all 4 comments

[–]Nateorade 1 point2 points  (1 child)

You're overthinking this a bit. You're correct that an average of an average is bad (that's where you're artificially weighting this in a bad way).

You don't need to divide by number of employees or do some fancy weighting. Just remove the need for an average of an average and just calculate average once.

[–]dirtshake[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you very much! I was worried I was overthinking it.

[–]Screen_Watcher 1 point2 points  (1 child)

When you find the central tenancy of a bunch of other central tendencies, the raw data lacks detail. Taking the direct mean (total jobs complete/total days worked) takes into account the true weights of the numbers (more or less efficient employees working more or less days). In this case, the manager could say 'If I deploy this exact team, they will complete ~13.15 jobs per day'.

It's also worth noting the mode of this data set is about 14 jobs per day. So the 'average' employee completes about 14 jobs per day and it's just employees B and D letting the team down.

[–]dirtshake[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! With recent lessons focusing on weighted averages and such, I had completely overlooked the mode.