How to determine an impact based on components

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Semidevilz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Components Impact
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the contribution of individual sales representatives to an overall success rate based on their sales and call data over two years. Participants explore the arithmetic involved in determining how each rep's performance affects the total success rate, with a focus on the differences in call volume and success rates.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a method for calculating overall success rates based on individual sales and calls, seeking to understand how to attribute changes in success rates from 2016 to 2017.
  • Another participant questions the calculation of the total success rate, pointing out a discrepancy in the numbers leading to confusion over the correct percentage.
  • There is a discussion about the reasonableness of the call volume for one representative compared to others, suggesting that the large discrepancy may not be plausible.
  • Concerns are raised about the inconsistency in representing success rates as decimals versus percentages, which could lead to misunderstandings in calculations.
  • A participant expresses uncertainty about the validity of adding averages with different bases, using examples from baseball statistics to illustrate the potential pitfalls of such calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of the calculations or the methodology for attributing success rates to individual reps. Multiple competing views and uncertainties remain regarding the arithmetic and its implications.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the data, the potential for typographical errors in the figures presented, and the differences in bases for calculating averages. These factors contribute to the complexity of the calculations being discussed.

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:
Physics 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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K