Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo
ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca
Fri Oct 9 11:39:11 PDT 2009
--- On Thu, 10/8/09, Benjamin Black <b at b3k.us> wrote:
> case study in bad information
> design. no clue what that is supposed to
> tell us.
Maybe not bad design. Just not enough backstory.
The message of the chart is obvious:
High marketing to engineering ratio = higher success.
The problem with that is that there's no definition of what constitutes "success" for the purposes of the chart. In particular, how do you get a range of "success". I always figured if you design a success metric properly it will be a binary metric: either you succeed or you fail. Parial success seems like partial pregnancy. No?
And there's no explanation of the "marketing:engineering ratio". That is, do you reduce engineering to get success? Or do you increase marketing involvement while maintaining some baseline minimum of engineering? Or what? And how the heck did they measure the ratio, anyway??
It makes a pretty direct statement but begs too many questions to be useful.
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca
More information about the FoRK