Homer J wrote:
I got a problem with a planning tool I've built to show how many extra
sales are needed each month by my teams to hit a target and then an
overachieveing target.

A specific example with hypothetical values might facilitate the
discussion. And it might be better to provide actual Excel or other
mathematical formulas instead of English descriptions. That latter is
usually not sufficiently precise.

I've also applied a weighting to each team to allow for experience. My
problem occurs when I then try to add the overachieveing target (eg.
12%) and then apply the weighting to each team, every result is only
96.44% of what I expected it to be.

The sum I'm using to calculate each teams stretched target is
=sum(stretched plan number of sales*team size as a percentage of total
staff)*(1+weighting applied to that team, which is also a percentage)

Please clarify ....

Is the "stretched plan number of sales" the same as the "overachieving
target"? That is, it already incorporates (e.g) the 12% factor for
"overachieving". No need to multiply anything by 1.12, as one
respondent
did. Right?

Is the "weighting applied to that team" the same as "the weighting ...
to allow for experience"? And is it "then applied" __after__ the
overachieving factor (12%, e.g)? That is, the weighting factor is
different for each team, and it is unrelated to (e.g) the 12%
overachieving factor. Thus, we would not use 1.12 in place of the
"1 + weighting applied to that team", as one respondent did. Right?

If my first assertion is correct, what are you summing and why? I
would think an individual team's base overachieving target (before
weighting) is simply "stretched plan number of sales * team size /
total sales staff size".

And if you are summing (only) all of the accounts that team is
responsible for, why would you multiple my the team's size as a
proportion of the total sales staff?

Moreover, the description "1 + weighting ... as a percentage" does
make sense to me. I suspect you should to remove "1 +". But that
is based on the ass-u-me-tion that the "weighting ... to allow for
experience" means that a weak team would have a weighting factor
less than one (80%, e.g).

As for an explanation of the 3.56% error (1 - 96.44%), I cannot help
you, since you did not provide sufficient information, even
hypothetically.