# Math Problem: Worker Efficiency

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Make Yourself, Jan 22, 2004.

1. ### Make YourselfGuest

Two employees are putting orders together for a distribution
warehouse.

Warren picks 47 orders in 7 hours. The total number of pieces he
picks is 538. The total number of locations on his orders is 415.

Preet picks 24 orders in 7.5 hours. The total number of pieces he
picks is 1169. The total number of locations on his orders is 616.

Which employee is more efficient and why? Please show the work.

Thank-you, I am stuck with this one and need help.

Cheers,

Coupon

Make Yourself, Jan 22, 2004

2. ### wisefoolGuest

Make Yourself said:
> Two employees are putting orders together for a distribution
> warehouse.
>
> Warren picks 47 orders in 7 hours. The total number of pieces
> he picks is 538. The total number of locations on his orders is 415.
>
> Preet picks 24 orders in 7.5 hours. The total number of pieces
> he picks is 1169. The total number of locations on his orders is 616.
>
> Which employee is more efficient and why? Please show the work.
>
> Thank-you, I am stuck with this one and need help.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Coupon

In pieces per hour, Warren picks 538 / 7 = roughly 77 pieces per hour.
" " Preet picks 1169 / 7.5 = roughly 156 pieces
per hour.
In orders per hour Warren picks 47 / 7 = roughly 7 orders per hour.
" " Preet picks 24 / 7.5 = roughly 3 orders per
hour.

So Preet is more efficient in terms of pieces per hour.
But Warren is more efficient in terms of orders per hour.

Efficient in this kind of question generally means lowest cost/time per

But there isn't enough information in the question to give a more specific

wisefool

wisefool, Jan 22, 2004

3. ### Make YourselfGuest

There is more information in the question though. The total number of
locations on their orders tells you how many locations they had to go to to
put their orders together. The more locations the more work they have to
do.

Cheers,

Coupon

"wisefool" <> wrote in message
news:bup62j\$21m\$...
> Make Yourself said:
> > Two employees are putting orders together for a distribution
> > warehouse.
> >
> > Warren picks 47 orders in 7 hours. The total number of pieces
> > he picks is 538. The total number of locations on his orders is 415.
> >
> > Preet picks 24 orders in 7.5 hours. The total number of pieces
> > he picks is 1169. The total number of locations on his orders is 616.
> >
> > Which employee is more efficient and why? Please show the work.
> >
> > Thank-you, I am stuck with this one and need help.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Coupon

>
> In pieces per hour, Warren picks 538 / 7 = roughly 77 pieces per hour.
> " " Preet picks 1169 / 7.5 = roughly 156 pieces
> per hour.
> In orders per hour Warren picks 47 / 7 = roughly 7 orders per hour.
> " " Preet picks 24 / 7.5 = roughly 3 orders per
> hour.
>
> So Preet is more efficient in terms of pieces per hour.
> But Warren is more efficient in terms of orders per hour.
>
> Efficient in this kind of question generally means lowest cost/time per
>
> But there isn't enough information in the question to give a more specific
>
> wisefool
>
>

Make Yourself, Jan 22, 2004
4. ### BoomerGuest

"Make Yourself" <> wrote in
news:hyVPb.218219\$JQ1.38543@pd7tw1no:

> number of locations on their orders tells you how many locations
> they had to go to to put their orders together. The more
> locations the more work they have to do.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Coupon

Then you figure out the rest. It's your homework, isn't it?

>
> "wisefool" <> wrote in message
> news:bup62j\$21m\$...
>> Make Yourself said:
>> > Two employees are putting orders together for a
>> > distribution
>> > warehouse.
>> >
>> > Warren picks 47 orders in 7 hours. The total number of
>> > pieces
>> > he picks is 538. The total number of locations on his orders
>> > is 415.
>> >
>> > Preet picks 24 orders in 7.5 hours. The total number of
>> > pieces
>> > he picks is 1169. The total number of locations on his orders
>> > is 616.
>> >
>> > Which employee is more efficient and why? Please show
>> > the work.
>> >
>> > Thank-you, I am stuck with this one and need help.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Coupon

