I How to determine an impact based on components

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Semidevilz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Components Impact
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the contribution of individual sales reps to overall success rates based on their sales and call data from 2016 and 2017. The initial success rate of 14.6% is compared to a final success rate of 4.3%, leading to confusion over how to mathematically determine each rep's impact. Participants highlight the difficulty of combining averages with different bases and point out inconsistencies in the data, particularly regarding the number of calls made by one rep. The conversation emphasizes the complexity of accurately calculating contributions when the underlying metrics vary significantly. Ultimately, the thread seeks a method to reconcile these figures despite the noted challenges.
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.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Back
Top