1. Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: [Pugh Selection Process Clarification]
Date Submitted: [July 2000]
Source: [James D. Allen] Company [Eastman Kodak Co.]
Address [66 Eastman Ave. Rochester,NY ]
Voice:[ ], FAX: [ ],
Re: []
Abstract: [Clarification of the Selection process.]
Purpose: [Describe refinements of the selection process to the Task Group]
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
Release: The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P
James D. Allen, Eastman Kodak Co

2. Pugh Selection Process Clarification
James D. Allen, Eastman Kodak Co

3. Pugh Intent Controlled Convergence of order from Chaos
Use Tool to Communicate:
Criteria Definitions
Share opinions of Value through +,Same,- process
Make sure we have a common group understanding (as best we can)
James D. Allen, Eastman Kodak Co

4. Reference: Total Design, Stuart Pugh
Addison-Wesley, ISBN
James D. Allen, Eastman Kodak Co

5. Pugh Intent
Use Worksheet to find the DATUM proposal - that is the best score.
Worksheets Document rXP802.15_TG3
Unknowns and no opinions are “Same”
Due July 21st Midnight EDT.
No Conference Call Tuesday July 16th
Also use ranking to establish discussion order.
Pugh needs a Datum
James D. Allen, Eastman Kodak Co

6. Pugh Intent Next step takes place in PHY/ MAC/ SYSTEM Committees:
Take PLUS values from other proposals
Try to apply to Datum to Improve It
Start Selection Process -September/Nov.
Deviate from Pugh - NOT a NUMERIAL Process for TG3
Too Many Other Factors make “Pure Pugh” unworkable.
Voting Process using Pareto Method
James D. Allen, Eastman Kodak Co