element14 Community
element14 Community
    Register Log In
  • Site
  • Search
  • Log In Register
  • Community Hub
    Community Hub
    • What's New on element14
    • Feedback and Support
    • Benefits of Membership
    • Personal Blogs
    • Members Area
    • Achievement Levels
  • Learn
    Learn
    • Ask an Expert
    • eBooks
    • element14 presents
    • Learning Center
    • Tech Spotlight
    • STEM Academy
    • Webinars, Training and Events
    • Learning Groups
  • Technologies
    Technologies
    • 3D Printing
    • FPGA
    • Industrial Automation
    • Internet of Things
    • Power & Energy
    • Sensors
    • Technology Groups
  • Challenges & Projects
    Challenges & Projects
    • Design Challenges
    • element14 presents Projects
    • Project14
    • Arduino Projects
    • Raspberry Pi Projects
    • Project Groups
  • Products
    Products
    • Arduino
    • Avnet & Tria Boards Community
    • Dev Tools
    • Manufacturers
    • Multicomp Pro
    • Product Groups
    • Raspberry Pi
    • RoadTests & Reviews
  • About Us
  • Store
    Store
    • Visit Your Store
    • Choose another store...
      • Europe
      •  Austria (German)
      •  Belgium (Dutch, French)
      •  Bulgaria (Bulgarian)
      •  Czech Republic (Czech)
      •  Denmark (Danish)
      •  Estonia (Estonian)
      •  Finland (Finnish)
      •  France (French)
      •  Germany (German)
      •  Hungary (Hungarian)
      •  Ireland
      •  Israel
      •  Italy (Italian)
      •  Latvia (Latvian)
      •  
      •  Lithuania (Lithuanian)
      •  Netherlands (Dutch)
      •  Norway (Norwegian)
      •  Poland (Polish)
      •  Portugal (Portuguese)
      •  Romania (Romanian)
      •  Russia (Russian)
      •  Slovakia (Slovak)
      •  Slovenia (Slovenian)
      •  Spain (Spanish)
      •  Sweden (Swedish)
      •  Switzerland(German, French)
      •  Turkey (Turkish)
      •  United Kingdom
      • Asia Pacific
      •  Australia
      •  China
      •  Hong Kong
      •  India
      •  Korea (Korean)
      •  Malaysia
      •  New Zealand
      •  Philippines
      •  Singapore
      •  Taiwan
      •  Thailand (Thai)
      • Americas
      •  Brazil (Portuguese)
      •  Canada
      •  Mexico (Spanish)
      •  United States
      Can't find the country/region you're looking for? Visit our export site or find a local distributor.
  • Translate
  • Profile
  • Settings
RoadTests & Reviews
  • Products
  • More
RoadTests & Reviews
RoadTest Forum 2 Roadtests, 4 Reviewers, 0 Reviews: When A RoadTester Does Not Complete a Review
  • Blogs
  • RoadTest Forum
  • Documents
  • RoadTests
  • Reviews
  • Polls
  • Files
  • Members
  • Mentions
  • Sub-Groups
  • Tags
  • More
  • Cancel
  • New
Join RoadTests & Reviews to participate - click to join for free!
Actions
  • Share
  • More
  • Cancel
Forum Thread Details
  • Replies 54 replies
  • Subscribers 2569 subscribers
  • Views 5665 views
  • Users 0 members are here
  • scasny
Related

2 Roadtests, 4 Reviewers, 0 Reviews: When A RoadTester Does Not Complete a Review

rscasny
rscasny over 6 years ago

Recently, I selected roadtest applicants who were both new roadtesters  and have not participated much on the community, primarily because I have had some other members tell me that I am using experienced roadtesters too much. (This is never my intent; I select the best applicants. When I roadtest writes only a 1-sentence application, I don't have much to go on and these folks usually don't get selected.)

 

I had to report roadtest results to 2 sponsors. Well, the results for these 2 roadtests were not great: 4 roadtesters haven't done their reviews, they haven't logged in for 3 to 4 months, and they have not responded to all our follow ups that we do for every roadtest. Before I selected these 4, I contacted them and they agreed to commit to delivering the review in 60 days.

 

Now, 2 roadtests is a fraction of all roadtests. For many roadtests we get 100% compliance. I'd say overall we are getting a compliance rate in the upper80s/lower90s, which is good and a far cry from where we were 2 years ago when we were at the sub-20% level.

 

Speaking for the sponsor and myself, we understand that in some situations people will be unable to complete the review. After all, people do get ill and emergencies do arise in everyone's lives, so I never expect to have 100% compliance for every roadtest. I recall someone who had a tree fall on his house in an ice storm. That's a major tragedy in my book. Of course I would not expect a review. But these instances are atypical and very few compared to all roadtests and roadtesters I deal with.

 

While we give the official roadtesters the kits and the shipping for free, someone does pay for these things. Typically, the sponsor pays for the kits and element14 pays for the shipping costs to the roadtesters. But we are more than happy to do this because we value our roadtesters' opinions and we are happy to absorb the costs when the reviews are published.

 

But the question comes to mind: what happens when a roadtester doesn't complete the review:

 

1. The sponsor does not receive all the feedback he is seeking when he enrolled in the roadtest program as a sponsor.

2. Someone who does not complete the review prevents someone who could have done the review from doing it.

3. It prevents our members from learning about the product.

4. It damages the credibility of the program.

5. The delinquent roadtesters prevent themselves for being considered for a high-priced product. If I can't reliably use someone for a $35 US roadtest, how can I expect them to do the review for a $3500 US roadtest!

6. I am placed in the embarrassing situation to explain why 4 people I selected did not do their reviews.

 

There are other reasons but 6 reasons is enough to make my point.

 

It is my responsibility to get the required results for both our sponsors. My bosses also have expectations and expect that I will solve problems. I want people to use the RoadTest program to have fun with technology,  and get some products or equipment that they may not have the budget to get on their own. But I also need mature, responsible members who are engaged in our community, demonstrate an appropriate level of professionalism, and are responsive to our follow up requests. I like to think most roadtesters are professional. I surely do not think these 4 delinquent roadtesters represent the RoadTest group.

 

But going forward, I will have to modify my approach in selection somewhat. And I probably will not hand out all the kits if I don't feel I have enough roadtesters who are knowledgeable about the product, and are mature, professional and reliable. If you were in doubt that I am very serious about people completing their reviews, I hope this discussion makes my position very clear. I apologize to all my loyal and responsbile roadtesters who do complete their reviews. But this is a community and I have to communicate my concerns as well as be open to new ideas and feedback: it's a two-way street.

 

If you can't finish the review, contact me and tell me or my colleague danzima why. If you need a bit more time, that's fine if you need to do more testing. (Needing more time to finish your Differential Equations homework or finishing your digital electronics lab is not a reason for needing more time.) Communicate and keep us in the loop; you will find in your career that developing communication skills is as important as honing those engineering skills. Even if you received a non-working product, you are still required to post a review. Put it out to the members: "I took these readings and I believe it's faulty. Help me troubleshoot it." There are plenty of eager members who are more than happy to help.

 

I want everyone to benefit from a Roadtest. I think completed roadtests are a great place to learn. I think they are a fantastic vehicle for the new engineer who is trying to shine in their first job interview. Read our e-book on IoT careers to learn more shining in a job interview: https://www.element14.com/community/community/publications/ebooks?ICID=hp-iotcareerebook-rotational#?ICID=ebooks-downloa…

 

But you can't reap the benefits of the roadtest program if you don't do your reviews.

 

Sincerely,

 

Randall Scasny

RoadTest Program Manager

  • Sign in to reply
  • Cancel

Top Replies

  • rscasny
    rscasny over 6 years ago +12
    Hi All. I'd like to thank everyone who has participated in this discussion. It's help me clarify the problem and think about solutions. Change Idea #1: I used to send a standard availability email when…
  • Fred27
    Fred27 over 6 years ago +10
    Unfortunately you are going to get some people like that. I don't envy your job having to pick road testers. It must be tricky trying to balance the requirements of the suppliers (who are the ones that…
  • DAB
    DAB over 6 years ago +8
    Sadly, that is the outcome I predicted several years ago. If you want to satisfy the vendors, you have to use trusted road testers. You can always allocate a couple of inexpensive gear tests to newbies…
Parents
  • rscasny
    rscasny over 6 years ago

    Hi All.

     

    I'd like to thank everyone who has participated in this discussion. It's help me clarify the problem and think about solutions.

     

    Change Idea #1: I used to send a standard availability email when I notify the roadtest finalists wether they are new roadtesters or experience. I will start sending out a separate email for new roadtesters that spells out the responsibilities of a roadtester and the consequences of not doing a review.

     

    Change Idea #2-- I am thinking that I should have an onboarding webinar for new roadtesters. It may be a way to build relationships with new people and they can hear from me and what I expect.

     

    Change Idea #3--I have had some instances when a member was not available because he was doing another roadtest. I am considering setting up later due dates for these people instead of choosing someone else who wrote a below average application.

     

    Change Idea #4--If I got 5 kits to hand out and I honestly feel I don't have 5 reliable roadtesters, I may have to select less than 5 and reserve the other kits for a project.

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up +12 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Cancel
  • gecoz
    gecoz over 6 years ago in reply to rscasny

    I think ideas #1 and #2 are good: any guidance and information about the program, how to apply, what is expected and how to prepare and deliver a RoadTest review will be of invaluable help for all the members, not just the new ones.

     

    Ideas #3 I don't think it is a good one. I can see where you are coming from with this, and what you are trying to address here, but I think the RoadTest program should have few and very clear rules, and one of them should be the start date and the end date of the RoadTest itself. Starting moving dates to accomodate members schedules can cause confusion and lead to odd situations.

