Jaysen wrote:I'd like to see the liquor selection process... what factors are evaluated? what criteria are used for brand selection
It's a two-part evaluation methodolgy that balances price and quality scores into a classic cost/benefit anaysis to identify the most economically advantageous product.
Price is featured in three individual tests. The first is an affordability threshold which sets an upper limit ('A') for the beverage. Any liquor priced greater than this predetermined level is automatically excluded. The second is a lower threshold limit ('B') below which it is not expected that -- whatever the claims to quality espoused by brand stakeholders (manufacturers, commercial partners, resellsers, or customer credentials (often described as 'reviews')) -- the cost could be considered sufficient to develop a liquor solution suitable.
So, if the price C is >= B and <= A it remains in consideration for the third cost test which occurs after quality assessment.
Quality is scored independently of cost. Scores out of 10 are created as objectively as possible using the following scale: 0 = complete fail / no redeeming qualities, 1-4 = unacceptably deficient, 5-6 = modest deficiencies against expected standards, 7 = meets expectations, 8-9 = over acheives against expectations, 10 = no further improvement would be of value.
The following quality areas are scored and the scores aggregated on a weighted average to produce a score out of 100%: taste (40%), appearance (20%), smell (20%), brand prestige (7.5%), tactile experience (7.5%), time between refills (5%). Scores are generated based on previously experience as much as possible, but failing that, multiple evaluators will be invited to assess and discuss scores in a score assurance moderation session.
If a product scores 0-4 on any quality criteria post-moderation it is automatically excluded. The quality scores of the remaining products are then recombined with the price score. Contrary to modern combination methodologies, I prefer a simple Quality / Price formula to produce a single comparable [Benefits Points per £] score for each liquor which can then be directly compared to identify a winner.
Jaysen wrote:how do we get more vic-k channeled into the overall process?
Invite him to join discussions, include him in converstations, and provide regular (re-)assurances to him that his contributions are adding value and appreciated.
Jaysen wrote:Seriously, you do such a great job with this, I almost don't want to see how you do it. I feel like it's seeing how the sausage is made..
I love sausages. So much so that Mrs PF once arranged for me to visit a butcher's shop to learn to make them. I still love sausages because it's only the sausages that you already know are nasty that you don't want to see made. Good sausages are made of good ingredients and watching the butcher make them (and maybe having a go yourself) only makes you enjoy them all the more.
gr wrote:There is all kinds of admirable cleverness in the Scriv project set up and compile that I note but have not really interrogated. For someone like me who is already wound up in it, I guess that would be the most revealing part — how that project gets used in the course or the process and some of the clever high points of how it is set up to facilitate that.
Okay, so more of the process-saving aspects like project replacements, dynamic todo lists, and embedded scapple maps ("mapples"?)?