Which shift schedule is the best for my mechanised logging operation?

Take note of these important recommendations to get the most out of your operators and machines.

Researchers have carried out long-term studies in Chile on over 30,000 logging machine day records. Forestal Mininco started collecting detailed information on the productivity of their contractor’s ground-based harvesting machines across different work schedules. The logging systems used included feller-buncher, skidder and dangle-head processor; and harvesters and forwarders. Maintenance of the machines is carried out by a different contractor during the night.

An extended work schedule was defined as that in excess of 9 hours. Three different types of extended work schedules were studied and compared with the 9 hour shift, and were as follows:
 
  • Single shift of 9 work hours. The shift usually starts at 8 am and finishes at 6 pm (one hour for lunch).
  • Single shift of 12 work hours. The shift usually starts at 8 am and finished at 9 pm (one hour for lunch).
  • Double shift of 16 work hours. The first crew starts at 6 am and finished at 3 pm, and the second crew starts at 3 pm and finished at 12 am (both 8 hours’ work and one hour meal break).
  • Double shift of 18 work hours. The first crew starts at 5 am and finishes at 3 pm, and the second crew starts at 3 pm and finished at 1 am (both 9 hours’ work and 1 hour meal break).

The results showed that production increased as the working hours increased. But, the average hourly productivity dropped by 9 to 30% as the working day increased from 9 to 18 hours. Factors that caused the productivity drop included type of work schedule, type of operation, season, tree species and tree size. The economics of the reduced productivity on the extended work schedules would need to be further quantified. Access the article to obtain a full overview of all factors influencing the research results. The research was published in the New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science 2013, Vol. 43:2. The authors were P Pasicott and G Murphy. Source: http://www.nzjforestryscience.com/content/43/1/2/abstract  
Return to Articles