Here is the information you will need. 

I work for a fractional ownership company and am creating a rotational
reservation system for our owners.

Consider the following:
1. There are ten owners per home (A thro J)
2. There are two kinds of weeks that each owner can use 'Home Week'
and 'Club Week'. Home Weeks are chosen in month of September and Club
Weeks are chosen in month of November (after Home Weeks have been
chosen).
3. Reservations are done thro a rotational reservation system. Each
owner is assigned a letter (A-J) and given a priority number (1-10)
because there are ten fractions per home as follows:

	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
A	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	1
B	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	1	2
C	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	1	2	3
D	5	6	7	8	9	10	1	2	3	4
E	6	7	8	9	10	1	2	3	4	5
F	7	8	9	10	1	2	3	4	5	6
G	8	9	10	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
H	9	10	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
I	10	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
J	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10


For example: Owner J has first priority in 2005 to choose BOTH his
HOME weeks AND his CLUB weeks...that means an owner gets first
priority once every TEN years to choose both his home weeks and club
weeks.

I would like to create a system so that an Owner can have first
priority MORE often than ten years. Would this work if you create a
REVERSE PRIORITY reservation system as below:

	HW	CW	HW	CW	HW	CW	HW	CW	HW	CW	HW	CW	HW	CW	HW	CW	HW	CW	HW	CW
	2005		2006		2007		2008		2009		2010		2011		2012		2013		2014	
A	2	1	3	2	4	3	5	4	6	5	7	6	8	7	9	8	10	9	1	10
B	3	2	4	3	5	4	6	5	7	6	8	7	9	8	10	9	1	10	2	1
C	4	3	5	4	6	5	7	6	8	7	9	8	10	9	1	10	2	1	3	2
D	5	4	6	5	7	6	8	7	9	8	10	9	1	10	2	1	3	2	4	3
E	6	5	7	6	8	7	9	8	10	9	1	10	2	1	3	2	4	3	5	4
F	7	6	8	7	9	8	10	9	1	10	2	1	3	2	4	3	5	4	6	5
G	8	7	9	8	10	9	1	10	2	1	3	2	4	3	5	4	6	5	7	6
H	9	8	10	9	1	10	2	1	3	2	4	3	5	4	6	5	7	6	8	7
I	10	9	1	10	2	1	3	2	4	3	5	4	6	5	7	6	8	7	9	8
J	1	10	2	1	3	2	4	3	5	4	6	5	7	6	8	7	9	8	10	9

Here, Owner J gets first priority for Home Week selection but LAST
priority for Club WEek selection. HOW do i make this equal for ALL
Owners...can you create a chart and send it to me please asap?

Thanks

---

Clarification of Question by blogjob-ga on 16 Aug 2005 13:01 PDT

Also could you pls. send me the advantages and disadvantages of both
charts i sent to you?

what would happen if the club week selection priority was reversed?
assuming all owners are going for the same weeks (high season) is
there a better way of doing this?

thanks.

Just FYI , you are asking a lot of work for 10 bucks , I suggest you
read up on the google hints for asking questions and their pricing ,
my suggestion for this kind of work would be anywhere between 150 and
200 dollars

(see it as an employee for a day to do this (and that would probably cost you more))

Corwin, appreciate the interest. Although it might take you a day to
do this, most people would do it in under 4 hours. Think of it as a
challenge, if you like. It's not rocket science. I look forward to
Google's response.

For both the systems you have listed the advantage is simplicity. 
Disadvantages for me as a owner are that in the first, 5 years in a
row I have a 6 or worse pick while in the second, it's 4 years in a
row.

This table I created here is a bit more complex but if you follow a
owner over 10 years, every year you have at least a top 5 pick in
either the HW or CW.

key: HW/CW
After 2014 just start over by relabeling 2005 as 2015, 2006 as 2016, etc. 
	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
a	1/10	4/7	7/4	10/1	3/8	6/5	9/2	2/9	5/6	8/3
b	8/3	1/10	4/7	7/4	10/1	3/8	6/5	9/2	2/9	5/6
c	5/6	8/3	1/10	4/7	7/4	10/1	3/8	6/5	9/2	2/9
d	2/9	5/6	8/3	1/10	4/7	7/4	10/1	3/8	6/5	9/2
e	9/2	2/9	5/6	8/3	1/10	4/7	7/4	10/1	3/8	6/5
f	6/5	9/2	2/9	5/6	8/3	1/10	4/7	7/4	10/1	3/8
g	3/8	6/5	9/2	2/9	5/6	8/3	1/10	4/7	7/4	10/1
h	10/1	3/8	6/5	9/2	2/9	5/6	8/3	1/10	4/7	7/4
i	7/4	10/1	3/8	6/5	9/2	2/9	5/6	8/3	1/10	4/7
j	4/7	7/4	10/1	3/8	6/5	9/2	2/9	5/6	8/3	1/10

If this schedule is something that your just starting up you could
adjust the years and priorities either way if desired.

I know it's not the most thought out answer but it didn't take me long.

Hope it helps,
"13"

Thanks for that. 

Questions.
1. How did you arrive at that? Is there a trend or reason for it? 

2. Can you redo the table please based on my table above in that in
2005 alone owner "A" has 2 priority, B has 3, C has 4, ....J has 1
priority.

Can you use this as the setting for the first year (05) and then going
forward use your method?

Thanks

1.  
I created the table by adding priority 1 and then skipping 2 owners
and wrapping on the end.  This helps disperse the really good picks
around.  For the second priority I just gave the worst pick the best
and second worst the second best and so forth on down.  That's why you
see those with one good pick also have a bad pick: 1/10, 10/1, 2/9,
9/2, 3/8, 8/3.  The remainder have 2 so-so picks: 4/7, 7/4, 5,6, 6,5. 
I then shifted the table down each year and took the last entry and
put it on the top.

2.
Exactly as you requested:  <I think>
	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015
a	2/2	1/10	4/7	7/4	10/1	3/8	6/5	9/2	2/9	5/6	8/3
b	3/3	8/3	1/10	4/7	7/4	10/1	3/8	6/5	9/2	2/9	5/6
c	4/4	5/6	8/3	1/10	4/7	7/4	10/1	3/8	6/5	9/2	2/9
d	5/5	2/9	5/6	8/3	1/10	4/7	7/4	10/1	3/8	6/5	9/2
e	6/6	9/2	2/9	5/6	8/3	1/10	4/7	7/4	10/1	3/8	6/5
f	7/7	6/5	9/2	2/9	5/6	8/3	1/10	4/7	7/4	10/1	3/8
g	8/8	3/8	6/5	9/2	2/9	5/6	8/3	1/10	4/7	7/4	10/1
h	9/9	10/1	3/8	6/5	9/2	2/9	5/6	8/3	1/10	4/7	7/4
i	10/10	7/4	10/1	3/8	6/5	9/2	2/9	5/6	8/3	1/10	4/7
j	1/1	4/7	7/4	10/1	3/8	6/5	9/2	2/9	5/6	8/3	1/10

Since it already sounds like this is under way, I don't think my
initial order seemed very fair to a couple of the owners (namely i &
e), putting myself in their shoes would make me feel cheated.  After
shifting it four years to the left and putting myself in each owner's
shoes this seemed fairer:  <shrug>
	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015
a	2/2	3/8	6/5	9/2	2/9	5/6	8/3	1/10	4/7	7/4	10/1
b	3/3	10/1	3/8	6/5	9/2	2/9	5/6	8/3	1/10	4/7	7/4
c	4/4	7/4	10/1	3/8	6/5	9/2	2/9	5/6	8/3	1/10	4/7
d	5/5	4/7	7/4	10/1	3/8	6/5	9/2	2/9	5/6	8/3	1/10
e	6/6	1/10	4/7	7/4	10/1	3/8	6/5	9/2	2/9	5/6	8/3
f	7/7	8/3	1/10	4/7	7/4	10/1	3/8	6/5	9/2	2/9	5/6
g	8/8	5/6	8/3	1/10	4/7	7/4	10/1	3/8	6/5	9/2	2/9
h	9/9	2/9	5/6	8/3	1/10	4/7	7/4	10/1	3/8	6/5	9/2
I	10/10	9/2	2/9	5/6	8/3	1/10	4/7	7/4	10/1	3/8	6/5
j	1/1	6/5	9/2	2/9	5/6	8/3	1/10	4/7	7/4	10/1	3/8

Again, hopes this helps:
"13"

Great thanks, 

Last thing - can you pls. tell me what the advantage of the LAST table
you just sent vs the FIRST one that I sent you (the one existing with
1/1 2/2 for the ten years....) and also the negatives please.

Thanks very much again, tip will come. Thanks

JD

Your welcome!

Haha, I don't work for Google Answers, so this is all free advice and
you can't pay me.

I got the distinct impression from your question that people were
unhappy with the current system and were suggesting a change be made. 
I own a timeshare and so mostly just started putting myself in each
owners shoes and seeing how I would feel about the current system.

The biggest thing that bothered me was every owner over the 10 years
had a time when they had the 2 best picks, then the next year, 2
second picks.  Although, while I had good picks for a few years there
would then come a drought of years where I then had bad picks. 
Typically, I only use my timeshare every few years and sell, give to
family members, or exchange it on the other years.  So using my
system, every 2/3 years I would have a really good pick that I could
schedule and use myself and on the off years, I could give to
family/friends or exchange it.  If I had 2 good picks the same year I
would realistically, only be able to use one of those good picks
because I only have so much vacation and using it twice the same year
would be a rarity for me.  That's my background and why I approached
your query the way I did.

So, I would have to say....

Your first table advantages:  Simplicity, really easy to use.  I don't
know how the schedule is resolved, depending on how it was done, this
system may have an advantage here.

Your first table disadvantages:  Good picks blocked together in the
same year and many concurrent years blocked together with "left-over"
picks.

My last table advantages:  Each year has a good pick and a bad pick or
2 mediocre picks.  There are no long droughts of bad picks that would
frustrate an owner.

My last table disadvantages:  Complex, perhaps confusing system for
some.  Depending on how the schedule is resolved, this may add
complexity.  Converting from one system to another, could never be
completely "FAIR".  I tried to mitigate that by putting myself in each
owners shoes and determining if I would agree to this if it were put
before a vote at a meeting I attended.

"13"

Thank you very much

Another question tho' - I need this on a TEN year rotation starting 05
and ending 2014, not 2015. Would this change anything. As per your
last table, it's till 2015 instead of 2014 because one pick is
repeated.

Wld this mean that we wld start overf again every 11 years instead of
10? That should not make a difference, correct?

Thanks

Sorry - another clarification, and I promise this is the last (!) -
Home Weeks (HW) are booked in the month of Sept and Club Weeks in the
month of November for the following Year. Owners need to block 2 weeks
in the following year as HW and 2 weeks for CW - Your last table gives
Owner J two first priorities for two HOME weeks and also the same
owner J two first priorities for two CLUB weeks!

How can we fix this? PLs. post final table thank youu very much

I'll try my best here.....

I included the extra year 2015 only because I pushed the data out a
year because you asked for the original schedule in 2005, which
delayed the new schedule by a year (which is why there are 11 years
and owner J has the duplicate 1st picks).  When you transition from
one system to the next there will be discrepancies.  In order to build
a schedule that would include your 2005 schedule and then transition
to the new schedule for the next 9 years and still be completely even
and fair would require far more effort than I'm willing to put in, if
it's even possible.... so if the 2005 schedule is inflexible (as in my
last chart at your request) and complete fairness is required for the
following nine years, up to 2014, I can't help you.

My idea was that 2005 would use the original picks and then the
rotation would start at 2006-2015, then repeat for 2016-2025, and so
on.

Original | New ---------------------------------------------
         | yr1  yr2  yr3  yr4  yr5  yr6  yr7  yr8  yr9  yr10
2005     | 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
         | 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
         | 2026 2027 and so on.
.... if that makes sense.



Another couple ideas...... in regard to your original attempt to
modify your schedule.  If you can modify one of the 2005 picks.

