5 ms·
I appreciate the reply but I think time-to-refund is a terrible metric for estimating how much human touch time is involved in processing a return. What more do
by dfc 13y ago
I appreciate the reply but I think time-to-refund is a terrible metric for estimating how much human touch time is involved in processing a return. What more do we know about human paper processing time per return than before?
How much would your answer change if you found out that there are only two people processing paper returns? 2^32 people? What if you found out that the types of returns that are mailed in are 10x more complicated/detailed than e-filed returns? Would it change if you knew there was an intentional processing delay on paper returns to increase e-file adoption?
- scott_s 13y agoI think it's a decent metric, and I'm surprised you don't agree. If we forget the "human time" part, it's a clear indicator of which method is more efficient.
- dfc 13y agoGiven that you want to "forget the 'human time' part" I am curious what you think the metric is for. Maybe you meant to respond to a different comment. In this thread I had asked if anyone had any numbers/estimates for processing time. I wanted these numbers because "It would be interesting to see how many minutes of human time are needed for the average paper return."
- scott_s 13y agoI had assumed "minutes of human time" was a proxy-metric for efficiency.