Re: Dosimetry

[Jim Abraham <jimabe@lamar.colostate.edu>]

Bob Flood wrote:

> I must not be making myself clear on this.
> 
> When you sent in your monthly badges, it took a certain number of staff at
> the vendor's lab using a certain number of readers to get the badges
> disassembled, checked, processed, calculations done, and the data reported
> to you, all by some target deadline. When you send in quarterly badges,
> unless you changed the number of people you badge, you're sending the same
> number of dosimeters as you did when you processed monthly. It takes the
> SAME number of vendor staff and the SAME number of readers to get the job
> done in the time alloted as it did in the monthly schedule, and the vendor
> can't lay off the staff or get money back on the readers in the intervening
> months. To stay in business, the vendor HAS to generate pretty much the
> same income from the smaller number of processing cycles to stay as it used
> to under the larger number of cycles. In addition to having to carry the
> labor and reader costs, the vendor also has to carry the computer and
> software costs (not trivial, and the vendor's costs for these doesn't go
> down if the customers uses fewer badges). About the only cost that goes
> down for the vendor has to do with dosimeter inventory - that isn't usually
> a particularly large part of the total operating budget to begin with, and
> switching to quarterly, where the vendor had already made the investment to
> have enough dosimeters on hand, essentially strands the vendor's investment
> unless the vendor and generate new customers to offset the change.

Bob, I have had more than one dosimetry vendor tell me that an overall
cost reduction should occur when moving from monthly to quarterly.  How
do you explain that ??  That alone indicates to me that the company is
actively seeking new customers (as they should).  (I believe this
equates to your last statement about snowflakes).  Only one of the
vendors that I know of is charging this triple amount.  I have spoken
with those who have managed dosimetry programs and one of whom said that
"the decreased work load in going from monthly to quarterly on a vendor
is so great that it absolutely justifies a price break".  I'm just
trying to gather information on this and get the fair price for the
taxpayers of Colorado, who are incidentally paying this cost.  I have
that obligation, not to mention that I can't stand it when someone tries
to rip me off.

> 
> Exactly how the pricing structure should change is up to each vendor and
> I'm not advocating that any old pricing scheme is just fine. But most of a
> dosimetry lab's costs are fixed, and unit pricing doesn't go up and down
> like it does at Walmart. 

My problem up to this point is that my pricing structure doesn't make
sense, period.  This is why I'm questioning this whole thing.  When I
compare my prices to other universities and what they pay for the exact
same badge from the EXACT same vendor, I've found that prices for some
badges are not even comparable to what I pay.  If you use the same
vendor I do, I would hazard a guess that our prices are not the same. 
You might be paying more than me !!  Why should you ?

At a previous job the number of people badged was
> reduced, and I was asked how much the dosimetry budget could be cut as a
> result. That answer was zero, and I had a hard time defending that for a
> while, but eventually prevailed.
> 
> >What's fair ?... a 52% increase as one RADSAFER reported to me...  OR
> >...  a greater than 300% increase which I saw on my last statement.
> 
> If I understand you correctly, the 300% increase means the bill for
> quarterly badging would be as much as the sum of three monthly badging
> cycles. That's what I mean by a vendor needing to generate the same income
> each quarter whether it's from monthly or quarterly badging cycles. And the
> one that will do quarterly for 50% more than monthly is probably counting
> on gaining new business with the dosimeters it used to send to you. Just
> like snowflakes, no two are alike.

I agree with this assessment.  No two snowflakes are alike, and the
vendor who actively goes out and tries to generate new customers, offer
the most competitive price while providing a good service, can have my
business. I don't want to pay the same price for essentially a fraction
of the processing that is done.  I have fixed costs too.  

Bob, I have sincerely enjoyed your comments.  Thanks and keep them
coming if you wish.
Take Care.

-- 
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
James P. Abraham
Alt. Radiation Safety Officer
Radiation Control Office - Environmental Health Serv.
Colorado State University - Fort Collins, CO 80523-6021

Phone: 	(970) 491-3928		Fax: 	(970) 491-4804
email: 	jimabe@lamar.colostate.edu
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html