[518] in magellan
Re: Update of Project Sponsor Snapshot Survey
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim McGovern)
Wed Sep 27 11:44:50 2000
Message-ID: <39D215E4.2AC47547@mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:44:38 -0400
From: Tim McGovern <tjm@MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: tjm@MIT.EDU
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Ferrara <rferrara@mit.edu>, Greg Anderson <ganderso@mit.edu>,
Susan Minai-Azary <azary@mit.edu>
CC: magellan@mit.edu, delivery@mit.edu, integration-ptl@mit.edu,
measures@mit.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bob / Greg / Susan,
I think the resulting survey is a distinct improvement, but I would like to
offer my support for a comment that was also raised last Friday which is not
reflected in the latest version, which has to do with the numeric scoring
approach.
Chief among the dangers of the numeric scoring approach is the temptation to
believe that the _average_ satisfaction rating tells us _anything_ about project
sponsorship satisfaction -- sort of a pseudo-statistic. What does it mean to
have an average of 3.2 this quarter and a 3.6 next quarter?
If we remove the numbers, we can better focus our attention on:
How many, and which, projects are in each "state" of satisfaction?
For projects whose sponsors felt uninvolved and/or unsatisfied last quarter,
which ones feel more involved and/or more satisfied this quarter? How can
we sustain that progress?
For project whose sponsors felt involved and satisfied last quarter,
which ones feel less so this quarter? Why did this happen? How can we
reverse the slide?
With these answers, we can develop an action plan to bolster those who are
slipping, and to reinforce and reward those that are actually doing better.
This should have the long-range effect of ensuring effective sponsorship
Thanks for your consideration,
Tim
