doc.: IEEE /180r1 Submission July, 2000 Slide 1James D. Allen, Eastman Kodak Co. Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [TG3 Evaluation Process Flow Chart] Date Submitted: [13 July 2000] Source: [James D. Allen] Company [Eastman Kodak Co.] Address [66 Eastman Ave. Rochester, NY ] Voice:[(716) ], FAX: [(716) ], Re: [Call for Proposal Evaluation.ref 00110r10P802.15] [Proposal Eval Form.ref 00226r2P802.15] [Pugh Selection Process Clarification.ref 00230r0P802.15] Abstract:[Flow chart of how the criteria will be used to evaluate proposals] Purpose:[This document communicates the results of TG3 discussions on how to evaluate the proposal submissions.] 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

doc.: IEEE /180r1 Submission July, 2000 Slide 2James D. Allen, Eastman Kodak Co. Process Flow Chart for P Proposals

doc.: IEEE /180r1 Submission July, 2000 Slide 3James D. Allen, Eastman Kodak Co. This process was designed around several concerns expressed by TG participants: –Allow concepts to merge and optimize, –Need to hear all presentations before vote even if materials are available in advance (Q/A sessions) –Need to reduce number of options quickly and fairly –Need to use TG3’s joint expertise efficiently –Need to be able to consider new criteria –Need to have a streamlined process compatible with informed voters, short schedules and conference calls –Need to prevent getting lost in the process rather than focused on the goal

doc.: IEEE /180r1 Submission July, 2000 Slide 4James D. Allen, Eastman Kodak Co. Proposal evaluation submission for voters: –Fill in evaluation “scores” in 00226r2P802-15_TG3-Proposal- Eval-Form (in the Excel file). Unknowns = “Same” –Rename the file according to the following convention: 00226r2P802-15_TG3- (no spaces) Example: 00226r2P802-15_TG3-evansn Update - Process details - July meeting

doc.: IEEE /180r1 Submission –By July 21, midnight EDT, the file as an attachment to the following addresses: –Results will be posted to web and notification will be sent to List Server.

doc.: IEEE /180r1 Submission July, 2000 Slide 5James D. Allen, Eastman Kodak Co. Secretary: Assigns Document Number if missing Verifies Format and Copyright Release Scans for meeting PAR- do not assign number if doc does not meet intent of the Call Scans for Self Rating Section Verify slot in July calendar Notify Alfvin or Gifford for web matrix Forward presentations to Gifford for posting Remind Submitter of presentation date/time and request any missing data Updates Chair on status [All presentations and support documents are available on or before July 7.] Evaluation worksheets are passed July Meeting One Pugh matrix per submission is passed out to each voter before each presentation session This evaluation is for “first order” ranking of submissions Voters may evaluate a presentation only if they are present for the session (a session my have >1 presentation) Evaluation sheets are handed in at end of each session (note: Retext has changed) File Submission to TG3 Secretary, Copy to Chair Submitter Presents at July IEEE Meeting Beginning of July Meeting

doc.: IEEE /180r1 Submission July, 2000 Slide 6James D. Allen, Eastman Kodak Co. Criteria Changes and Con Call Plans Evaluate any proposals to change Criteria Vote on changes Thursday - has to be during open session Request reassessment of any new criteria proposed by any submitters Publish Con Call discussion schedule (week following July meeting) Vote to enable TG3 to make binding decisions at September interim meeting if quorum exist. Conference Call Analysis Cycle Proposal eval files submitted by July 28, midnight EDT Proposals are put in order of rating; results compiled and reported before Aug 1st conference call Order will determine evaluation order (time to hear, think, discuss is needed prior to a first sort vote) Conference Call discussions of all proposals Focus on filling in matrix, asking questions, Evaluation sequence is in order of ranking vote Pugh “+same-” evaluation will be completed Evaluate Mac and PHY separate- each containing Systems sections and combinations or improvements of proposals to encourage best solution for final proposal - Activated Phy Mac Sys Committees No Mac or PHY exist alone. PHY-only or Mac-only submissions must be paired for final vote in Sept. Evaluate Pugh to combine best MACs and PHY combos. Rank order all Presentations Voters rate relative (+,same,-) for each criteria during presentation Voters to convert self rating details to general Pugh ratings Weighting is applied in Pugh tool to help separate criteria value Reference value for each criteria item used as reference (all proposals rated relative to this) (These values are from P /110r10 or above.) End of July Meeting

doc.: IEEE /180r1 Submission July, 2000 Slide 7James D. Allen, Eastman Kodak Co. Next level of Sort Reduce to one PHY/Mac Begin Draft Standard Review matrix and analysis results and vote on acceptance of work. Vote on which proposals to pursue: 1- Use master evaluation document which is the matrix from doc: 00110r11-P as the reference. 2- Each voter rates all proposals in order of preference - each proposal is given a number of their order (first choice is 1, etc) 3- Votes are tallied, results are presented and sanity check done informally 4- Top half stays in, bottom half is excused. 5- Top half has the opportunity to discuss differences to clarify 6- Vote is taken again Establish method for reducing remaining proposals to final drafts for PHY/MAC 1- review criteria and weighting for final selection 2- rate each remaining proposal based on final criteria 3- determine proposal differences and evaluate against PAR, and criteria 4- vote to determine final proposal for PHY/MAC Create baseline PHY/MAC drafts from results Beginning Sept. Meeting