it just temporarily cuts the utility bill. But assuming less work gets done, then they have also cut productivity. So either it takes them longer to do the same work, or the money they do spend on utilities gets amortized into less profitability, so the net savings is probably even worse.

Unless it's a government office...

 

[zog]

The middle 6 hours of an 8 hour day are where the most work gets done. The 1st hour and last hour are usually not very productive (Hey you watch Lost last night?), cutting down the hours only cuts out the middle, productive hours and is therefore less efficient from a production view.

 

[Jraef]

The middle 6 hours of an 8 hour day are where the most work gets done. The 1st hour and last hour are usually not very productive (Hey you watch Lost last night?), cutting down the hours only cuts out the middle, productive hours and is therefore less efficient from a production view.

Add to that the 1/2 hour periods before and after lunch...
"Where we goin' today guys? No, not pizza again..." then followed by
"Dude, can you believe the size of that burrito?! I'm too stuffed to work..."

So an 8 hour work day is really a 5 hour work day stretched over 8 hours.

 

[rcwilson]

Don't forget all of the hours wasted posting on websites.

 

[LarryFine]

Don't forget all of the hours wasted posting on websites.

Hey!

 

[ptonsparky]

Read someplace it takes about ten minutes for a person to get back on task for each interruption. It's a wonder we get anything done what with short days, restroom breaks, and short skirts. Nope didn't see Lost last night.

 

[kwired]

4 ten hour days instead of 5 eight hour days per week, in many cases will result in more productivity for the week and can save some energy costs depending on the situation.

There have been a few schools that have experimented with this around this area. Longer days Mon - Thursday. No school Friday.

They have found there is less transportation cost - 1 less day per week to run bus routes. There is one less day per week where heating or cooling is used at occupied settings. Energy used for lighting probably a little less - similar number of hours when students are present - when students are not present is where there can be a difference.

 

[glene77is]

Cutting the work hours does absolutely nothing for efficiency, it just temporarily cuts the utility bill. But assuming less work gets done, then they have also cut productivity. So either it takes them longer to do the same work, or the money they do spend on utilities gets amortized into less profitability, so the net savings is probably even worse.

Unless it's a government office...

Jraef,
Right on!
Shorter hours means more energy for working during the shorter hours .
For the employee, it means more transportation costs for wages earned.
And ... Fixed business costs will eat the company alive.

 

[skeshesh]

Interesting thoughts from everyone but I didn't see a ref for the claims. For me personally, the "productivity" is a function of many factors, including time-line, task volume, scale of project, my own interest in the subjects, importance of client, etc. etc. I think there's more to having "productive" hours than saying its the middle 6 hours or that it takes x number of minutes to get back to a task.

Having said that I think chances of saving "value" is small - I say that because maybe the company is on the brink of going down, or having to cut down, and cutting those few hours of wages + utilities will help them float. But as far as value, I dont think anything will be accomplished by cutting down the 2 hours. In addition, I don't think there's any way for a consultant to calculate the result either way and they're just some BS artists talking big and cashing out. The only way to find out for sure is to cut the hours and post a meter for about 6 months.

 

[nakulak]

energy efficiency is a real issue, because of the time it takes to amortize the cost to refit the building to be energy efficient.

 

[kwired]

Interesting thoughts from everyone but I didn't see a ref for the claims. For me personally, the "productivity" is a function of many factors, including time-line, task volume, scale of project, my own interest in the subjects, importance of client, etc. etc. I think there's more to having "productive" hours than saying its the middle 6 hours or that it takes x number of minutes to get back to a task.

Having said that I think chances of saving "value" is small - I say that because maybe the company is on the brink of going down, or having to cut down, and cutting those few hours of wages + utilities will help them float. But as far as value, I dont think anything will be accomplished by cutting down the 2 hours. In addition, I don't think there's any way for a consultant to calculate the result either way and they're just some BS artists talking big and cashing out. The only way to find out for sure is to cut the hours and post a meter for about 6 months.

It is really going to depend on factors at the location where the cut down is to occur. Some places could have a positive result in savings others could have a negative result. Some processes or procedures are efficient while running but inefficient at startup or shutdown and may take a long time to start or stop, others can be started and stopped anytime and not effect efficiency much at all.

 

[brian john]

Unless it's a government office...

Such wise words