Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • Replies 91 replies
  • Subscribers 2566 subscribers
  • Views 6767 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related

Please Read: An Important RoadTest Program Change

rscasny

This is the third virtual "fireside chat" that I'm writing regarding the RoadTest Program. For this one, I'd like to roll out a RoadTest Program change and explain why the change is occurring.

 

To start, I'd like to share a snippet of an email I received yesterday from a vendor who participates in the RoadTest Program:

 

"We received only 13% reviews back from the RoadTests we sponsored in 2016. I would like to know the status of each of these roadtests. Are the missing reviews still being pursued? I would also like to know if the members that failed to post a review are now being flagged so we do not chose them again."

 

It was not pleasant to respond to. I had to eat "humble pie," as we say in the US, when I responded to this vendor.

 

To solve the problem, I decided I don't want to go down the road of suspending members from the RoadTest program. Suspensions sound too much like the hard rules of the military. I was in the Navy for 10 years and I didn't like tough rules back then, but I knew they were necessary given the reality of uncomfortable shipboard conditions and potentially dangerous operations we were participating in.

 

But this is a community. It should be a place to have some fun, meet new people, network professionally, be a mentor, or get mentored. Suspending people just is the wrong road to follow.

 

The way I've chosen to resolve the problem is the program change.

 

RoadTest application reports will soon include whether a specific applicant has completed all of his/her previous RoadTest reviews. I'm told by our developers this is very easy to do. We will provide this information to the vendor with a RoadTester's application. The supplier will make the decision where to select the RoadTester or not. Given the above comment by the supplier, I think the answer is self-evident.

 

Now, this change will probably cause me more work. If someone were flagged, I will have to check to see if that person is on a current RoadTest and it's before the due date of the official review. I surely don't want to penalize a conscientious RoadTester. I will also have to ensure there are not any extenuating circumstances that have caused the person not to write the review, i.e., sickness, family issues.

 

I am ambivalent about this whole thing. There are many RoadTesters who are doing a fantastic job. But a 13% success rate is not successful. I really have no choice but to implement this change.

 

Sincerely,

 

Randall Scasny

RoadTest Program Manager

Parents

  • Randall Scasny wrote:

     

    To solve the problem, I decided I don't want to go down the road of suspending members from the RoadTest program. Suspensions sound too much like the hard rules of the military. I was in the Navy for 10 years and I didn't like tough rules back then, but I knew they were necessary given the reality of uncomfortable shipboard conditions and potentially dangerous operations we were participating in.

     

    But this is a community. It should be a place to have some fun, meet new people, network professionally, be a mentor, or get mentored. Suspending people just is the wrong road to follow.

    Hi Randall,

     

    I see where you are coming from but to my mind If a member who hasn't completed a particular RoadTest, hasn't contacted you to tell you in advance of their extenuating circumstances, isn't responsive when you contact them, etc, then I don't personally see the downside in suspending them from the program. There has to be some way to dissuade people from signing up just to get free stuff and if its the price we have to pay to ensure suppliers continue to offer their products for free in exchange for a review then so be it.

     

    I was going to say we don't want a few selfish people spoiling it for everybody else, but sadly it seems it's not a few, for this particular supplier it's 87% which quite frankly is shameful, and those people (unless they have a very good reason why they haven't completed their reviews) should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

     

    Best Regards,

     

    Rachael

  • in reply to rachaelp

    rachaelp  wrote:

     

    it seems it's not a few, for this particular supplier it's 87%

     

    Err ... without knowing the sample size, we don't know whether 87% is actually a large number of people.

     

    So it may be just a small number of people, and this supplier has been unlucky that they made up a large percentage of their testers ... ?

     

    Not that this excuses anything, of course - but we don't want to get things unnecessarily out of proportion.

     

     

     

     

     

     

Reply
  • in reply to rachaelp

    rachaelp  wrote:

     

    it seems it's not a few, for this particular supplier it's 87%

     

    Err ... without knowing the sample size, we don't know whether 87% is actually a large number of people.

     

    So it may be just a small number of people, and this supplier has been unlucky that they made up a large percentage of their testers ... ?

     

    Not that this excuses anything, of course - but we don't want to get things unnecessarily out of proportion.

     

     

     

     

     

     

Children
  • in reply to awneil

    Andy Neil wrote:

     

    rachaelp wrote:

     

    it seems it's not a few, for this particular supplier it's 87%

     

    Err ... without knowing the sample size, we don't know whether 87% is actually a large number of people.

     

    So it may be just a small number of people, and this supplier has been unlucky that they made up a large percentage of their testers ... ?

     

    Not that this excuses anything, of course - but we don't want to get things unnecessarily out of proportion.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Even if this supplier is unlucky and their percentage failure rate is higher, I'm sure it's a problem across the board otherwise I suspect the focus would be why that supplier had such a low success rate and try to fix that rather than put changes in across the entire road test program to combat the issue so we can probably assume that, whilst it might not be as bad for all suppliers, it's a common problem.

     

    To your point, yes we don't know the sample size but we know at least 7 people didn't submit a review for this one supplier. If I'd been giving product out for review and I only got results from 1 in 8 people I gave things to I would be quite annoyed.

     

    Best Regards,


    Rachael

  • in reply to awneil

    It's a large sample I didn't want to spell it out because the actual numbers are dreadful. Simplifying it to a percentage is bad enough. But things are improving immensely. People are getting their reviews in or notifying about upcoming review postings, which was not happening 2 weeks ago. Thanks.

  • in reply to rscasny

    Randall Scasny wrote:

    things are improving immensely. People are getting their reviews in or notifying about upcoming review postings, which was not happening 2 weeks ago. Thanks.

     

    Well - that's a result, then!

     

    image

  • in reply to rscasny

    Randall Scasny wrote:

     

    It's a large sample I didn't want to spell it out because the actual numbers are dreadful. Simplifying it to a percentage is bad enough. But things are improving immensely. People are getting their reviews in or notifying about upcoming review postings, which was not happening 2 weeks ago. Thanks.

    I'm glad people are starting to get their reviews back to you, this is great news image

  • in reply to rscasny

    What about those that didn't reacted so far? Can you send them a private message asking for any update on their side? If they don't bother to reply, then I guess they can be flagged ...