antoineone
New member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2020
- Messages
- 1
? Hello all.
I've been pulling my hair for several days now and it's hard to take a step back.
Could you enlighten me on the following problem please?
A big thank you and a happy New Year's Eve on the 31st to all.
---
Consider a brigade of cooks.
Louis, the chef
10 cooks (varying in rank between apprentices and sous-chefs).
Louis wants to open a new restaurant. He wishes to select certain members of his brigade to form a brigade 2.
To do this, he wishes to assess the strengths and weaknesses of his teams on 3 dimensions:
Prepare starters, main courses, desserts.
Some members of his team are experts at starters but bad at dessert.
Other means everywhere, other beginners everywhere.
Louis asks his team members to evaluate each other using the following procedure:
A cook will evaluate himself by giving himself a score from 0 to 6 on his ability to cook entrees; dishes; desserts.
Then the cook will evaluate each of his colleagues on their ability to cook starters; dishes; desserts by giving marks from 0 to 6 (he will also evaluate Louis, the Chef).
If the cook has never made desserts he answers NA. If he's never watched a coworker make desserts, he says NA.
Louis the Chief will do the same. He will self-assess himself and then his brigade.
Louis knows, however, that not all grades are created equal.
There are other factors to consider when adjusting the grades.
The credibility of the ratings depends on 3 factors.
- 1. The rank (apprentice, diver, clerk, chef de partie, sous chef, chef).
So the higher the rank, the more the voice of the cook counts.
A sous chef with 10 years of experience will deliver a fairer judgment than an apprentice with 6 months of experience.
- 2. Exposure (having never / rarely / often / always worked with the cook that I note).
So the more I have worked with a cook, the more I am able to judge his work.
- 3. Expertise in the skill (We are 11 cooks, 10 cooks (all except me) rated me between 5 and 6 out of 6 on the cook skill of starters. The team agrees that I am "expert" in entry because I collected almost all the available points).
So that if I am an expert in preparing desserts, the rating I give to my fellow cooks on the preparation of starters will be more credible.
So credibility depends on:
* From grade -> constant throughout the assessment.
* Exposure -> varies depending on the cook I'm evaluating.
* Expertise -> varies depending on the grades given by my colleagues, their rank, and their exposure to my work.
Questions:
What formula should be used to calculate the score of each cook for each skill (starter / main course / dessert) taking into account the 3 components of credibility?
What formula should be used to calculate the brigade score for each skill (starter / main course / dessert) taking into account the 3 components of credibility? (Baricenter?)
Thank you so much.
**
I've been pulling my hair for several days now and it's hard to take a step back.
Could you enlighten me on the following problem please?
A big thank you and a happy New Year's Eve on the 31st to all.
---
Consider a brigade of cooks.
Louis, the chef
10 cooks (varying in rank between apprentices and sous-chefs).
Louis wants to open a new restaurant. He wishes to select certain members of his brigade to form a brigade 2.
To do this, he wishes to assess the strengths and weaknesses of his teams on 3 dimensions:
Prepare starters, main courses, desserts.
Some members of his team are experts at starters but bad at dessert.
Other means everywhere, other beginners everywhere.
Louis asks his team members to evaluate each other using the following procedure:
A cook will evaluate himself by giving himself a score from 0 to 6 on his ability to cook entrees; dishes; desserts.
Then the cook will evaluate each of his colleagues on their ability to cook starters; dishes; desserts by giving marks from 0 to 6 (he will also evaluate Louis, the Chef).
If the cook has never made desserts he answers NA. If he's never watched a coworker make desserts, he says NA.
Louis the Chief will do the same. He will self-assess himself and then his brigade.
Louis knows, however, that not all grades are created equal.
There are other factors to consider when adjusting the grades.
The credibility of the ratings depends on 3 factors.
- 1. The rank (apprentice, diver, clerk, chef de partie, sous chef, chef).
So the higher the rank, the more the voice of the cook counts.
A sous chef with 10 years of experience will deliver a fairer judgment than an apprentice with 6 months of experience.
- 2. Exposure (having never / rarely / often / always worked with the cook that I note).
So the more I have worked with a cook, the more I am able to judge his work.
- 3. Expertise in the skill (We are 11 cooks, 10 cooks (all except me) rated me between 5 and 6 out of 6 on the cook skill of starters. The team agrees that I am "expert" in entry because I collected almost all the available points).
So that if I am an expert in preparing desserts, the rating I give to my fellow cooks on the preparation of starters will be more credible.
So credibility depends on:
* From grade -> constant throughout the assessment.
* Exposure -> varies depending on the cook I'm evaluating.
* Expertise -> varies depending on the grades given by my colleagues, their rank, and their exposure to my work.
Questions:
What formula should be used to calculate the score of each cook for each skill (starter / main course / dessert) taking into account the 3 components of credibility?
What formula should be used to calculate the brigade score for each skill (starter / main course / dessert) taking into account the 3 components of credibility? (Baricenter?)
Thank you so much.
**