[EQAB-list] Pair-Wise or not

[Pat Imperato]

Joe, I think we are fine in proceeding with the pair-wise analysis and appreciate your leading us through the process.  If there are concerns, I think it is OK to express them through email but we really need to all be present in a meeting in order to "talk it out".  See you Thursday.



Pat Imperato
131 Whippoorwill Dr.
Oak Ridge, TN 37830

865-272-3451 h
865-776-9248 c


-----Original Message-----
From: GatorWoodPile at comcast.net
To: EQAB-List Site <eqab-list at discoveret.org>
Sent: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:14 am
Subject: [EQAB-list] Pair-Wise or not




EQABers, 
Let me attempt to clear up some confusion regarding the emails sent in the last 
ew days.   First and foremost, I am comfortable continuing the analysis of our 
ata via the pair-wise tool.   I don’t think I need to defend the merits of the 
rocess, the method is routinely used in a variety of military, intelligence, 
cientific, and engineering studies (there is plenty of literature out there 
hat validates its value). Because of my experience using it, I am comfortable 
hat we will ultimately arrive at a list of strategies that make sense and can 
e further developed by the city into real programs with verifiable results.   
owever, I am not trying to force the method or pace of its use on anyone.   The 
nly reason I suggested the process in the first place is that I perceived some 
rustration over what we should do with the mountain of data that had been 
ollected at the forum.   I
f the group has a better approach, or simply wants to 
bandon the pair-wise process at this point, I am not offended and I will look 
orward to participating in the new approach.   However, if we are going to use 
he pair-wise, changing key elements of the process at this point would be 
ounterproductive and time consuming. 
My concerns which lead to my suggestion to cancel this Thursday’s meeting were 
he following: 
1.        I incorrectly assumed (based on Fred’s email) that there would be no 
dditional consolidated data to rank at this Thursday’s meeting.   After looking 
t the built and green environment data sets I received yesterday, I see this it 
ot the case (i.e., we should be able define strategies from these two sets, and 
erform the ranking); 
2.        If we change the mission statement (and subsequent evaluation 
riteria) at this point we will have to start all over with the pair-wise 
omparison process.   I don’t think this is warranted or constructive.   I 
elieve the concerns that our mission statement is not “within our domain of 
ontrol and influence” misses the point that we are making strategic suggestions 
or the city to consider and implement, i.e., we are not charged with solving 
ll of the details associated with implementation of each strategy. 
3.        The idea that we have not had input into the “idea gathering” as=2
0
xemplified by not including “installing LED lights (and) regulating wood heater 
missions”.   These are tactical ideas that can be included with their 
espective strategies as examples for consideration during the planning and 
mplementation stage. This can be done after the strategies are ranked (i.e., we 
hould recommend example tactics to implement each strategy). 

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

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



_______________________________________________
QAB-list mailing list
QAB-list at discoveret.org
ttp://www.discoveret.org/mailman/listinfo/eqab-list