>>
>> In pieces per hour, Warren picks 538 / 7 = roughly 77 pieces per
>> hour.
>> " " Preet picks 1169 / 7.5 = roughly
>> 156 pieces
>> per hour.
>> In orders per hour Warren picks 47 / 7 = roughly 7 orders per
>> hour.
>> " " Preet picks 24 / 7.5 = roughly 3
>> orders per
>> hour.
>>
>> So Preet is more efficient in terms of pieces per hour.
>> But Warren is more efficient in terms of orders per hour.
>>
>> Efficient in this kind of question generally means lowest
>>
>> But there isn't enough information in the question to give a more
>>
>> wisefool
>>
>>

>
>
>

Boomer, Jan 22, 2004
5. ### troutGuest

Make Yourself wrote:

> There is more information in the question though. The total number of
> locations on their orders tells you how many locations they had to go
> to to put their orders together. The more locations the more work
> they have to do.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Coupon

Maybe. But there's still not enough information to make it a useful
factor in determining efficiency. Perhaps the greater number of 'pieces
picked' are from neatly-arranged, consecutive locations in close
proximity (let's say aisles A, B, C, and D); while the smaller number
gathered from widely-spaced locations (aisles B, Q, L and Z; as well as
the old shed, out back). Hard to make this a factor in a formula.
This type of actual, linear movement is even more important in
deciding if *orders* picked per hour is even a factor. Are the orders
being picked consecutively (making a 'round trip' for each) or
concurrently? We don't know. Is Warren running back and forth with a
hand-cart, filling orders for large appliances, or driving around with a
giant forklift, filling many orders at once for novelty key-chains?
I don't see anything in the information to determine actual
efficiency other than pieces picked per hour; so I'd fire Warren's lazy
ass, and give Preet the rest of the day off; if this was all I had to go
by.

> "wisefool" <> wrote in message
> news:bup62j\$21m\$...
>> Make Yourself said:
>>> Two employees are putting orders together for a distribution
>>> warehouse.
>>>
>>> Warren picks 47 orders in 7 hours. The total number of pieces
>>> he picks is 538. The total number of locations on his orders is
>>> 415.
>>>
>>> Preet picks 24 orders in 7.5 hours. The total number of
>>> pieces he picks is 1169. The total number of locations on his
>>> orders is 616.
>>>
>>> Which employee is more efficient and why? Please show the
>>> work.
>>>
>>> Thank-you, I am stuck with this one and need help.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Coupon

>>
>> In pieces per hour, Warren picks 538 / 7 = roughly 77 pieces per
>> hour. " " Preet picks 1169 / 7.5 =
>> roughly 156 pieces per hour.
>> In orders per hour Warren picks 47 / 7 = roughly 7 orders per hour.
>> " " Preet picks 24 / 7.5 = roughly 3 orders
>> per hour.
>>
>> So Preet is more efficient in terms of pieces per hour.
>> But Warren is more efficient in terms of orders per hour.
>>
>> Efficient in this kind of question generally means lowest cost/time
>>
>> But there isn't enough information in the question to give a more
>>
>> wisefool

trout, Jan 22, 2004
6. ### PatrickGuest

Make Yourself wrote:
> Two employees are putting orders together for a distribution
> warehouse.
>
> Warren picks 47 orders in 7 hours. The total number of pieces
> he picks is 538. The total number of locations on his orders is 415.
>
> Preet picks 24 orders in 7.5 hours. The total number of pieces
> he picks is 1169. The total number of locations on his orders is 616.
>
> Which employee is more efficient and why? Please show the work.
>
> Thank-you, I am stuck with this one and need help.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Coupon

Dear 'Make Yourself' (Coupon), please do it yourself !
You have a darn cheek, asking others to do your job and get some poor
employee the sack.
Why do you not sack yourself (your the failure, not any employee).

Patrick, Jan 22, 2004
7. ### wisefoolGuest

Make Yourself said:
> There is more information in the question though. The total number of
> locations on their orders tells you how many locations they had to go
> to to put their orders together. The more locations the more work
> they have to do.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Coupon

Unfortunately my crystal broke last week.

Your question makes sense -- but you clearly have more
information / understanding about the context tha we do, and
you've not told us that extra information.