     

    Idea #4: to some extent I believe this is already happening, so I don't see it as a bad thing in itself . The problem is that you might end up not taking any risk at all on new members this way, and that could be a problem. As already pointed out by many fellow members and yourself, writing a good review, unless you are particularly gifted person, is a skill that requires lots of "trial and error" attempts, and lots of feedback. Writing a not -so-good application doesn't tell much on the real potential of a candidate, just like writing a very good one is not a guarantee of success. Even with interviews, sometimes you cannot find out what to expect from a candidate, so ultimately the only way is to take a risk, trust your instinct and choose some candidates regardless. Not choosing, to play safe, is a bad bet.

     

    So, in short, I'm in favour to any change that introduces clarity in the process, helps members understand what is expected from them and encourage participation. The other changes proposed, I'm not sure what they aim at. If it is to reduce the risk of "no-show" review, I'm afraid they won't make much difference. If it is to try getting good quality reviews, then I think  perhaps, for clarity and transparency sake, could be more useful to resurrect something like the RoadTest Plus program, where you can invite experienced members to do a review. For some (or all) RoadTests, you could run a RoadTest Plus (project based rather than just test based) where all the unassigned kits from the regular RoadTests are made available.

     

    Personally, as I said, I think the program is working quite well as it is now. I don't know what bargaining power you have with the suppliers, but I suspect it could be possible to make sure that they agree with assigning, for example, 75% of the kits for regular members, 25% expressly reserved for new members. That way, you can manage all the stakeholders expectations while making the program rules as clear and transparent as possible and chances are given to new members.

     

    One last change I would love to see: some feedback from you or the supplier about the published review. I understand it would generate more work for you and the supplier, and it could be a bit of double-edged sword, but for all the members that genuinely are trying to do a good job of their review, this feedback would be invaluable. Preferably, this should be delivered as private conversation, to avoid any problem. I know, for one, I would love to receive such feedback, to understand where I need to work more, in order to improve.

     

    That's my 2p.

     

    Fabio

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up +2 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Cancel
Reply
  • gecoz
    gecoz over 6 years ago in reply to rscasny

    I think ideas #1 and #2 are good: any guidance and information about the program, how to apply, what is expected and how to prepare and deliver a RoadTest review will be of invaluable help for all the members, not just the new ones.

     

    Ideas #3 I don't think it is a good one. I can see where you are coming from with this, and what you are trying to address here, but I think the RoadTest program should have few and very clear rules, and one of them should be the start date and the end date of the RoadTest itself. Starting moving dates to accomodate members schedules can cause confusion and lead to odd situations.

     

    Idea #4: to some extent I believe this is already happening, so I don't see it as a bad thing in itself . The problem is that you might end up not taking any risk at all on new members this way, and that could be a problem. As already pointed out by many fellow members and yourself, writing a good review, unless you are particularly gifted person, is a skill that requires lots of "trial and error" attempts, and lots of feedback. Writing a not -so-good application doesn't tell much on the real potential of a candidate, just like writing a very good one is not a guarantee of success. Even with interviews, sometimes you cannot find out what to expect from a candidate, so ultimately the only way is to take a risk, trust your instinct and choose some candidates regardless. Not choosing, to play safe, is a bad bet.

     

    So, in short, I'm in favour to any change that introduces clarity in the process, helps members understand what is expected from them and encourage participation. The other changes proposed, I'm not sure what they aim at. If it is to reduce the risk of "no-show" review, I'm afraid they won't make much difference. If it is to try getting good quality reviews, then I think  perhaps, for clarity and transparency sake, could be more useful to resurrect something like the RoadTest Plus program, where you can invite experienced members to do a review. For some (or all) RoadTests, you could run a RoadTest Plus (project based rather than just test based) where all the unassigned kits from the regular RoadTests are made available.

     

    Personally, as I said, I think the program is working quite well as it is now. I don't know what bargaining power you have with the suppliers, but I suspect it could be possible to make sure that they agree with assigning, for example, 75% of the kits for regular members, 25% expressly reserved for new members. That way, you can manage all the stakeholders expectations while making the program rules as clear and transparent as possible and chances are given to new members.

     

    One last change I would love to see: some feedback from you or the supplier about the published review. I understand it would generate more work for you and the supplier, and it could be a bit of double-edged sword, but for all the members that genuinely are trying to do a good job of their review, this feedback would be invaluable. Preferably, this should be delivered as private conversation, to avoid any problem. I know, for one, I would love to receive such feedback, to understand where I need to work more, in order to improve.

     

    That's my 2p.

     

    Fabio

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up +2 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Cancel
Children
No Data
element14 Community

element14 is the first online community specifically for engineers. Connect with your peers and get expert answers to your questions.

  • Members
  • Learn
  • Technologies
  • Challenges & Projects
  • Products
  • Store
  • About Us
  • Feedback & Support
  • FAQs
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal and Copyright Notices
  • Sitemap
  • Cookies

An Avnet Company © 2025 Premier Farnell Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Premier Farnell Ltd, registered in England and Wales (no 00876412), registered office: Farnell House, Forge Lane, Leeds LS12 2NE.

ICP 备案号 10220084.

Follow element14

  • X
  • Facebook
  • linkedin
  • YouTube