I don't know if this is staged, but it's more or less what I'd do if I had one chainsaw per fifteen people to remove fallen trees, and even that's probably generous for the feds. It's basically the same logistical problem that led to the bucket brigade as a solution. You can't make the throughput any higher with more people, since you're limited by the input, but you can balance and reduce the workload on all of them, so you end up doing more in the long run. The most egregious thing is the three or four extra people near the end of the line.
it's more or less what I'd do if I had one chainsaw per fifteen people to remove fallen trees
Nah, it's still wrong. If I had 15 people and one chain saw, I'm cutting that tree into the largest manageable parts, having fourteen people drag (might as well put that excess manpower to work) those tree parts toward the pile, and then I'm off to find more trees to cut into manageable chunks while they do that hauling. Then, while they haul the other tress, I'm cutting the tree parts at the pile into smaller pieces. While I'm doing that, they can go dig ditches or something, too. People shouldn't be standing around.
There is always a better plan. And even if you still want to do that "manageable first cut" crap, you don't need 15 people. 3-4 would be more than enough for the distance of travel and it's not like carrying a log is particularly hard work.
It's not as efficient use as you've put forward, but it's still better than what they're currently doing while maintaining a level of cushy-ness that shouldn't be tolerated for what is essentially rescue/recovery work.
Just an example off the top of my head, not necessarily the most efficient way. At least my way doesn't have people standing around, and everyone's bouncing around from problem to problem.
I don't know if this is staged, but it's more or less what I'd do if I had one chainsaw per fifteen people to remove fallen trees, and even that's probably generous for the feds. It's basically the same logistical problem that led to the bucket brigade as a solution. You can't make the throughput any higher with more people, since you're limited by the input, but you can balance and reduce the workload on all of them, so you end up doing more in the long run. The most egregious thing is the three or four extra people near the end of the line.
Nah, it's still wrong. If I had 15 people and one chain saw, I'm cutting that tree into the largest manageable parts, having fourteen people drag (might as well put that excess manpower to work) those tree parts toward the pile, and then I'm off to find more trees to cut into manageable chunks while they do that hauling. Then, while they haul the other tress, I'm cutting the tree parts at the pile into smaller pieces. While I'm doing that, they can go dig ditches or something, too. People shouldn't be standing around.
There is always a better plan. And even if you still want to do that "manageable first cut" crap, you don't need 15 people. 3-4 would be more than enough for the distance of travel and it's not like carrying a log is particularly hard work.
It's not as efficient use as you've put forward, but it's still better than what they're currently doing while maintaining a level of cushy-ness that shouldn't be tolerated for what is essentially rescue/recovery work.
Just an example off the top of my head, not necessarily the most efficient way. At least my way doesn't have people standing around, and everyone's bouncing around from problem to problem.