Let's discuss Mathematics

Well I think we both got it wrong Mise

 

OP states a company and gives a total data of four different quarters to count with. Unless this is about comparing the companys costs for different years (and so number of employees) your idea makes no sense, Mise. And if that was the case not only is the table dubious but the entire problem is worded by a crazy person.

 

because you have to do a correction for time-period as well.

 

so for the months april - december you have 721 people who work for you and you have costs of $ 37221

 

How so?

 

modified table so it is more clear

Code:

time period|Employees|Total costs 
----------------------------------
 jan-mar       342     $  4540
 apr-dec       721     $ 37221

 

because it states 'per year'. If I sell 10 apples in the months jan + feb. Then how many apples do I sell on average per year? 10 / (2/12) = 60.

I got this question from an nameracy practice test. In that question the 'Average Cost per Employee per Year' was given and you had the find the # of employees in Q1. But without a good definition of 'Average Cost per Employee per Year' I am clueless.

 

No. Why would you do that.

 

That would be correct only if you didn't sell any apples for the rest of the year though.

 

I am affraid somehow I(/we) confuse 'normalizing' with 'averaging'(/the 'mean').

 

Imagine this... For 1 quarter, you have 1 employee with an annual salary of $100. Then you employ another employee at the same rate, $100 per year, for the rest of the year. I'm sure you'll agree that the Average Cost per Year per Employee is $100. How could it be anything else?

Well, lets draw up that table and see...

Quarter .................. Employees .................. Total Cost
1 ................................. 1 ............................. $25
2,3,4 ............................ 2 .............................$150

So, lets use Oagersnap/Gabryel's method: 25/1 + 150/2 = 100
Now Ultraworld: 4/1 * 25/1 + 4/3 * 150/2 = 200
Mise: (1/4 * 25/1 + 3/4 * 150/2)*4 = 250

 

No, it would only be correct if the year had only two months.

EDIT: I wonder how I came up with that... I stand by what i said regarding the actual problem though

 

Am confusing myself now.

I'm glad I'm not an accountant

EDIT: Looks like Mise is in the oagersnap/Gabs camp now too along with myself.

 

Anyway I know where I went wrong, I didn't divide the total cost in Qs 2,3,4 by 3.

 

but why not

(4540/0.25)+(37221/0.75) = 67788

looking from the time perspective?

 

Because here you are not looking at the respective number of employees for the two time periods. The number of quarters in the two on the other are completely irrelevant.

 

What would the number 67788 signify in that example?

 

Anyone know how to approach this?

 

Looks like a job for... Fermat's Little Theorem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat's_little_theorem

 

So you have, for each employee, to scale UP the costs. After that devide by the number of employees.

Code:

time period|Employees|Total costs 
----------------------------------
 jan-mar       342     $  4540
 apr-dec       721     $ 37221

scaling up

Code:

time period|Employees|Total costs 
----------------------------------
 jan-dec       342     $ 18160
 jan-dec       721     $ 49628

summation

Code:

time period|Employees|Total costs 
----------------------------------
 jan-dec      1063     $ 67788

gives

'average cost per employee per year' of 63.8