Feedback request instuctions and examples
Comparison analysis
In feedback requests you always have to choose some other
analysis as comparison analysis: you have to pick up one
other analysis that is - in your opinion - roughly at
the same level as your own analysis. In other words: analysis
that is roughly as good as your own analysis.
Why this kind of procedure? Why do I (in a way) have
to "give points for my own analysis"? Isn't
that the job of coaching analysts?
There are many reasons why this kind procedure and your
own view is valuable: First of all it helps the coaching
analyst to notice the relevant things in your analysis.
It also helps the coaching analyst and you to form a shared
opinion on the analysis and what is important in analysis.
The most important thing with this is: without this kind
of procedure, the coaching analyst and the analyst whose
analysis is to be ranked, might have totally different
views about how analysis should be judged and even about
things which are important in analysis. If this
kind fundamental differences exist, it is obvious that
there would be very different views about the points given.
Thus many analysts would be unhappy with the points they
would receive and would become unmotivated. Therefore
we see that it is utmost important that there is some
kind of two-way dialogue between the these two parties
so that this kind of problems could be diminished. Furthermore
this also forces the analysts to read the analysis of
some other analysts and thus it also gives perspective
and shares best practices among the analysts.
If you would like to become #1 analyst from your current
#2 position...
In case where your own analysis is the #2 analysis and
you request more points than the current #1 analyst, then
you always have to pick up the current #1 analysis as
the comparison analysis. Thus, you have to give your own
reasons for the couching analysts why your own analysis
is better than the current #1 analysis.
There might of course be cases where the current #1 analyst
has relatively low points, e.g. admin-points between 0.5
- 0.7 and you have produced analysis that deserves much
higher points, let us say admin-points between 1.0 - 1.2.
Still, you have to choose the current #1 analysis as comparison
analysis. Remember that coaching analysts always try to
give you points that roughly correspond your own level.
So they probably still give you 1.1 admin-points even
though your comparison analysis has much less points.
Besides: if you are not happy with the admin-points received,
you can always make another fedback request and ask for
more points. The most important thing hereby is that you
have to compare your own analysis to the analysis of your
nearest competitor.
Practical examples what you can write in "...because"
-field:
1) My estimate comments are more thorough as I have...
2) My comments are much more clearly stated: it is easy
to get the essential things from my analysis...
3) I have analyzed competitive situation and position
of the company better.
4) My EBIT- and EPS-estimates have been more more accurate
that the other analyst (in case you compare the analysis
to some other analysis of the same company)
5) ...
Why this kind of comments are needed?
Your comments are meant to both make it easier for the
administrators to give points to your analysis and make
the points more accurate. In many cases it might very
difficult to notice all the essentials things in the analysis
and thereby it is good that the administrators have been
notified for the most essential things.
You can write virtually anything to this "because"
-field and the comments can even be long even though in
many cases one or two sentances is quite enough.
General meaning of this own "assesment" is
also...
It is very difficult or even impossible to keep track
of all the admin-points of all companies => quite easily
it happens that some companies get much higher admin-points
than other companies even without any reason. This is
because different persons give admin-points, some things
might be left unnoticed and above all it is difficult
to have always exactly the same "scale in giving
points" as points are given at different points of
time: same person might give today points at very different
manner than he did a couple of months ago and he does
not even notice it very easily without reading the old
points through once again - which is almost never done.
Therefore it is good that the admin-points scale is also
syncronized somehow by comparison by the analysts themselves.
Sometimes this means that administrators notice "old
mistakes" and decrease the points of some old analysis
which are out of line compared to other analysis having
about the same point level. However, this is also important:
it is good that the outliers will be corrected and the
points scale somewhat objective. It will never be totally
objective as the points are no given so that accuracy
would be given a lot of emphasis.
Admin-points scale can be
found from here
 See
also info about customer
points , info about
automatic points and all points.
Back
to freelance analysis intro
Proceed
to freelance analysis start
|
