| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
All,
Thanks to Mike McCormack for committing to develop
a matrix of tests that the two finalist "Discovery Methods" should undergo by
the end of this month. Based on the test results already presented, and
the assessments of the experts at the interim meeting, it is likely that both
methods will pass all the tests, assuming the tests are completed. That
being the case, we should establish an evaluation matrix to assist us in the
selection of the best method. I would like to propose that we attempt to
list under criteria, not specific capabilities, but rather the benefits that are
derived from those capabilities. For example, elimination of a requirement
for discrete capacitors or transformers might be listed under ability to cost
reduce. High input impedance might be listed under fail-safe protection
from damaging a DTE.
I would like to ask the proponents to send to the
reflector their candidate criteria for the matrix. Separately, they should
be sending the characteristics of their preferred method that help in
achieving a high score for the criteria listed. Separately, there may be
characteristics of your least preferred method that you believe will detract
from its capability to achieve a high score for a particular criteria.
These characteristics should also be sent.
I volunteer to keep the matrix up to date by
periodically (no less often than every two weeks) updating the matrix based on
reflector input. I will do this in as neutral a manner as I know
how. Based on the input I receive on the reflector, I commit to having the
first "criteria selection matrix" posted on the reflector no later than Friday,
September 29th. Steve Carlson, I ask that we have this selection criteria
matrix posted on our web site, along with the test matrix.
I would recommend that we do NOT attempt to
quantify the importance of each of the criteria, or provide the weighting for
each benefit and detractor. The reason for this recommendation is that
those that have a preferred criteria will have a tendancy to heaviliy weight
those criteria where their method excels. Instead, I ask that each of us
try to develop our own quantification so that we can determine which method is
superior. Certainly, reflector discussion on the importance of the various
criteria, and the specific characteristics listed, is in order. We should
have as an objective to come to the November plenary with our weightings already
thought outl. Then we should allow each person 1 opportunity to speak for
a very limited time, and then vote. I strongly encourage those with a
strong interest in this topic to make their strongest arguements in favor of
their approach on the reflector, so that we don't need to provide extensive time
at the meeting to review this topic in detail.
Let me suggest a format for the matrix as
follows:
Notes:
Listed under Pro or Con would be specific attributes of the Methods.
Listed under notes would be no more than one sentence pro and one sentence con
per attribute. It would be an excersize for the reader to distill this
data into numbers. The first set of numbers would be for the weighting of
the criteria. The second set would be for the weighting of each of the
Pros and Cons.
Establishing this matrix should assist us in
moving our work forward. However, it is not meant to stifle further
introduction of good ways to merge the benefits of these two proposals into
something better than either of them. I would strongly advice, however,
that at this point we should not consider any substantially different proposals
that introduce a new method, rather than merging features of these methods
together, or improving these methods.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
President, LAN Connect Consultants 7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615 Phone: 919 848-6773 Fax: 720 222-0900 email: rdlove@ieee.org | ||||||||||