In the first part of this series, I put together a list of random values representing three different skills for 100 different people. This time, I will be putting together a simple evaluation of what we can draw from these numbers. Actually, it should only be simple from your end. I had to create a macro to run 100,000 simulations.
My primary focus for this task was to establish how many people you would have to go through before you encounter a second record with equal or higher values in all skills. I made calculations based off the first skill, the first two skills, and all three skills. This should provide a rough display of how increasing what we're looking can help more people stand out.
Part of the idea behind this is that different people value things differently. If someone strongly values tasks up until a certain point but finds little value beyond that point, there is only one way to definitively establish that one person is better than another. You have to establish that one individual is better than another at all things. Not only is that a difficult challenge for each skill considered, but taking more into consideration can allow any individual to better stand out within a group. The numbers provided in my latest spreadsheet reflect the size of a group in which all members can stand out depending on criteria.
https://1drv.ms/x/s!Ar3VXpGA-24u_Xu6R6p8WuobcEQq
In this spreadsheet, I have included maximums, minimums, averages, and medians. I have also added a breakdown for distribution for 1-3 skills considered.
In the future, I may add skills. This would better help with showing how people are more likely to have advantages when we take more into consideration.
No comments:
Post a Comment