This one holds more true to your original idea but shifts your CW by 5
picks instead of only one like your original attempt:
	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
a	2/7	1/6	10/5	9/4	8/3	7/2	6/1	5/10	4/9	3/8
b	3/8	2/7	1/6	10/5	9/4	8/3	7/2	6/1	5/10	4/9
c	4/9	3/8	2/7	1/6	10/5	9/4	8/3	7/2	6/1	5/10
d	5/10	4/9	3/8	2/7	1/6	10/5	9/4	8/3	7/2	6/1
e	6/1	5/10	4/9	3/8	2/7	1/6	10/5	9/4	8/3	7/2
f	7/2	6/1	5/10	4/9	3/8	2/7	1/6	10/5	9/4	8/3
g	8/3	7/2	6/1	5/10	4/9	3/8	2/7	1/6	10/5	9/4
h	9/4	8/3	7/2	6/1	5/10	4/9	3/8	2/7	1/6	10/5
I	10/5	9/4	8/3	7/2	6/1	5/10	4/9	3/8	2/7	1/6
j	1/6	10/5	9/4	8/3	7/2	6/1	5/10	4/9	3/8	2/7

Advantages:  2 first picks separated by 5 years, completely fair, fairly simple.

Disadvantages:  Still has a bit of a run on worse picks every 5 years.


Or this idea that holds to - best and worst pick together, 2nd best
and 2nd worse together, and so on (1/10, 2/9, 3/8, etc.).  I also
shifted the positions by three as this disperses the picks more evenly
over the years but still retains one of the original picks for the
first year:
	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
a	2/9	9/2	6/5	3/8	10/1	7/4	4/7	1/10	8/3	5/6
b	3/8	10/1	7/4	4/7	1/10	8/3	5/6	2/9	9/2	6/5
c	4/7	1/10	8/3	5/6	2/9	9/2	6/5	3/8	10/1	7/4
d	5/6	2/9	9/2	6/5	3/8	10/1	7/4	4/7	1/10	8/3
e	6/5	3/8	10/1	7/4	4/7	1/10	8/3	5/6	2/9	9/2
f	7/4	4/7	1/10	8/3	5/6	2/9	9/2	6/5	3/8	10/1
g	8/3	5/6	2/9	9/2	6/5	3/8	10/1	7/4	4/7	1/10
h	9/2	6/5	3/8	10/1	7/4	4/7	1/10	8/3	5/6	2/9
i	10/1	7/4	4/7	1/10	8/3	5/6	2/9	9/2	6/5	3/8
j	1/10	8/3	5/6	2/9	9/2	6/5	3/8	10/1	7/4	4/7

Advantages:  Fairly even distribution of good/bad picks over the 10
year rotation, completely fair.

Disadvantages:  Somewhat complex.

"13"

Just on a side note , would you work 4 hours for 10 bucks ?

Ummmm, no.  I wouldn't work an hour for 10 bucks.  Which is about what
I've put into this so far.  About 15 minutes of spreadsheet work and
45 minutes trying to explain my thought process.  <Shrug> I was bored
and it sparked my interest because I own a timeshare.... that shall we
say has a lame scheduling policy.  Just hoping to help some other
unfortunate souls.

"13"

I have a question for blogjob-ga - afraid I'm new to this google
system, so please forgive me if I'm not posting this in quite the
right place, in quite the right way.  I too work for a fractiona
ownership company, and I've read with interest this rotating system,
and would like in part to use a similar system. However, instead of
two passes at picking, I'm exploring a system where 6 owners pick on a
rotating priority system, half of their allocation:

	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
A	1	4	6	3	5	2	4	1	3	6	2	5
B	2	5	1	4	6	3	5	2	4	1	3	6
C	3	6	2	5	1	4	6	3	5	2	4	1
D	4	1	3	6	2	5	1	4	6	3	5	2
E	5	2	4	1	3	6	2	5	1	4	6	3
F	6	3	5	2	4	1	3	6	2	5	1	4


After they've picked 4 of their 8 week allocation (during the month of
October the previous year), they then pick the remaining 4 weeks, by
booking within 12 weeks of travel (which we've called 'space
available' bookings)

Firstly, can you spot any ways to improve the above table - or make
more fair. What I quite like is within the first 3 years, all but one
owner gets first or second choice (save F who has to wait 3 years) In
theory, all six owners should be able to have first or second chioce
within 3 years, but I can't figure out how to achieve this, and yet
maintian a systematic rotation.

Having read your comments about not waiting six years, i've jumped
people 2 then 3 years (if you stick with 3 years, people never move to
2 and 4, if they start at priority 1 and 3). Any improvements?

Many thanks!

sorry - meant the question for th1rte3n-ga