I How to determine an impact based on components

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Semidevilz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Components Impact
Semidevilz
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I feel this is an easy arithmetic, but I can’t figure out how to get it to work out.
Let’s say I have an overall metric of sales data that can be broken down by 5 sales reps.

In 2016, each rep makes a certain number of phone calls and their success rate is # of sales divided by # of calls. I'm able to determine my overall 2016 performance by summing each reps sales and dividing by the total number of calls for a total success rate. so for example:
rep1: sales: 5; calls 10; success .50
rep2: sales: 3; calls 20; success .15
rep3 : sales: 2; calls 10; success .20
rep4: sales: 1; calls 10; success .10
rep5: sales: 8; calls 80; success .1
total: sales 19; calls 130; success .146

In 2017, the same 5 reps performance are available

rep1: sales: 5; calls 100; success .05
rep2: sales: 10; calls 20; success .5
rep3 : sales: 2; calls 10; success .20
rep4: sales: 1; calls 100; success .01
rep5: sales: 80; calls 2000; success .4
total: sales 98; calls 2230; success 4.3%
my goal is that I want to start at 14.6%(initial success) and mathematically determine how much each rep contributed to my final success of 4.3%.

Ideally, 14.6% + or minus rep1...rep2...rep3...rep4...rep5 = 4.3%. how do I do this calculation? I've tried a couple methods with weighting and such but I still can't get it to tie out.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Semidevilz said:
total: sales 98; calls 430; success 4.3%
How did you get 4.3% from 98 out of 430? I get 23%.

Also, I think that rep5 only made 200 calls, not 2000.

Edit: Oh, that's what happened. It's all that typo for rep 5. Fix that number.
 
jbriggs444 said:
How did you get 4.3% from 98 out of 430? I get 23%.

Also, I think that rep5 only made 200 calls, not 2000.

Edit: Oh, that's what happened. It's all that typo for rep 5. Fix that number.
Whoops. Fixed! 2000 is correct for this exercise
 
Semidevilz said:
Whoops. Fixed! 2000 is correct for this exercise
How can 2000 calls for rep5 be reasonable when the other reps made between 10 and 100 calls?

Also, you can easily confuse yourself and others by being inconsistent with some success rates written as decimals and others as percentages.
Semidevilz said:
Ideally, 14.6% + or minus rep1...rep2...rep3...rep4...rep5 = 4.3%. how do I do this calculation?
I don't know if it makes much sense. You can't really add averages if their bases are different. This works correctly in "baseball averages" if a batter is up 6 times with 2 hits in one game, and up 4 times with 1 hit in another game. His average would be ##\frac 2 6 + \frac 1 4 = \frac 3 {10}## or .300, but regular fractions don't work this way. Outside of baseball ##\frac 2 6 + \frac 1 4 = \frac 4 {12} + \frac 3 {12} = \frac 7 {12}##, which is a lot larger than .300.
 
Mark44 said:
How can 2000 calls for rep5 be reasonable when the other reps made between 10 and 100 calls?

Also, you can easily confuse yourself and others by being inconsistent with some success rates written as decimals and others as percentages.I don't know if it makes much sense. You can't really add averages if their bases are different. This works correctly in "baseball averages" if a batter is up 6 times with 2 hits in one game, and up 4 times with 1 hit in another game. His average would be ##\frac 2 6 + \frac 1 4 = \frac 3 {10}## or .300, but regular fractions don't work this way. Outside of baseball ##\frac 2 6 + \frac 1 4 = \frac 4 {12} + \frac 3 {12} = \frac 7 {12}##, which is a lot larger than .300.

Thanks. I know there's some issues with calculating it the way I want, but was just wondering if there was a way to make it work.
 
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...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top