In the preceding examples the elapsed thnes on the "average" routes 

 for one and two men, respectively, were 180.6 and 157.0 minutes, or an 

 elapsed time saving with two men of 23.6 minutes. The additional cost in 

 man minutes, however, was 133.4 minutes. For the "most efficient" routes, 

 the elapsed times for one and two men, respectively, were 144.5 and 123.5 

 minutes, or an elapsed time saving with two men of 21.0 minutes. The 

 additional cost in man minutes with two men was 102.5. 



Comparative Delivery Route Costs 



The minimization of delivery route costs is the summation of the 

 efficiencies realized from maximizing volume, rearranging routes to mini- 

 mize travel distance and time, minimizing loading time, and minimizing de- 

 livering and unloading time. The most significant indicators of delivery 

 route efficiency are the following: number of 100-lb units, number of miles 

 on route, number of stops, number of 100-lb units delivered per mile and 

 per stop, man minutes spent per 100-lb unit, and cost of delivery per 100- 

 lb unit. Costs per mile or per ton-mile are likely to be misleading, in that 

 they yield unfavorable comparisons on shorter routes, somewhat irrespective 

 of what other measures show, and even though shorter routes are generally 

 desirable. 



In Table 18, 3 routes were selected which approximate the extremes 

 and the modal area for the 60 routes on which comprehensive data were 

 obtained. Cost projections were made on the basis of preceding and succeed- 

 ing information. In terms of the data in the study the routes can be de- 

 scribed as follows: 



This type of comparison has the obvious limitation of a number of 

 variables, the effect of each of which upon the final result (cost per unit) 

 is difficult to appraise. There are other variables such as truck size which 

 are frequently hidden in many sets of data based upon observed route costs. 

 Fortunately, this factor is not a variable in the three examples presented. 



For analyzing many cost problems, and for that of grain-feed delivery 

 route costs in particular, more significant appraisals can be made through 

 a budgetary approach, wherein as many as possible of the variables can be 

 held constant, and varied one at a time. Hence, with respect to the problem 

 of analyzing relative costs of bagged and bulk delivery routes, "average 

 cost" comparisons for a number of combined routes or direct comparisons of 

 individual routes, similar in some respects but different in others, have been 

 avoided. In attempting to analyze the relative efficiencies of the two methods 

 the budgetary approach has been followed, holding most factors constant. 



The two questions which Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2, respectively, 

 arc designed to analyze are the following: 



(1) Given a constant load, routes of equal distance, like numbers of 

 stops and settings, and relatively high efficiency, which is cheaper 

 — distribution of bagged feed or bulk feed? 



38 



