[gnso-wpm-dt] Re: WPM-DT: Step 3a (Rating Test #1 - In Progress)

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

> Your understanding of the scaling as applied to both dimensions is correct.  
> We can make that point clearer to future raters and appreciate the feedback. 
(Stéphane) I think that might be useful.

>  
> Regarding the X axis, a question was asked during the early planning stages 
> whether any reliable hard data could be made available, but we concluded that 
> it would be incomplete at best and, possibly, misleading.   Only attendance 
> records are kept for work teams, which represents a partial cost, but would 
> not be indicative of the total effort expended.  Also, for this 
> prioritization exercise, we have been trying to steer away from having hard 
> dollar cost be the primary driver for X, preferring, instead, more of a 
> “soft” cost.  As you will recall, the team had removed the word “cost” from 
> the definition completely.  The term “budget” was introduced based upon your 
> recent input.  Thinking about raters to come, since hard cost/budget data 
> does not exist for these projects, should we consider returning to a 
> definition that is even less quantitative?
(Stéphane) I understand the rationale and light of this, suggest leaving things 
as they are for now.

>  
> One thought is that there probably is some natural correlation between value 
> and cost, that is, the more expensive things are and the harder we have to 
> work for them, the higher they are prized.  This relationship may become more 
> pronounced once projects and activities have started vs. before they actually 
> begin.  Expressions like, “ Don’t throw good money after bad” derive from the 
> human proclivity to salvage sunk costs and confuse effort/activity with 
> outcomes.  In our case, we are prioritizing ACTIVE projects several of which 
> are more than half-completed.  We thus have more information about them than 
> we might have at their instantiation and initial prioritization.  Could any 
> of the above be factors at work?

(Stéphane) Those were might thoughts as well (that there is a natural 
correlation). Unsure if we can find a simple or useful way of integrating that 
in our model. Unsure whether we should even try.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature