That is exactly what I am trying now.

You are right though about the fractions. But my constraint is that I need
to round the hour to integer. So I can not spread 0.4 hours, it would be 0,
but 0.6 would be 1.

That is what caused me to pursue goal-seek, but it seems to have bias
towards larger projects so that those keep getting hit more frequently and
end up subsidizing smaller ones.

I wanted to understand goal-seek (under the hood) to see if my hunch is
correct and if there is any other workaround.

Thanks.

"MyVeryOwnSelf" wrote:

I have about 100 projects over which I allocate worked hours (40) for
managers. These are allocated in proportion to the weight of the
project relative to other projects. I use goal-seek to do this. This
process is done on a weekly basis and new projects are added and old
removed.

Here is my question. I have noticed that goal-seek has a bias in that
it allocates only to the projects which have the highest weight,
leaving out others. So the result is that some projects get hit hardly
whereas, others do not.

Is there anything else I can do to even out this? Or even more
importantly is my assumption of bias correct? Any thoughts? How does
goal-seek internally work?

Without more information, it's hard to figure out what's happening. Maybe
rounding someplace is turning small numbers into zeros, or maybe not enough
decimal places are being displayed.

As an aside, are you sure you need goal-seek? For example, with weights in
column A and "worked hours" in C1, putting
=$C$1*A1/SUM(A:A)
in B1 and copying down seems to allocate the work hours among the projects
without resort to goal-seek.