Reps/Resources/Analytics/Budget Process Basis Metrics: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Konstantina (talk | contribs) (fixes) |
Konstantina (talk | contribs) (taking out link) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Our first goal is to bring down the timing for remo-approval which was set on 7.8 days. Our goal is bringing it down to 5.5 days (roughly 30%) | Our first goal is to bring down the timing for remo-approval which was set on 7.8 days. Our goal is bringing it down to 5.5 days (roughly 30%) | ||
{{admon/important|average for remo-approval|That timing was not set based on the average full data rather on the average we saw on the last 12 months. The reasoning behind this decision is the following: By analyzing the data per month, | {{admon/important|average for remo-approval|That timing was not set based on the average full data rather on the average we saw on the last 12 months. The reasoning behind this decision is the following: By analyzing the data per month, we saw a normality for around 2 years back and then an "uphill" with spikes inside the last 12 months. We realised we needed to bring down that number. }} | ||
Revision as of 14:55, 11 November 2016
Main | Join | Procedures (SOPs) | Leadership (Resources) | Meetings | Website | FAQ
Overview
On October 2016 we’ve measured with the help of a script the average time that it takes for a budget request to be approved.
You can find the full results here
Our first goal is to bring down the timing for remo-approval which was set on 7.8 days. Our goal is bringing it down to 5.5 days (roughly 30%)
average for remo-approval
That timing was not set based on the average full data rather on the average we saw on the last 12 months. The reasoning behind this decision is the following: By analyzing the data per month, we saw a normality for around 2 years back and then an "uphill" with spikes inside the last 12 months. We realised we needed to bring down that number.
That timing was not set based on the average full data rather on the average we saw on the last 12 months. The reasoning behind this decision is the following: By analyzing the data per month, we saw a normality for around 2 years back and then an "uphill" with spikes inside the last 12 months. We realised we needed to bring down that number.