Well, you do not make it easy by not telling us what is in C6 and C3, and
what those values represent.
Presumably, C6/C3 is the number of laborers at 100% utilization and no PTO.
Then, C6/C3/0.9 -- which can be written C6/(C3*0.9) -- would be the number
of laborers at 90% utilization.
I can only assume that was written effectively C6/C3/9 (9 instead 0.9)
because C6 is scaled by 10 or C3 is scaled by 1/10. That is, C6/C3 is 10
times the actual number of laborers at 100% for some reason(!).
(Alternatively, either the original formula is correct, or you miswrote it
here and "*9" is really "*0.9" or "*90%".0
Then, C6/C3/9 * 1.05 -- which can be written (C6/(C3*9))*1.05 -- would
account for the PTO. However, I quibble with the number. I wonder if 1.05
is rounded and based on PTO at 4.31% to 5.21%.
For 6%, the PTO factor would be 1/(1-6%), which is about 1.063830.
(Rounding intermediate values is a bad idea. It introduces quantization
errors.)
In summary, this is how I would write the formula, assuming A1 is the
%utilization (written 0.9 or 90%) and A2 is the %PTO (written 0.06 or 6%):
=ROUND(C6/C3/10/A1/(1-A2),0)
Rounding of some form is prudent. After all, you cannot hire 12.3 people
;-).
It might be prudent use ROUNDUP instead of ROUND. That's a judgment call,
balancing potentially increased labor costs (due to ROUNDUP) v.
understaffing (due to ROUND down 50% of the time).
Again, I throw "/10" into this because it appears that C6/C3 is 10 times the
number of laborers. I would prefer not to need that; that is, I would
prefer that C6/C3 is the actual number of laborers.
Does that help?
If you have any doubts, please include the data that you neglected to
mention in your next posting. That is: what is in C6; what is in C3; what
do those values represent; and copy-and-paste the formula into your posting
instead of retyping it to avoid any misleading typos.