Normalizing Time Periods to Compare Them
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am working on a project where I am trying to compare the number of projects completed in various, discrete time periods. The time periods are categorical (if that matters).
The thing is that each time period has a different number of days and people working on the projects that were completed in that time period.
In order to compare the time periods, I took the number of people working in each time period and divided that by the largest number of people in any time period to get a people normalizer. I did the same thing for the number of days in each period, dividing the number of days in each period by the number of days in the period with the most days. Thus, these normalizers are on a 0 to 1 scale with the period with the greatest number of people and days having a score of 1.
Then I multiplied the day and people normalizers for each period to get an overall normalizer. I then divided the non-normalized number of projects in each time period by the combined day and person normalizers to get the adjusted, normalized number of projects.
Example
Period 1: 65 days. 8 people, 5 projects completed.
Period 2: 85 days, 9 people. 6 projects completed.
Period 3: 90 days, 10 people, 4 projects completed.
I want to normalize these three periods so that I'm comparing how productive each period was given the number of people and days.
Is this a legitimate way of normalizing these time periods so they can be compared to each other?
algebra-precalculus
asked Nov 16 at 23:56
rfhickey
64
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am working on a project where I am trying to compare the number of projects completed in various, discrete time periods. The time periods are categorical (if that matters).
The thing is that each time period has a different number of days and people working on the projects that were completed in that time period.
In order to compare the time periods, I took the number of people working in each time period and divided that by the largest number of people in any time period to get a people normalizer. I did the same thing for the number of days in each period, dividing the number of days in each period by the number of days in the period with the most days. Thus, these normalizers are on a 0 to 1 scale with the period with the greatest number of people and days having a score of 1.
Then I multiplied the day and people normalizers for each period to get an overall normalizer. I then divided the non-normalized number of projects in each time period by the combined day and person normalizers to get the adjusted, normalized number of projects.
Example
Period 1: 65 days. 8 people, 5 projects completed.
Period 2: 85 days, 9 people. 6 projects completed.
Period 3: 90 days, 10 people, 4 projects completed.
I want to normalize these three periods so that I'm comparing how productive each period was given the number of people and days.
Is this a legitimate way of normalizing these time periods so they can be compared to each other?
algebra-precalculus
asked Nov 16 at 23:56
rfhickey
64
I suggest you give a small example. Also, when you say "compare", what do you want to compare exactly? What units?
– NoChance
Nov 17 at 0:04
Thanks for your reply. Here is an example: Period 1: 65 days. 8 people, 5 projects completed. Period 2: 85 days, 9 people. 6 projects completed. Period 3: 90 days, 10 people, 4 projects completed. I was to normalize these three periods so that I'm comparing how productive each period was given the number of people and days.
– rfhickey
Nov 17 at 0:05
The question is interesting, I suggest you post it on: pm.stackexchange.com
– NoChance
Nov 17 at 0:30
Are you looking for the productivity of people? Just divide time by number of projects and number of people assuming that the projects have same difficulty level.
– Moti
Nov 17 at 6:22
@NoChance Thanks. I may do that!
– rfhickey
Nov 17 at 15:40
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am working on a project where I am trying to compare the number of projects completed in various, discrete time periods. The time periods are categorical (if that matters).
The thing is that each time period has a different number of days and people working on the projects that were completed in that time period.
In order to compare the time periods, I took the number of people working in each time period and divided that by the largest number of people in any time period to get a people normalizer. I did the same thing for the number of days in each period, dividing the number of days in each period by the number of days in the period with the most days. Thus, these normalizers are on a 0 to 1 scale with the period with the greatest number of people and days having a score of 1.
Then I multiplied the day and people normalizers for each period to get an overall normalizer. I then divided the non-normalized number of projects in each time period by the combined day and person normalizers to get the adjusted, normalized number of projects.
Example
Period 1: 65 days. 8 people, 5 projects completed.
Period 2: 85 days, 9 people. 6 projects completed.
