1. IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
November 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr1
November 2002
IEEE Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
SG3a Down Selection Process Discussion
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

2. Contents SG3a Work To Date Overview of the process Selection Process
November 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr1
November 2002
Contents
SG3a Work To Date
Overview of the process
Selection Process
Evaluation
Down Selection
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

3. Call for Applications, Proposals, and Down Selection Process
November 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr1
November 2002
Call for Applications, Proposals, and Down Selection Process
(1) a summary of the 8 application presentations from the Study Group 3a call for applications and definition of the fundamental requirements implied by applications (document: IEEE P /104 Alternate PHY Technical Requirements – latest revision)
(2) a list of expected performance and attribute criteria IEEE P /105 Alternate PHY Selection Criteria – latest revision
The CFP Processes need to be elaborated, see next slide.
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

4. The CFP Process, what do we want?
November 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr1
November 2002
The CFP Process, what do we want?
The figure to the right depicts the current state of the CFP Process thinking.
We need to determine the processes we want to use.
And then create the documents necessary to accomplish the call.
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

5. Proposed CFP Timeline Nov02 Session #21 Jan03 Session #22
November 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr1
November 2002
Proposed CFP Timeline
Nov02 Session #21
We should be able to release a CFP here (if the down selection process is chosen - the rest of the effort should be close)
Jan03 Session #22
Absolute latest release of CFP!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mar03 Session #23
Proposals should be heard, or this will be lightly attended and momentum will fade.
May03 Session #24
If too many proposal for one session, this should be the overflow.
We should spend part of this session discussing proposals presented, answering technical questions/concerns (i.e. put the diehard engineers in a room and let them verbally duke it out).
Spend time on conference calls discussing proposals to let everyone get comfortable (before and after this session).
Jul03 Session #25
Voting must occur here - 1st opportunity for automatic quorum after presentations
Sep03 Session #26
Start drafting process - proposals for draft improvements should be entertained at this time (i.e. now that we know the realm of the game, let the games begin)
Nov03 Session #27
...
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

6. The CFA opened on 11Dec01 and closed on 21Jan02. The CFP…
November 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr1
SG3a Future Planning
November 2002
You are here
PAR
CFA
2002
CFP
2003
Draft D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
The CFA opened on 11Dec01 and closed on 21Jan02. The CFP…
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

7. November 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr1
November 2002
Selection Process
My suggestion is to discuss this process in two stages
Evaluation of proposal by group and
Actual down selection procedure
History:
Separate Evaluation/down selection voting: TG3, TG4
Evaluation process down selects (combined):
Down selection voting only (criteria summary created for information only): TGg (802.11)
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

8. Selection Process Observations/Suggestions
November 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr1
November 2002
Selection Process Observations/Suggestions
Decoupling the evaluation from the down selection allows both needed parts to play in the process
Technical Investigation (and challenging)
Politics (in the actual voting)
Separation allows
Technical community to attempt to fairly evaluate each proposal
Then voters to vote based on their needs/politics
Technical evaluation allows
Observers to learn more about each proposal
Helps some on-the-fence voters to understand the value each proposal can bring to their future product plans
If we don't factor in some politics, the market may go elsewhere to battle it out (it might even still go elsewhere, based on events)
Either way, it has to have room to play
Based on group conversations, need exists for an evaluation period
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

9. Selection Process (Decision Point)
November 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr1
November 2002
Selection Process (Decision Point)
Straw Poll:
Separate Evaluation/Down Selection Voting:
Evaluation is the Down Selection Voting (combined) :
Down Selection Voting only:
Abstain:
The down selection subcommittee suggests separating the down selection into 2 parts
(evaluation and down selection voting)
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

10. Evaluation Process Evaluation is really 2 discussions (or phases)
November 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr1
November 2002
Evaluation Process
Evaluation is really 2 discussions (or phases)
Criteria Importance Level
Mandatory/Optional
ABC
A: Mandatory requirement
B: Important desired requirement
C: A nice to have requirement
Weighted values (0 – 10)
Scoring
Pass/Fail
Pugh Matrix
Better (+), Same, Worse (-) than a Baseline Solution
Rating (0 – 5)
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

