Yeah, just plucked from the air (had to be a big number to work) .... I imagine you could make this more sophisticated, but the basic thought was to emphasize the aspect that was the most important w/o tossing the baby out with the bath water (profit), which seemed like where you were going.
Reducing the constant almost immediately puts the .38 salesrep on top... I'm not sure if that's a flaw, or a benefit. I suppose it allows you to more precisely split hairs <g>. I have to admit, I'm with Enrique on this one. The real world difference between the two top salespeople in your example isn't quantifiable, but this kind of stuff is a fun diversion. Good luck! Ben Petersen On 8 Nov 2002, at 10:55, tellef wrote: > > Ben: > > >The simplest thing I can think of is to use a multiplier that > >amplifies the % profit and still consider the $profit: SP1 = > >(10,000*.4)+(.4*1,500)) = 4600 SP2 = (10,000*.4)+(.4*150)) = 4060 SP3 > >= (10,000*.38)+(.38*2000)) = 4560 > > I see the profit% in there (the .4 and the .38), and I see the > profit$ in there (1500,150,2000). What does the '10,000' represent? > Just a constant number? Your formula seems to work! > > > Tom: > > >By that I mean to take the $sales and the percent of > >profit, drop the decimal from the percentage and multiply the two. > >While > the > >number has no real meaning, it would sort them such that your example > would > >rank them as 1-60000, 2-6000, 3-76000, 4-57000 > > Your way of calculating gives salesman3 the edge, while Ben's gives > salesman1 the edge. I think I'll take both solutions to the client > and ask them which person, in their opinion, they would want to see > 'on top'. Then maybe I'll use that formula! > > > Larry: > > >Assign each salesperson a rank from 1 to X (where X is the number of > >salespeople) according to total dollar profit. Assign them a > >separate > rank > >according to percentage profit. Add the two ranks together, and > >print > your > >list in ascending order of combined rank. < > > That might work. I'll have to run some numbers through on the > actual data and see if it represents that they would want to see. > > > >So, my friend, I would not worry too much. Go to sleep and know that > >whatever your solution, most likely they will not be happy. Because > >you > are > >trying to quantify the unquantifiable. > > That's pretty funny, Enrique. True, but funny. Loved reading your > reply. > > Thanks everyone!!!! > > Karen > > > > > ================================================ > TO SEE MESSAGE POSTING GUIDELINES: > Send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > In the message body, put just two words: INTRO rbase-l > ================================================ > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In > the message body, put just two words: UNSUBSCRIBE rbase-l > ================================================ TO SEARCH ARCHIVES: > http://www.mail-archive.com/rbase-l%40sonetmail.com/ > ================================================ TO SEE MESSAGE POSTING GUIDELINES: Send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message body, put just two words: INTRO rbase-l ================================================ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message body, put just two words: UNSUBSCRIBE rbase-l ================================================ TO SEARCH ARCHIVES: http://www.mail-archive.com/rbase-l%40sonetmail.com/
