ISLEAN organizes the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands Email List every year, an internal competition to reward the quality of a deliverable produced within the framework of a mission or a project. It serves several purposes: Embody our desire to maintain high quality production Reward the construction of an exceptional deliverable Make known within the firm the activity of each consultant Disseminate good practices within the firm Each month, the consultants (not the managers or the partners) are invited to propose a deliverable, and the entire firm contributes to the selection of the best deliverable. The winner of the season will be selected from the 12

who stood out. But how do you choose the winners? If we are looking for a democratic functioning, the first solution that comes to mind is to have everyone vote. Balthazar Dadvisard explained to us the value of using majority judgment voting. Since we practice eat your own dog food , we have implemented it to select the best deliverable of each month. Without going into the details of the process here, the major advantage is that it makes it possible to avoid the useful vote, by allowing everyone to judge the candidates independently of each other, without sacrificing their voice because they anticipate a defeat. of his favorite

Keep It Simple, Stupid

candidate. Yes, but… In a presidential election, for example, the number of candidates is negligible compared to the number of voters, so their vote has a negligible impact. Yes, but this is not the case in a firm of about twenty consultants, with 13 potential participants and barely more voters on average. One can imagine an imaginary consultant who would like to maximize his chances of winning. Even if he does not have the right to vote for himself, he still has an interest in giving his colleagues worse votes than they give him. I believe that for a successful vote, there should be no doubt about the count. It is for this reason that


all consultants at ISlean have access to the details of votes and comments. This allows them to verify the integrity of the count and also to progress by reading the advice of others. Yes, but in practice, it is the organizer of the CCML who analyzes (in this case me for the last 12 months) and who presents the results. Even if the principle is simple, the counting of a majority judgment vote is time consuming. The small number of voters imposes a large number of iterations in order to decide between those who did better than the majority mention. Concretely, this means that I am the only one to really carry out the entire process.

What Possible Improvements

It may be a lack of pedagogy or a bad interpretation on my part, but no matter how much I explain each time the way to decide between the candidates, it does not seem to convince everyone 100% . I have the impression to designate the winner in conclave, transparency is only an illusion. Keep It Simple, Stupid (KISS) The last downside made me question our voting system. In order to preserve the possibility for everyone to express their feelings about each deliverable, we still leave the voters the possibility of judging the deliverables on the whole scale (Excellent / Very good / Good / Fair / Poor). From now on, counting is done by attributing a well-chosen number of points to each mention and by adding them. The ranking is

done instantly: the winner is not the one with the most votes or the one who meets a mysterious condition, but simply the one with the most points. It is so easy to reproduce that even if no one does it concretely, we have more confidence in our ability to verify and we therefore have more confidence in the result of the count. The KISS Principle is a design guideline that advocates simplicity in design and that unnecessary complexity should be avoided whenever possible. This is the principle that I have tried to follow to meet our need. What possible improvements? Noticing that it was advantageous to give worse mentions to its

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.