Morrison on Metrics: The coefficient of variation
Sophisticated managers may want to know how to compare unrelated data sets, especially when it comes to inside spending budgets.
October 24, 2011 at 08:40 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Sometimes people want to compare the degree of clustering or spread between two sets of numbers that have completely different units: banana weights and heights of trees, say. A sophisticated (and slightly hypothetical) manager might want to know how the various sizes of all the law firms used by a law department compare in their distribution to the third-year annuity costs it pays for all its patents. How do you compare two unrelated data sets? A statistical measure called the coefficient of variation (CV) does the trick.
The CV is the ratio of the standard deviation to the average of a set of numbers. You divide the standard deviation of a set of numbers (which Excel does instantly) by the average of those numbers (ditto).
For example, the 549 law departments that have so far provided data for the General Counsel Metrics benchmark survey total 14,951 lawyers, with a standard deviation of 84. That means about 66 percent of them are on one standard deviation on either side of the average of 27.3. (Bear in mind that the lowest number of lawyers in a department is zero, but the largest departments are near 1,000, so the distribution skews far to the right.)
When you divide the standard deviation by the average, you have the coefficient of variation: 3.1. That same calculation for paralegals and for all other legal staff is 2.3 and 2.5, respectively. The higher the CV, the greater the dispersion in the variable. Their spreads differ by more than one third. But how does the lawyer CV match spending inside, which uses dollars and lots of them, not people?
The CV for inside spending by these law departments is 2.5. Thus, even though the units and absolute amounts vary hugely (the average inside spend is $7.7 million), the CV tells us that the degree of dispersion is quite similar to the staffing figure dispersions.
The standard deviations of two variables, while both measure dispersion in their respective variables, cannot be compared to each other in a meaningful way to determine which variable has greater dispersion because they may vary greatly in their units and the averages about which they occur. The standard deviation and mean of a variable are expressed in the same units, so taking the ratio of these two allows the units to cancel.
The CV is useful because the standard deviation of data must always be understood in the context of the average value (mean) of the data. In the example, it is expressed in terms of lawyers, paralegals or other legal staff as against inside spending budgets.
The CV is independent of the unit in which the measurement has been taken, so it is what is called a dimensionless number. For comparison between data sets with different units or widely different means, it is better to use the coefficient of variation instead of the standard deviation.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
Trending Stories
- 1No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 2Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 3Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 4Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
- 5Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250