Improving the organization in the work of the installation department

Earlier, I posted the article The First Two Conclusions of Interaction with Personnel . At that time (the end of November 2012) I accepted these conclusions for myself as an axiom (although such models as Maslow's Pyramid can more or less explain why this is happening), put these conclusions aside and began to build "from what was" .
Since initially I was engaged in the organization of construction and installation work at the facilities, it was decided to start the “modernization” from the technical department.
At that time in our technical department worked 2 installers, capable of being slave at the facility and 6 independent engineers. Having omitted such trifles as providing engineers with a tool (“shantsevym”, electric and high-altitude) and consumables, I turn to the description of the process of changes in the organization of work.

1) I decided to do away with the problem of working on weekends. Previously this was decided on a voluntary basis, i.e. who could (wanted), he went to work. I stopped this practice using the duty schedule. All independent engineers take turns on duty at the weekend. Duty means that the engineer must be ready to work within an hour of the time the call is made (mine or the project manager). As a rule, it’s enough to be in the city (we are in St. Petersburg) and be ready to go to work. Often work on duty is known in advance.
If we talk about the financial side of the issue, then for each day of duty the engineer receives a "subscription fee" and, of course, the budget defined for this object.
Thus, the "psychological problem of the day off" was removed. The engineer knows that if he is not on duty, no one will once again float his brain to be interested in his temporary capabilities on a day off; I was calm, knowing that I have one engineer at the weekend. Of course, an “off-duty” engineer can always express a desire (opportunity) to work additionally on weekends, if there is work for two.
Separately, I want to note that the duty schedule is interchangeable, that is, if the weekend is long (as "May", for example), then the maximum "duration" of duty is three days, then the next one is on duty.
2) Sometimes rush situations arise when a large number of applications arrive at the same time, the manager makes mistakes in the timing of the work (the engineer is busy longer than originally planned), or both, and the third is added.
There is also a situation when it is necessary to send a certain engineer to a certain object, because there is a guarantee or maintenance and the last time there was he and only he who is aware of the latest changes. However, yesterday, a new object was planned for this engineer and the work on it must already be performed, and other engineers are already planned for other objects (a special case of the situation described above).
In other words - temporary lack of human resources. This is a problem of a large number of organizations like ours, as it seems to me (either “simple” employees due to the decline in the volume of work, or lack of human resources).
While the situation was calm (February, March), I began to search and ring round brigades for readiness to perform installation work of a small volume (2-3 days maximum work).
Thus, a list of brigades and masters with their time capabilities was compiled and, as soon as I saw that our staff could not cope with the flow of orders, several objects were carried out by the involved specialists.
I can say that in this way the technical department was able to perform almost any number of objects that I could pass through myself in terms of the information needed to accomplish the tasks and to understand the correctness of the order and the correctness of the circuit assembly as a whole.
At the moment, I hired an assistant who guides installers at these sites. I myself am engaged in the organization of work on large orders.
Thus, in terms of performing technical tasks, we have a “foundation” (algorithm) on which large volumes can be built.
What conclusions I made for myself based on the solution of the above problems:
1) There is no need to try to understand why certain things happen, unless understanding these causes is not a direct solution to the problems that these things conceal in themselves (in the context of organizing work at the facilities: it does not matter much, WHY people “are not "Want to work on weekends);
2) In priority, it is always necessary to display an action, not a theory; However, this action should always be based on "basic" factors (people "not very" want to work on weekends);
3) One person is able to keep such number of objects parallel in time that his human resource (“brain”) can pass through himself in the amount of information sufficient for correct reception and transmission of information from the lower level (the Contractor) to the higher ( To the customer) and back;
I believe that there are people for whom all the information and conclusions presented are not new, but for me personally now (after solving the above questions) it is much easier to solve other tasks related to the human factor. And, of course, you understand best of all those situations that you went through yourself.
I hope my experience will be interesting and readers. I also expect to hear how you solved similar or similar problems.