Period 3: 90 days, 10 people, 4 projects completed.
I want to normalize these three periods so that I'm comparing how productive each period was given the number of people and days.
Is this a legitimate way of normalizing these time periods so they can be compared to each other?
algebra-precalculus
asked Nov 16 at 23:56
rfhickey
64
I am working on a project where I am trying to compare the number of projects completed in various, discrete time periods. The time periods are categorical (if that matters).
The thing is that each time period has a different number of days and people working on the projects that were completed in that time period.
In order to compare the time periods, I took the number of people working in each time period and divided that by the largest number of people in any time period to get a people normalizer. I did the same thing for the number of days in each period, dividing the number of days in each period by the number of days in the period with the most days. Thus, these normalizers are on a 0 to 1 scale with the period with the greatest number of people and days having a score of 1.
Then I multiplied the day and people normalizers for each period to get an overall normalizer. I then divided the non-normalized number of projects in each time period by the combined day and person normalizers to get the adjusted, normalized number of projects.
Example
Period 1: 65 days. 8 people, 5 projects completed.
Period 2: 85 days, 9 people. 6 projects completed.
Period 3: 90 days, 10 people, 4 projects completed.
I want to normalize these three periods so that I'm comparing how productive each period was given the number of people and days.
Is this a legitimate way of normalizing these time periods so they can be compared to each other?
algebra-precalculus
algebra-precalculus
asked Nov 16 at 23:56
rfhickey
64
asked Nov 16 at 23:56
rfhickey
64
edited Nov 17 at 0:13
asked Nov 16 at 23:56
rfhickey
64
asked Nov 16 at 23:56
rfhickey
64
asked Nov 16 at 23:56
rfhickey
64
64
I suggest you give a small example. Also, when you say "compare", what do you want to compare exactly? What units?
– NoChance
Nov 17 at 0:04
Thanks for your reply. Here is an example: Period 1: 65 days. 8 people, 5 projects completed. Period 2: 85 days, 9 people. 6 projects completed. Period 3: 90 days, 10 people, 4 projects completed. I was to normalize these three periods so that I'm comparing how productive each period was given the number of people and days.
– rfhickey
Nov 17 at 0:05
The question is interesting, I suggest you post it on: pm.stackexchange.com
– NoChance
Nov 17 at 0:30
Are you looking for the productivity of people? Just divide time by number of projects and number of people assuming that the projects have same difficulty level.
– Moti
Nov 17 at 6:22
@NoChance Thanks. I may do that!
– rfhickey
Nov 17 at 15:40
|
show 3 more comments
I suggest you give a small example. Also, when you say "compare", what do you want to compare exactly? What units?
– NoChance
Nov 17 at 0:04
Thanks for your reply. Here is an example: Period 1: 65 days. 8 people, 5 projects completed. Period 2: 85 days, 9 people. 6 projects completed. Period 3: 90 days, 10 people, 4 projects completed. I was to normalize these three periods so that I'm comparing how productive each period was given the number of people and days.
– rfhickey
Nov 17 at 0:05
The question is interesting, I suggest you post it on: pm.stackexchange.com
– NoChance
Nov 17 at 0:30
Are you looking for the productivity of people? Just divide time by number of projects and number of people assuming that the projects have same difficulty level.
– Moti
Nov 17 at 6:22
@NoChance Thanks. I may do that!
– rfhickey
Nov 17 at 15:40
I suggest you give a small example. Also, when you say "compare", what do you want to compare exactly? What units?
– NoChance
Nov 17 at 0:04
I suggest you give a small example. Also, when you say "compare", what do you want to compare exactly? What units?
– NoChance
Nov 17 at 0:04
Thanks for your reply. Here is an example: Period 1: 65 days. 8 people, 5 projects completed. Period 2: 85 days, 9 people. 6 projects completed. Period 3: 90 days, 10 people, 4 projects completed. I was to normalize these three periods so that I'm comparing how productive each period was given the number of people and days.
– rfhickey
Nov 17 at 0:05
Thanks for your reply. Here is an example: Period 1: 65 days. 8 people, 5 projects completed. Period 2: 85 days, 9 people. 6 projects completed. Period 3: 90 days, 10 people, 4 projects completed. I was to normalize these three periods so that I'm comparing how productive each period was given the number of people and days.
– rfhickey
Nov 17 at 0:05
The question is interesting, I suggest you post it on: pm.stackexchange.com
– NoChance
Nov 17 at 0:30
The question is interesting, I suggest you post it on: pm.stackexchange.com
– NoChance
Nov 17 at 0:30
Are you looking for the productivity of people? Just divide time by number of projects and number of people assuming that the projects have same difficulty level.
– Moti
Nov 17 at 6:22
Are you looking for the productivity of people? Just divide time by number of projects and number of people assuming that the projects have same difficulty level.
– Moti
Nov 17 at 6:22
@NoChance Thanks. I may do that!
– rfhickey
Nov 17 at 15:40
@NoChance Thanks. I may do that!
– rfhickey
Nov 17 at 15:40
|
show 3 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Project 1. 13 × 8 people days per project.
That is how to rank them, by people days per project.
That is simple and should be sufficient for comparesions.
If you need some complicated ranking number, then
divide the people days per project by some arbitrary
number like m, the maximum people days per project.
If you want higher rating to be better in a limited
economic sense, then use 1 - m, a number you
may want to multiply by 100 for a % like rating.
answered Nov 17 at 8:34
William Elliot
6,7902518
This is a really interesting solution. Basically, it seems to me that by performing this calculation that you will get a percentage of how much faster the average project was completed in each period compared to the period where projects were completed the slowest on average. Is that correct? So in the examples I provided above, the largest number of people days used for the average project (225) was period 3 and the lowest was period 1 (104). 104/225 =.46 and 1 - .46 = .54. .54 times 100 = 54. So projects were completed on average 54% faster in period 1 than in period 3. That what you meant?
– rfhickey
Nov 17 at 16:13
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Project 1. 13 × 8 people days per project.
That is how to rank them, by people days per project.
That is simple and should be sufficient for comparesions.
If you need some complicated ranking number, then
divide the people days per project by some arbitrary
number like m, the maximum people days per project.
If you want higher rating to be better in a limited
economic sense, then use 1 - m, a number you
may want to multiply by 100 for a % like rating.
answered Nov 17 at 8:34
William Elliot
6,7902518
This is a really interesting solution. Basically, it seems to me that by performing this calculation that you will get a percentage of how much faster the average project was completed in each period compared to the period where projects were completed the slowest on average. Is that correct? So in the examples I provided above, the largest number of people days used for the average project (225) was period 3 and the lowest was period 1 (104). 104/225 =.46 and 1 - .46 = .54. .54 times 100 = 54. So projects were completed on average 54% faster in period 1 than in period 3. That what you meant?
– rfhickey
Nov 17 at 16:13
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Project 1. 13 × 8 people days per project.
That is how to rank them, by people days per project.
That is simple and should be sufficient for comparesions.
If you need some complicated ranking number, then
divide the people days per project by some arbitrary
number like m, the maximum people days per project.
If you want higher rating to be better in a limited
economic sense, then use 1 - m, a number you
may want to multiply by 100 for a % like rating.
answered Nov 17 at 8:34
William Elliot
6,7902518
This is a really interesting solution. Basically, it seems to me that by performing this calculation that you will get a percentage of how much faster the average project was completed in each period compared to the period where projects were completed the slowest on average. Is that correct? So in the examples I provided above, the largest number of people days used for the average project (225) was period 3 and the lowest was period 1 (104). 104/225 =.46 and 1 - .46 = .54. .54 times 100 = 54. So projects were completed on average 54% faster in period 1 than in period 3. That what you meant?
– rfhickey
Nov 17 at 16:13
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Project 1. 13 × 8 people days per project.
That is how to rank them, by people days per project.
That is simple and should be sufficient for comparesions.
If you need some complicated ranking number, then
divide the people days per project by some arbitrary
number like m, the maximum people days per project.
If you want higher rating to be better in a limited
economic sense, then use 1 - m, a number you
may want to multiply by 100 for a % like rating.
answered Nov 17 at 8:34
William Elliot
6,7902518
Project 1. 13 × 8 people days per project.
That is how to rank them, by people days per project.
That is simple and should be sufficient for comparesions.
If you need some complicated ranking number, then
divide the people days per project by some arbitrary
number like m, the maximum people days per project.
If you want higher rating to be better in a limited
economic sense, then use 1 - m, a number you
may want to multiply by 100 for a % like rating.
answered Nov 17 at 8:34
William Elliot
6,7902518
answered Nov 17 at 8:34
William Elliot
6,7902518
answered Nov 17 at 8:34
William Elliot
6,7902518
answered Nov 17 at 8:34
William Elliot
6,7902518
6,7902518
This is a really interesting solution. Basically, it seems to me that by performing this calculation that you will get a percentage of how much faster the average project was completed in each period compared to the period where projects were completed the slowest on average. Is that correct? So in the examples I provided above, the largest number of people days used for the average project (225) was period 3 and the lowest was period 1 (104). 104/225 =.46 and 1 - .46 = .54. .54 times 100 = 54. So projects were completed on average 54% faster in period 1 than in period 3. That what you meant?
– rfhickey
Nov 17 at 16:13
add a comment |
This is a really interesting solution. Basically, it seems to me that by performing this calculation that you will get a percentage of how much faster the average project was completed in each period compared to the period where projects were completed the slowest on average. Is that correct? So in the examples I provided above, the largest number of people days used for the average project (225) was period 3 and the lowest was period 1 (104). 104/225 =.46 and 1 - .46 = .54. .54 times 100 = 54. So projects were completed on average 54% faster in period 1 than in period 3. That what you meant?
– rfhickey
Nov 17 at 16:13
This is a really interesting solution. Basically, it seems to me that by performing this calculation that you will get a percentage of how much faster the average project was completed in each period compared to the period where projects were completed the slowest on average. Is that correct? So in the examples I provided above, the largest number of people days used for the average project (225) was period 3 and the lowest was period 1 (104). 104/225 =.46 and 1 - .46 = .54. .54 times 100 = 54. So projects were completed on average 54% faster in period 1 than in period 3. That what you meant?
– rfhickey
Nov 17 at 16:13
This is a really interesting solution. Basically, it seems to me that by performing this calculation that you will get a percentage of how much faster the average project was completed in each period compared to the period where projects were completed the slowest on average. Is that correct? So in the examples I provided above, the largest number of people days used for the average project (225) was period 3 and the lowest was period 1 (104). 104/225 =.46 and 1 - .46 = .54. .54 times 100 = 54. So projects were completed on average 54% faster in period 1 than in period 3. That what you meant?
– rfhickey
Nov 17 at 16:13
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3001797%2fnormalizing-time-periods-to-compare-them%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I suggest you give a small example. Also, when you say "compare", what do you want to compare exactly? What units?
– NoChance
Nov 17 at 0:04
Thanks for your reply. Here is an example: Period 1: 65 days. 8 people, 5 projects completed. Period 2: 85 days, 9 people. 6 projects completed. Period 3: 90 days, 10 people, 4 projects completed. I was to normalize these three periods so that I'm comparing how productive each period was given the number of people and days.
– rfhickey
Nov 17 at 0:05
The question is interesting, I suggest you post it on: pm.stackexchange.com
– NoChance
Nov 17 at 0:30
Are you looking for the productivity of people? Just divide time by number of projects and number of people assuming that the projects have same difficulty level.
– Moti
Nov 17 at 6:22
@NoChance Thanks. I may do that!
– rfhickey
Nov 17 at 15:40