For a while ResearchGate provided something called impact points. It was calculated as the sum of the impact factors of all the publications an academic had. For example, if an author had been an author on four papers with impact factors 0, 2, 4, and 3. They would have 0 + 2 + 4 + 3 = 9 impact points. They've recently stopped reporting this value because supposedly they no longer believe impact factors are valid indicators of an individual article (of course, as a side note, they continue to report their own mysterious ResearchGate points which in addition to publications also weights things largely irrelevant to the research community, but relevant to encouraging behaviour on the site that they desire).
If you also knew the number of publications someone had, you could also quickly determine their average impact factor per publication.
I found the combination of average impact factor and the sum of impact factors to be a really useful metric when getting a quick feel for an academic's publication track record. In addition, I think that impact points seemed to provide a reasonable starting point for discussing some of the trade-offs in publication strategies between quality/significance and quantity.
Given that this site includes many who are mindful of the problems with metrics for evaluating academic output, allow me to justify why I like the combination of average impact factor per paper and the sum of impact factors (i.e., impact points):
Person-specific citation based metrics (e.g., h-index, total citations, and so on), which are often cited as preferable, are heavily influenced by time. Citations accumulate over time. Thus, a young researcher a couple of years out of their PhD may have been publishing high quality work in top journals, but may have very few citations. In contrast, a researcher may have been publishing lots of publication at the mid-tier level for many years, and may have a lot of citations. This connection with time is more than the linear increase in publication output you might see given a research with consistent output each year. Instead, In a simplistic model, it is a multiplicative effect of average number of publications per year, time since first started publishing at that level, and average time between publications and now.
While journal impact factor is field dependent, you can start to adjust for this mentally, if you know your field. For example, I'm in psychology, and it tends to have lower impact factors than psychiatry due to various citation practices. As an aside, it would also be useful to use other journal impact metrics to form the average or sum that are less field dependent (e.g., the SNIP or SJR).
Probably the biggest issue with impact points is that some authors have publications with many more co-authors, or have more or less first-author papers, although this is less of an issue if you focus on average impact factor per paper.
So my question is, given that ResearchGate has stopped reporting impact points, is there an alternative provider where you can quickly obtain the sum or average impact factor of the publications of a given academic?