Sorry for the vague subject. Have some data in excel that looks like this:
I need to figure out a mathematical way to determine how well people are doing in testing tickets. Bugs are bad, passbacks are good, and, in general, the less testing time the better unless bugs are created. Passbacks should provide the tester with a credit against the negative of having a bug but not in a 1:1 way.
Ideally, this is presented as a factor of some sort that I can then use as a scale of good to bad.
Here's some subject analysis to help align what we're looking to create a factor around:
Ticket #1: Very good. They spent very little time, had a passback and had no bugs
Ticket #2: Good. Spent a little more time, no passbacks, no bugs
Ticket #3: Bad. 2 bugs is bad regardless of the time spent but they spent quite a bit of time which also isn't good. However, they had 2 passbacks which lessens the blow of the 2 bugs slightly.
Ticket #4: Bad. They spent a ton of time testing, had a lot of passbacks (good), but still ended up having 1 bug.
Ideally, I'm creating a single formula that factors all of this in and I can then apply a bad to good range on it. Thoughts?
Ticket | TestingTime | PassBacks | Bugs |
1 | 0.05 | 1 | 0 |
2 | 1.12 | 0 | 0 |
3 | 2.3 | 2 | 2 |
4 | 3.6 | 8 | 1 |
I need to figure out a mathematical way to determine how well people are doing in testing tickets. Bugs are bad, passbacks are good, and, in general, the less testing time the better unless bugs are created. Passbacks should provide the tester with a credit against the negative of having a bug but not in a 1:1 way.
Ideally, this is presented as a factor of some sort that I can then use as a scale of good to bad.
Here's some subject analysis to help align what we're looking to create a factor around:
Ticket #1: Very good. They spent very little time, had a passback and had no bugs
Ticket #2: Good. Spent a little more time, no passbacks, no bugs
Ticket #3: Bad. 2 bugs is bad regardless of the time spent but they spent quite a bit of time which also isn't good. However, they had 2 passbacks which lessens the blow of the 2 bugs slightly.
Ticket #4: Bad. They spent a ton of time testing, had a lot of passbacks (good), but still ended up having 1 bug.
Ideally, I'm creating a single formula that factors all of this in and I can then apply a bad to good range on it. Thoughts?