11. Evaluation Process Observations/Suggestions
November 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr1
November 2002
Evaluation Process Observations/Suggestions
Evaluation must promote dialogue between members without taking forever to accomplish
Criteria Importance Level
The down selection subcommittee suggests using the ABC rating method
ABC rating allows the proposals to be evaluated and discussed, without getting too bogged down in the extreme details
This area is where proposers have a tendency to twist the ratings in favor of their proposals, instead of in the best interest of the application needs
The application needs can be determined in the selection of ABC types and leave the arguing of meeting intent to the evaluation stage
Scoring
Pugh Matrix require determination of a baseline solution and levels of each criteria that allows proposals to be considered worse or better
This will take at least another meeting (probably through January), possibly delaying the effort
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

12. Evaluation Process Options Matrix
November 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr1
November 2002
Evaluation Process Options Matrix
Criteria Importance Level
Mandatory/
Optional
ABC Rating
Weighted Values
Pass/Fail  
Pugh Matrix
Rating (0-5)
Scoring
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

13. Evaluation Process Any other suggested methods?
November 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr1
November 2002
Evaluation Process
Any other suggested methods?
Phase 1 (Criteria Importance Level)
Phase 2 (Scoring)
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

14. Evaluation Process (Decision Point)
November 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr1
November 2002
Evaluation Process (Decision Point)
Criteria Importance Level
Scoring
Straw Poll Count 1
Mandatory/Optional
Pass/Fail 2
Rating (0-5) 3
ABC Rating 4 5
Weighted Values
Pugh Matrix 6 7
Abstain
The goal of this straw poll is to select gain consensus on the evaluation process from the committee. This selection could possibly happen in one straw poll. Each person should select only one of the above options for each straw poll set. If a tie exists between options, another straw poll will be taken to determine to best option of the remaining selections.
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

15. Down Selection Voting Procedure
November 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr1
November 2002
Down Selection Voting Procedure
History: Processes used in the past in groups, such as TG3/TG4/TGg, have been methods of elimination voting. The methods used for these eliminations have been as follows:
Ranking vote, lowest rank is voted off the list (TG3)
Vote for desired proposal, lowest number of votes is off the list (TG4)
Two-step approach (TGg):
Low hurdle vote - each voter casts a yes, no, or abstain vote for each proposal, proposals that did not obtain 25% were eliminated
Vote for desired proposal, lowest number of votes is off the list
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

16. Down Selection Voting Procedure Observations/Suggestions
November 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr1
November 2002
Down Selection Voting Procedure Observations/Suggestions
Down selection should promote proposal merger conversations as selection proceeds
Like proposals are encouraged to join forces to allow voters to align based on key issues
Details will be revisited and hashed out during the drafting process
TG4 started from TG3 process and improved on it
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

17. Down Selection Voting Procedure (Decision Point)
November 2002
Down Selection Voting Procedure (Decision Point)
Any other suggested methods?
Straw Poll:
Ranking vote (lowest rank voted off):
Vote for desired proposal (lowest # of votes is off):
2 staged vote (eliminate low support proposals, vote for desired proposal):
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

18. Next Steps Create Evaluation Components Criteria Importance Levels
November 2002
Next Steps
Create Evaluation Components
Criteria Importance Levels
Create Annex for inclusion in IEEE P /105 Alternate PHY Selection Criteria
Work on designations next (Tuesday, Wednesday)
Scoring
Document scoring method in Annex for inclusion in IEEE P /105 Alternate PHY Selection Criteria
Subcommittee will supply text for review
Create an evaluation form to be used by voters during evaluation stage
This can be completed in January (if needed)
Down Selection Procedures
Down selection subcommittee will create flow diagram for discussion in a session on Thursday based on results of included straw poll
Down Selection committee looking for any interested volunteers – see Mary or Ian to join (Tuesday night, 8 pm – Garden Isle 4)
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant