Quantcast

Turdsday

  • Come enter the Ridemonkey Secret Santa!

    We're kicking off the 2024 Secret Santa! Exchange gifts with other monkeys - from beer and snacks, to bike gear, to custom machined holiday decorations and tools by our more talented members, there's something for everyone.

    Click here for details and to learn how to participate.

stoney

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
22,002
7,886
Colorado
Toshi said:
Translation: because of losing a team member and your admin targets will be much lower?
Click to expand...
Oh, that's not even part of this. I just took redundancies out of the projections. ie. counting a person once, while aggregating account values vs. counting a person for each account they have

And... Wifey just stabbed herself in the hand with one of our new knives. Off to ER we go.
 
stoney

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
22,002
7,886
Colorado
kidwoo said:
Click to expand...
My data is good. So far my correction rate of data pulled from Salesforce is almost 100%. I don't publish that I've found errors until I've confirmed it and had someone else look it over.

This case is that the underlying data is correct, but the assumption made off of it is inaccurate. Ex. Someone has 3 accounts for $100 each. Current process sees that as three different points of contact, with three different people, and assumptions about your ability to make touches is adjusted accordingly. If you however look as people vs accounts, then it is 1 person with $300, who is a singular point of contact. Meetings and activities occur with people about all of their accounts, so data should be analyzed how we interact with people.

In this case, my initial data set was 1800 accounts, which turn out to be <1200 actual people. I am midway through a second employer now and it's dropped from 1000 to ~700 and I'm only 1/2 through the data set. I still have another employer to do, which I know has a very heavy overlap of accounts as well.

If this ends up being what I expect, 5000 accounts will end up being ~3600 actual people. That really changes what the company's expectations regarding how many people I can meet with is, since the actual employee set is 30%+ fewer.
 
Last edited:
stoney

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
22,002
7,886
Colorado
Well... Second city is now confirmed at -40%. Manager is is flustered and said that we need to change annual goals.
 
stoney

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
22,002
7,886
Colorado
johnbryanpeters said:
Manager needs to be replaced.
Click to expand...
Third city is at -25% and I'm still working through the data. He's fully on my side and having the other team members do it as well using my criteria so that it's consistent. He wants us to all use the corrected data for our 2023 business plans and our annual goals are going to be adjusted downwards to account for the new numbers.

This has made it up to VP and I'm presenting it next week. Somebody is going to have to answer a lot of questions and it's not us, since these definitions came out of the statistics/analytics team...
 
Westy

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
56,002
22,036
Sleazattle
kidwoo said:
protocols of the elders of physics?
Click to expand...
Calculus. There is an argument who developed it first. Liebniz was the first to go public, Newton claimed to have written private letters on the subject years earlier. Currently we credit Newton but actually use the notation Liebniz came up with.

Both have namesake cookies
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom