Weighted Ranking

[clarkpaul]

Hi Guys, Please take a look at the table below & let me know your thoughts on the best way to do a weighted ranking based on the data.
[TABLE="width: 500, align: center"]
<colgroup><col style="width:48pt" width="64"> <col style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:2889;width:59pt" width="79"> <col style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:3108;width:64pt" width="85"> <col style="width:48pt" width="64"> <col style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:2560;width:53pt" width="70"> <col style="width:48pt" width="64"> </colgroup><tbody>[TR]
[TD="width: 64"][/TD]
[TD="width: 79"]Calls Taken
[/TD]
[TD="width: 85"]Calls Missed
[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, align: right"]Total Calls
[/TD]
[TD="width: 70, align: right"]Pct Taken
[/TD]
[TD="width: 64"]Pct Rank[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]Team B
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]75[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]25[/TD]
[TD="align: right"] 100 [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]75%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]Team C[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]600[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]400[/TD]
[TD="align: right"] 1,000 [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]60%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]Team D[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]99[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]20[/TD]
[TD="align: right"] 119 [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]83%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]Team E[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]50[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]70[/TD]
[TD="align: right"] 120 [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]42%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4
[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]
Team E is the worst based on the Calls Missed / Total Calls but the biggest opportunity would lie in fixing the problems with Team C. Based on the Pct Taken and the number of Missed Calls what would be the best way to rank the teams?
Thanks

 

[kyleball]

This is a difficult one. It would be hard for us to say what is good for your company.

Potentially having two sets of ranking; the % one you currently have for calls taken vs. calls missed, but another one that just simply ranks the calls taken.

The % taken addresses the calls missed I would have thought? I do not see other ways you can present it. Looking at the chart 400 is obviously a lot to miss, but is 600 equally a lot to take? So does it equal out, and therefore the 60% Pct Taken is representative?

You can show a lot with statistics, and present data in different ways to make one team worse than another. If you just focus on the Pct Taken then Team D would be first; as per your ranking. You could also say that Team C has taken 6 times more calls than Team D?

Statistics will say whatever you want them to. You have to decide what you want to represent, it would be difficult for us to decide for you!

 

[GaryOfah]

IF "total calls" - "calls missed" bigger than any other "total calls" - "calls missed"...(then you have big opportunity)

You haven't stated what you're really want to do!?

So first rank by weight could be by number of "calls taken" and then second rank with less weight could be rank by "pct taken"
As far as I see on first look...

 

[clarkpaul]

Thanks, Kyleball.

 

[clarkpaul]

GaryOfah,
I posted a very simple example. In my real environment, there are 20 managers that manage a total of 300 employees. We're trying to address the problem & the best way, at times, is to rank the managers so there is more pressure on the worst one to "fix" his team. There are a couple of managers in remote areas that don't have many calls. If their percentage of missed calls to their small total is very bad and they are ranked the worst in the nation are they truly the worst compared to a manager that has a large total but has a slightly higher percentage of "taken" calls?

Team XX

Team ZZ

<colgroup><col style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:2084;width:43pt" width="57"> <col style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:1718;width:35pt" width="47"> <col style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:1792;width:37pt" width="49"> <col style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:1718;width:35pt" width="47"> <col style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:2413;width:50pt" width="66"> </colgroup><tbody>
[TD="width: 57"]Team[/TD]
[TD="width: 47"]Taken[/TD]
[TD="width: 49"]Missed[/TD]
[TD="width: 47"]Total[/TD]
[TD="width: 66"]Pct Taken[/TD]

[TD="class: xl66"] 15 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 13 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 28 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, align: right"]54%[/TD]

[TD="class: xl66"] 1,000 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 800 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 1,800 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, align: right"]56%[/TD]

</tbody>

[TABLE="width: 266"]
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup><tbody>[TR]
[TD]Team[/TD]
[TD]Taken[/TD]
[TD]Missed[/TD]
[TD]Total[/TD]
[TD]Pct Taken[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Team XX[/TD]
[TD] 15[/TD]
[TD] 13[/TD]
[TD] 28[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]54%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Team ZZ[/TD]
[TD] 1,000[/TD]
[TD] 800[/TD]
[TD] 1,800[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]56%[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

So in the table above, Team ZZ has a bigger problem than Team XX even though Team XX has a worse Pct Take.
Thanks.