Can't help you. Even if I could, why would I? The way I see it,
either:

(a) You're attempting this unanswerable question for homework. In which
case, no educator is gonna care if you can't answer an "impossible"
question.
(b) You're doing this for an employer. In which case, why on earth
are you in a position where you need to make business decisions
if you find yourself asking others for input on ones like this?
(c) You are doing this for fun. In which case -- not many people here can
really can relate to that. And we will simply move on to the next
poster.

wisefool

wisefool, Jan 23, 2004
8. ### wisefoolGuest

Make Yourself said:
> There is more information in the question though. The total number of
> locations on their orders tells you how many locations they had to go
> to to put their orders together. The more locations the more work
> they have to do.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Coupon

A. Did they have to go to Florida to Kenya to get the packaging materials
for each delivery? Or just to the end of the hall? Or table...

B. Were they experts at solving the "travelling salesman problem", or just
juniors?

C. Did the fork lift trucks travel (a) at the speed of light (b) at a fixed,
finite, low, "safe" speed?

D. Did you say metric "tea break length units" or imperial?

E. Rate their average boss experience from ogre to straight down the line
over (1 month), (3 months), (1 year), (2 years)?

F. What were they both paid per hour, in grams of gold equivalent?

Put all the numbers except A in a large mixing bowl. Add calculus and
season to taste with set theory and factorials. Beat A in jug, add some
water and fold into the main mixture. Pour the answer out into a
rectangular decimal container.

"Now chuck all these numbers away, and fire the one you don't like."

Simple. I could be a boss!

wisefool

wisefool, Jan 23, 2004
9. ### wisefoolGuest

wisefool said:
> A, B, C, D, E, F

Altho' silly, these questions allude to some of the kinds of things
which I think you might want to consider when answering this kind
of question -- there is a lot of info missing in the question.

wisefool

wisefool, Jan 23, 2004
10. ### troutGuest

Make Yourself wrote:

> Actually, one of the guys has an attitude like yours and the other
> doesn't. When you've been given a problem like 'what is the sum of
> 2+2' or 'what's the shortest distance from point a to point b?' the
> correct answer is the best one possible based on the given
> information. It's not correct to say... "'what is the sum of 2+2' is
> not enough information because I'm only going on hearsay" or "'what's
> the shortest distance from point a to point b' is not enough
> information because I haven't seen a report from someone I trust that
> proves point a and point b actually exist and if they do will any
> human rights concerns be raised by going the absolute shortest way
> whereby someone may actually die and therefore not be able to finish
> the shortest path' well, that's not the correct answer either.
> The better employee is the one without the attitude. The other
> employees laugh and make jokes about the guy with the attitude all
> the time because he spends so much time avoiding the practical things
> and using as many excuses as he can for why he can't work faster.
> Not to forget his poor hygiene.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Coupon

Your analogy is goofy. Obviously; there is plenty of information in
'What's 2+2' to give a reasonably certain, unqualified answer. There are
no real variables. Likewise, with a line between two points.
Your question was more like 'what's 2 plus a number lesser than five
multiplied by itself, and divided by four'.
The cheerful go-getter *may* come up with the 'right' answer, which
might be okay if you're not mixing explosives; but he'd be more apt to
merrily barge ahead with mistakes. This is not everyone's notion of a
"better employee".
But it sounds like you were just looking for a rationalization for
your personal dislike of someone, anyway.
--

trout, Jan 24, 2004
11. ### wisefoolGuest

Make Yourself said:
> There is more information in the question though. The total number of
> locations on their orders tells you how many locations they had to go
> to to put their orders together. The more locations the more work
> they have to do.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Coupon

It _was_ unclear *before* you said this what you meant by locations. I
can imagine how it might be perfectly clear to you. But I haven't worked

wisefool

wisefool, Jan 25, 2004
12. ### John H. GuilloryGuest

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 02:31:49 -0000, "wisefool" <>
wrote:

>It _was_ unclear *before* you said this what you meant by locations. I
>can imagine how it might be perfectly clear to you. But I haven't worked

That's o.k. it doesn't stop anyone in this group from putting someone
down when they haven't got any idea about a persons job.

John H. Guillory, Jan 25, 2004
13. ### wisefoolGuest

John H. Guillory said:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 02:31:49 -0000, "wisefool" <>
> wrote:
>
>> It _was_ unclear *before* you said this what you meant by locations.
>> I can imagine how it might be perfectly clear to you. But I haven't
>> worked in your particular warehouse. Sigh.

> That's o.k. it doesn't stop anyone in this group from putting someone
> down when they haven't got any idea about a persons job.

I noticed.

wisefool

wisefool, Jan 25, 2004