[EQAB-list] Pair-Wise or not

[GatorWoodPile at comcast.net]

EQABers, 

Let me attempt to clear up some confusion regarding the emails sent in the last few days.   First and foremost, I am comfortable continuing the analysis of our data via the pair-wise tool.   I don’t think I need to defend the merits of the process, the method is routinely used in a variety of military, intelligence, scientific, and engineering studies (there is plenty of literature out there that validates its value). Because of my experience using it, I am comfortable that we will ultimately arrive at a list of strategies that make sense and can be further developed by the city into real programs with verifiable results.   However, I am not trying to force the method or pace of its use on anyone.   The only reason I suggested the process in the first place is that I perceived some frustration over what we should do with the mountain of data that had been collected at the forum.   If the group has a better approach, or simply wants to abandon the pair-wise process at this point, I am not offended and I will look forward to participating in the new approach.   However, if we are going to use the pair-wise, changing key elements of the process at this point would be counterproductive and time consuming. 

My concerns which lead to my suggestion to cancel this Thursday’s meeting were the following: 

1.        I incorrectly assumed (based on Fred’s email) that there would be no additional consolidated data to rank at this Thursday’s meeting.   After looking at the built and green environment data sets I received yesterday, I see this it not the case (i.e., we should be able define strategies from these two sets, and perform the ranking); 

2.        If we change the mission statement (and subsequent evaluation criteria) at this point we will have to start all over with the pair-wise comparison process.   I don’t think this is warranted or constructive.   I believe the concerns that our mission statement is not “within our domain of control and influence” misses the point that we are making strategic suggestions for the city to consider and implement, i.e., we are not charged with solving all of the details associated with implementation of each strategy. 

3.        The idea that we have not had input into the “idea gathering” as exemplified by not including “installing LED lights (and) regulating wood heater emissions”.   These are tactical ideas that can be included with their respective strategies as examples for consideration during the planning and implementation stage. This can be done after the strategies are ranked (i.e., we should recommend example tactics to implement each strategy). 



  

I am not offended or discouraged by Fred’s email, however, I think the next work session should include a final decision on whether to use the pair-wise comparison tool or not, and a final decision regarding the mission statement and evaluation criteria.   If the Board decides to continue with the method I will be more than happy to continue facilitating the progress.    



  

Note : Because this process was new to all of you, I have been “teaching the method” in stages to avoid information overload and additional confusion.   Given some of the concerns that have been expressed, I will plan to explain the weighting process at this Thursday’s meeting before we perform any additional comparisons if the decision is made to continue.    

Sincerely. 

Joe