Title: Suggested method for preliminary ranking of proposals
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00094280/00001
 Material Information
Title: Suggested method for preliminary ranking of proposals agricultural systems
Physical Description: 3 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Hildebrand, Peter E.
Publication Date: 1994
Copyright Date: 1994
 Subjects
Subject: Agricultural systems -- Ratings and rankings   ( lcsh )
Requests for proposals (Public contracts) -- Ratings and rankings   ( lcsh )
Agricultural extension work   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
General Note: "March 1994."
Statement of Responsibility: suggested by Peter E. Hildebrand.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00094280
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 434502100

Full Text






SUGGESTED METHOD FOR PRELIMINARY RANKING OF PROPOSALS:
AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS

Suggested by
Peter E. Hildebrand
March, 1994

Agricultural systems proposals will be different from those of other divisions
primarily because they will involve persons from a wide variety of
disciplines. Reviewers will also come from many disciplines. Proposals will
be written differently and reviewers will evaluate differently. To facilitate
discussion of these diverse proposals and to make the ranking process more
efficient, the use of a rating matrix is suggested. This matrix would serve
to evaluate a number of elements considered critical to acceptable proposals
and provide a first cut at ranking the submissions.

It is suggested that the matrix be used by each reviewer, then they can be
combined on Quattro Pro or Lotus 1-2-3. Individual proposals would be rows
and rating elements would be the columns. Each element would be rated from 5
(very high) to 1 (very low). A simple sum of all the elements, sorted in
descending order would immediately provide a ranking. Should it be decided
that some elements should be weighted more heavily than others, this could
easily be incorporated. Further, individual reviewer ratings can be adjusted
so that all have the same overall average rating. Following are suggested
elements for rating.

ELEMENTS FOR RATING PROPOSALS:


The problem (rationale and significance) as stated:

* Is relevant

If satisfactorily carried out, the research satisfies one or more
of the purposes of agricultural research and extension stated in
the NRICGP Program Description, page 1 of part 1 or page 2 of part
2. Furthermore, it must have . near-term applicability and
opportunities for technology transfer . ." (page 8, part 2).

Is manageable

The resources available to the researchers, combined with those
requested in the proposal are sufficient to carry out the proposed
research. If completion depends on funding or other resources
from supplemental sources, there is a high probability these will
be forthcoming.

The hypotheses or research questions:

Are testable within the scope of the proposal

Testing does not require resources that are not available and can
reasonably be expected to be accomplished within the stated time
frame.

Provide direction for the research

They suggest the methods and procedures required for testing and
the nature of the data required.











Suggest one or more meaningful solutions to the problem

Recommendations made as a result of the research would be
acceptable to and usable by the intended action group.


The goals) and objectives:

* Clearly relate to the problem and hypotheses
* Effectively define the limits of the research
* Clarify the means of doing the research
* Identify the user, client or audience of the research
* Describe the expected product (results) for the user

Methods and procedures (experimental plan):

Data sources are relevant to the hypotheses and objectives
* Analytical procedures are appropriate to the data and adequate for
testing the hypotheses
Can be completed with available resources and in specified time frame

Specific to agricultural systems:

* Addresses interactions among relevant systems or subsystems
* Effectively incorporates all relevant disciplines
* Provides evidence of a team approach and is not just a grouping of
individuals


Three sample ranking matrices are attached. The columns correspond with the
above elements. The next to last column is an unweighted ranking. The last
column shows a weighted ranking. For this example, the weights are 3 for the
first column and 5 for the second column. One matrix is shown in the order
entered. One matrix is ranked (sorted) by unweighted totals. The third is
ranked (sorted) by weighted totals. Notice that the rankings are affected by
the weighting procedure.


RATING










PRELIMINARY RANKING OF PROPOSALS WEIGHTED
PROPOSAL . . . . = = = = PROBLEM = = HYPOTHESES =. = == = =. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES = = =. = = = =. =. METHODS == = .= .= SYSTEMS PREUM PREUM
NO. PI TOPIC RELEVANT MNGABLE TESTABLE DRECT'N SOLUTNS RELATE UMIT CLARIFY ID USER PRODUCT DATA ANALYSIS TIME INTERACT REL DISC TEAM RANKING RANKING

/1'\AM BASS BEEF 5 5 4 2 1 4 3 2 5 2 3 3 4 4 1 4 52 82
(2 FEORGEBOY DAIRY 2 3 2 4 2 5 5 1 5 3 2 4 5 5 1 5 54 70
\3NE GIRL CROPS 3 3 5 2 2 2 4 4 5 5 2 3 1 5 4 5 55 73
4
5 IN THIS EXAMPLE PROBLEM RELEVANCY IS WEIGHTED BY 3 AND PROBLEM MANAGEABILITY WEIGHTED BY 5
6
7 NRICGPIRANKING
8









PRELIMINARY RANKING OF PROPOSALS WEGHTED
PROPOSAL - = . . .= = = = PROBLEM = = = = HYPOTHESES= = = = =- = GOALS AND OBJECTIVES - -- = = = = = = METHODS . . = SYSTEMS PREUM PREUM
NO. PI TOPIC RELEVANT MNGABLE TESTABLE DRECT'N SOLUTNS RELATE UMIT CLARIFY ID USER PRODUCT DATA ANALYSIS TIME INTERACT REL DISC TEAM RANKING RANKING

3JANEGIRL CROPS 3 3 5 2 2 2 4 4 5 5 2 3 1 5 4 5 73
2 GEORGEBOY DAIRY 2 3 2 4 2 5 5 1 5 3 2 4 5 5 1 5 154 70
1 SAMBASS BEEF 5 5 4 2 1 4 3 2 5 2 3 3 4 4 1 4 82
4
5 IN THIS EXAMPLE PROBLEM RELEVANCY IS WEIGHTED BY 3 AND PROBLEM MANAGEABILITY WEIGHTED BY 5
6
7 NRICGPIRANKING
8












PREUMINARY RANKING OF PROPOSALS WEIGHTED
PROPOSAL .- . . .- = = = = = PROBLEM Y P O HYPOTHESES S = = GOALS AND OBJECTIVES - --- --- . METHODS . . = = SYSTEMS PREUM PREUM
NO. PI TOPIC RELEVANT MNGABLE TESTABLE DRECT'N SOLUTNS RELATE UMIT CLARIFY ID USER PRODUCT DATA ANALYSIS TIME INTERACT RELDISC TEAM RANKING RANKING

1 SAMBASS BEEF 5 5 4 2 1 4 3 2 5 2 3 3 4 4 1 4 52
3 JANEGIRL CROPS 3 3 5 2 2 2 4 4 5 5 2 3 1 5 4 5 55
2 GEORGEBOY DAIRY 2 3 2 4 2 5 5 1 5 3 2 4 5 5 1 5 54
4
5 IN THIS EXAMPLE PROBLEM RELEVANCY IS WEIGHTED BY 3 AND PROBLEM MANAGEABILTY WEIGHTED BY 5
6
7 NRICGP/RANKING
8




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs