Talk:Capacity utilization

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The definition of the utilization rate given in the utilization rate article is false - I suggest that a redirect be inserted to this article, which discusses the measurement of the rate anyhow.

User:Jurriaan

Capacity Utilization can also be how much a person is utilized in a working shift. It is the normal question of: "Was there work for 8 hours"? If there was work for 8 hours and the employee had been working for 8 hours then his capacity utilization is 100%. If the employees's work exceeds more than 8 hours and goes on working for another 4 hours to complete the work then the capacity utilization is 150%. However, the efficiency would be lower when compared to the capacity utilization. Thus, this would also draw a difference between efficiency and utilization.--Samuelco (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Bitros's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Bitros has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

This lemma should be extended to cover all aspects of the effects of the intensity of utilization on the wear and tear of equipment, and hence its need maintenance. In doing, so one would be obliged also to extend considerably the selection of the references.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Bitros has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

Reference : Bitros, George C., 2009. "The Theorem of Proportionality in Mainstream Capital Theory: An Assessment of its Conceptual Foundations," MPRA Paper 17436, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Capacity utilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]