We do not have any specific general set of criteria for evaluating opportunities. I’d say we’re probably all agreed that we are trying to use the best reasoning, evidence available and relying on intuitions more, or less, depending on the level of confidence that we are able to have in our opinions.
Different team members also have some specific techniques they use for different types of meta orgs. E.g., I have a simple model I use to help me evaluate money-mover (improving capital) type orgs.
Quantitative analysis doesn’t currently look worth it for evaluating GPR or talent-focused groups (an exception is 80k’s own metrics which are really impressive, but there aren’t really any similar groups to compare those metrics with).
What generally is your criteria for evaluating opportunities?
We do not have any specific general set of criteria for evaluating opportunities. I’d say we’re probably all agreed that we are trying to use the best reasoning, evidence available and relying on intuitions more, or less, depending on the level of confidence that we are able to have in our opinions.
Different team members also have some specific techniques they use for different types of meta orgs. E.g., I have a simple model I use to help me evaluate money-mover (improving capital) type orgs.
Quantitative analysis doesn’t currently look worth it for evaluating GPR or talent-focused groups (an exception is 80k’s own metrics which are really impressive, but there aren’t really any similar groups to compare those metrics with).