Re: Time Values

Subject: Re: Time Values
From: Chris Kowalchuk <chris -at- BDK -dot- NET>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 18:57:51 -0400

To refer to "work-months", or "staff-months", strikes me as fine from a
scheduling point of view. I'm thinking of a large factory setting or the
like (anywhere with interchangeable, repetitive tasks, and probably it
represents some sort of aggregate or average "standard" month--might be
useful for planning purposes, I don't know, maybe it's a pre-computer,
legacy concept?), but I take Rebecca's point from a contractual
perspective.

I usually use the term "billable hour" when refering to work-time that I
or my associates might perform for a potential client. So if I estimate
100 billable hours in a week, I rely on the word "billable" to convey
the idea that I'm not talking about one, or any specific person doing
the work, just that the client can expect to be billed for 100 hours,
and we are undertaking to work those hours in the space of one week.
Would I talk about a billable month? No, a project so large that I could
usefully break down the tasks of multiple people performing similar
tasks for months on end is simply right outside my domain.


Chris Kowalchuk


From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=



Previous by Author: Re: Political Correctness Re: Manmonth or Peoplemonth?
Next by Author: Re: Help development and market share
Previous by Thread: Re: Time Values
Next by Thread: Re: Time Values


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads