Roadtesting stats

I don't know if there is a formula for success buried in here but for those that are interested:

I have applied for 25 road tests.

I have been successful on 15 applications. The 12 listed on the Road Tests Authored page only go back to 2015.

I was only successful on 1 of the first 4 applications.

I was successful on 4 out of the first 10 applications. Only one of these was expensive - a Cel Robox 3D printer.

I had been road testing for 4 years (20 applications) before I got to road test an R&S oscilloscope.

I have been successful on 9 of the last 10 applications.

I know my applications have improved over time although the road tests themselves may only be slightly improved - it depends on the device.

My credibility has definitely improved over time. Putting a big effort into some minor road tests helped a lot. Always putting forth a good effort was crucial.

Increased general participation on the forum also helped significantly.

For me its more than 50 applications over nearly 6 years now (although that also includes the proposals  for the design challenges). Looking back at the first ones I wrote makes me wondering how I ever got one accepted... It took more than a year and 10 applications (although I got accepted for a design challenge in the meantime - maybe that helped).

May acceptance rate for development kits / boards is quite good, but for test equipment its quite bad. Seems I need to work on my skills in that area... (sometimes I wish I could get some feedback on why I was not accepted, but I know its way too much work to do that)

sometimes I wish I could get some feedback on why I was not accepted, but I know its way too much work to do that

That is one of the reasons I've been advocating the publishing of the selected testers applications.

I publish mine in a blog post at the time I submit them.

I'd really think twice about submitting a proposal if it were to be publicised - I wouldn't accept that with my commercial proposals, and not just for the pricing element, but for all the thinking through the process, the approach, the risks, etc, and to an extent I do the same with a readiest. It wouldn't be as commercially sensitive, of course...

I agree with the sentiment, getting some feedback would be great (as with proposals I submit but don't win....), but it's a lot to ask I think. Randall and Pauline have done a good job posting guidance, and Jan's blogs are a good insight too.

Maybe more of a conversation between the selected roadtesters and Randall or the sponsoring organisation would help, and then the Roadtesters could voluntarily publish some of what were highlighted as key aspects of their proposals in the review? I'd be happy to do that.

A

But in truth, sometimes it's nothing you did wrong per-se, just that there's a limited number of X and that someone else had something to offer which you might not have. Or maybe a commercially motivated "I prefer their approach to yours". But since every RoadTest is a little different as the company sponsoring may be different, there's no one size fits all. As long as the proposal is decent by Randall's guidelines, you're in with a fighting chance.

That's why I suspect that feedback wouldn't be that useful (or a possibility due to the time constraint). Sometimes some of these decisionmaking processes can't be "aired" in the open because of the element of strategy that may be involved. Sometimes, winning is about guessing what that strategy might be ...

- Gough

fully agree!

But in truth, sometimes it's nothing you did wrong per-se

Exactly.

Hopefully this would allow the non selected to see this, and to be fair, Randall has been commenting about the high numbers of worthy proposals and how they've had to limit the choices.

I don't think I've published the whole of the application but definately my plan of what I want to test. I do sometimes get ideas or feedback that I try to incorporate into the test.

I don't think I've published the whole of the application but definately my plan of what I want to test. I do sometimes get ideas or feedback that I try to incorporate into the test.