Calculating Break Adherence for Employees with Multiple Breaks

  • Thread starter Thread starter stoey
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Computing
stoey
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
hi math wizards,

a simple problem i have...work time is 8.5 hours while paid break is 1.25...paid break is divided into 3 parts 0.5, 0.25 and 0.5...any body knows how to compute the adherance to this? the goal of this problem is to compute the break adherance of an employee. An employee has 3 breaks that is 30 minutes (0.5) 15 minutes (0.25) and another last break of 30 minutes (0.5). if an employee's record on 1st break is like start is 11:30 AM and ends at 12:00 PM then the difference of the time is 30 minutes...therefore if his time is 30 minutes then he should get 100% on that particular break...so the same goes with the other break parts...overall an average of the total 3 break is the final mark..so if the employee's break scores are all 100% then he gets final score of 100%... I am not sure how to derive a formula on this... all i have is Adherence=work time minus paid break divided by work time...but i am not getting a 100% score when computing it...

regards,

stoey
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
stoey said:
Adherence=work time minus paid break divided by work time
That can't be correct. Are you sure it's not work time (t) plus paid break (b) divided by total time at work (or they are supposed to be at work) (w) or something? A = (t+b)/w

So if the work time (from what I can tell of your work up) is 8.5 (=t) hours, the paid break is 1.25 (=b), and the total time at work is 9.75 (=w) then you have:

A = (8.5 + 1.25)/9.75 = 1 (so multiply by 100 if you want percent)

Then set t and b to the times worked. I'm not a math "wizard", so the percentages for break and work may have to be set also, but seems like it might be at least closer to what you are looking for.
 
hi cone,

thanks for the quick reply:

if i have 3 parts break then how would the formula be then? will it stays as like this? since break is divided into Break1: 30 minutes (0.5), Break2: 15 minutes (0.25) and Break3: 30 minutes (0.5)...then formula would be like: A=8.5+0.5 / 9.75 for break1, then A=8.5+0.25 / 9.75 for break2, then A=8.5+0.5 / 9.75 for break3? well tried this formula with the following values:
break 1
IN:11:30 AM OUT: 12:00PM DIFFERENCE:0:30 or 0.5
break 2
IN:1:45 PM OUT: 2:00PM DIFFERENCE:0:30 or 0.25
break 3
IN:4:00 PM OUT: 4:35PM DIFFERENCE:0:35 or 0.58

TOTAL DIFFERENCE IS 1.33

then using the formula A=8.5+1.33/9.75 gives me 100.8547009 percent...this should not exceed 100% it should however decrease since the total paid break is only 1.25 and in excess of this paid break should be a deduction to the total 100% score...sorry for being a pain but i hope you can help me with this...i appreciate your efforts..

regards,

stoey
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top