OPS.22:5.1 - Ten repairs after the work becomes harder

In the constructed case continued from OPS.21, all twelve customers eventually accept. One staffed eight-hour block is authorized and made available, giving 44 hours including six hours of setup. Three repairs then require five hours each instead of three. Twelve repairs would need 48 hours; no additional block can arrive before the promised dates. The coordinator reports the changed work promptly and obtains agreement to defer two standard repairs. Ten remaining repairs need 6 + 7 × 3 + 3 × 5 = 42 hours. Later arrangements retain the two deferred cases, their work and financial obligations.

Suppose acceptance evidence confirms all ten repairs and no omitted quality work. The initial assessment is a miss against the twelve-repair ambition, with two identified needs still outstanding. The work became six hours more demanding for the original twelve. The timely warning and agreed response preserved a feasible service arrangement; the revised promises did not retrospectively achieve the original ambition. Whether another response was better depends on the alternatives actually available then.

A second team reports ten standard repairs against a target of eight. Its 125% and the first team’s roughly 83% do not establish a performance ranking. The first team’s ten repairs required 42 hours with setup; the second team’s ten would require 36 under the same setup assumption. These hours explain a relevant difference in demand, not a complete value or effort score. Recover the second team’s original opportunity, means, quality and any assistance before making a consequential comparison.

The manager decides to keep the factual miss and recognize the first team’s supported corrective action in the operating account. Completion of the deferred work remains an action. If a reward policy nevertheless mandates a different consequence, this judgement is an input to that separate authorized decision, not a power to replace it.