 

[kyleball]

Then the main area of focus is the calls missed, then? With this information you can only compare the Missed calls to the Taken (or with the Total, but that's the same).

If you are unhappy with the Pct Taken %, because of the above ranking, you would need another piece of data to compare it to. E.g., number of employees?

Currently I cannot see any other data you could effectively compare to. If you take out the Pct, then rank by the total Missed calls and team ZZ would be ranked the worst in that?

 

[clarkpaul]

Thanks, Kyleball.
My thoughts are to take the percentage of each manager's missed calls to the total missed calls then rank based on the percentage. Let me know what you think of this:

				Pct Missed
Team	Taken	Missed	Total	to Total Missed	Rank
John
Fred
Pete
Mike
David
Allen
Mary
Jane
Paul
Grand

<colgroup><col style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:2084;width:43pt" width="57"> <col style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:1718;width:35pt" width="47"> <col style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:1792;width:37pt" width="49"> <col style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:1718;width:35pt" width="47"> <col style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:3547;width:73pt" width="97"> <col style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:2962;width:61pt" width="81"> <col style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:1353;width:28pt" width="37"> </colgroup><tbody>
[TD="width: 57"] [/TD]
[TD="width: 47"] [/TD]
[TD="width: 49"] [/TD]
[TD="width: 47"] [/TD]
[TD="width: 97"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl67, width: 81"]Pct Missed[/TD]
[TD="width: 37"] [/TD]

[TD="class: xl67"]to Grand[/TD]

[TD="class: xl67"]Total Missed[/TD]

[TD="class: xl66"] 232 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 53 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 285 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, align: right"]19%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, align: right"]4%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]8[/TD]

[TD="class: xl66"] 357 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 112 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 469 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, align: right"]24%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, align: right"]8%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6[/TD]

[TD="class: xl66"] 126 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 109 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 235 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, align: right"]46%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, align: right"]8%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]7[/TD]

[TD="class: xl66"] 164 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 138 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 302 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, align: right"]46%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, align: right"]10%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3[/TD]

[TD="class: xl66"] 58 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 22 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 80 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, align: right"]28%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, align: right"]2%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]9[/TD]

[TD="class: xl66"] 72 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 284 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 356 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, align: right"]80%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, align: right"]20%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2[/TD]

[TD="class: xl66"] 183 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 113 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 296 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, align: right"]38%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, align: right"]8%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5[/TD]

[TD="class: xl66"] 88 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 456 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 544 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, align: right"]84%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, align: right"]32%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]

[TD="class: xl66"] 105 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 117 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 222 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, align: right"]53%[/TD]
[TD="class: xl65, align: right"]8%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4[/TD]

[TD="class: xl66"] Total [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] 1,404 [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]
[TD="class: xl66"] [/TD]

</tbody>

 

[kyleball]

That looks good; I'm not sure of their level of number experience but will there be information overload?

From what you have already said I would focus on the "Pct Missed to Grand Total Missed"; since that is the kind of ranking it appears you would prefer and achieves the desired results of focusing on the missed calls.

I assume you do =rank for the ranking?

 

[GaryOfah]

In practice it is very complicated and usually unfair to "weight" someone just without knowing who does what and where and when, and so on.
You can't simply add apples and oranges and bananas...

So I think you need real and CORRECT weight of their jobs for start.

My answer was pointed purely on profitability or efficacy.
Although even that can be wrong!
Because one can do one x 5.000.000 $ job and someone else can make one hundred x 1.000 $ jobs.
But even that need correctness...

If you really want to be fair.

 

[clarkpaul]

Thanks Kyle and Gary for your input! It's very much appreciated. I think if I explain the basis for the ranking or if I provide a couple of rankings then I think they'll be able to interpret it based on their point of view.