Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • Replies 91 replies
  • Subscribers 2568 subscribers
  • Views 6828 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 Reply Children
  • in reply to Workshopshed

    Yes!  I would love to hear from suppliers to better understand what it is they like to see.

    Every Road Tester could benefit from knowing what suppliers are looking for in a Road Test.

     

    Every supplier might have a different emphasis, and I know that each road test invitation already contains some specifics about what the supplier is looking for, but if suppliers could provide some feedback about what made them choose a particular proposal over other proposals then some of the guess work would be eliminated on the applicant end.

     

    Many of us, I believe, can adapt our road test approach to meet the specific needs of each supplier, if we know what those specific needs are when we are writing our proposals.  The down side might be that suppliers will have a more difficult time selecting the top proposals because they will all cluster around a single theme based on whatever details a supplier provides as part of the proposal criteria. There will always be room for creative variation though, so the best proposals will still stand apart.

     

    Huh, that makes the road test application process sound like a tender process.

     

    Maybe I've gone too far?

  • in reply to Instructorman

    A little too far, image.

     

    The supplier has the chance to validate the applications. I think that's enough input.

    I'd like to have them hands-off on the way the device is reviewed - and hands-on when there's support needed by the tester...