A restaurant critic visits eateries and assesses the meal, the wine, the service, the ambiance…she may put this at a score board…to do that she may have a scheme, conventions and rules to determine a score.
A restaurant advisor tells the audience about (her) principle eating, drinking...preferences and (implicitly) recommends restaurants to those who agree to the preferences in principle. She may have a scheme that helps the audience to understand the references and herself to make an internal ranking…If the scheme is well structured and well explained it may serve the special audience doing their own selection easier…and the restaurants that want to serve the special audience, offering things that taste well and sell for the adequate price.
A critic may be someone with an agenda that's different from mine. But an advisor may be an expert in the field I am most interested in. I'm interested in special eating and drinking genres, meals with 4 to 8 dishes, each rather minimalist, with regional ingredients, carefully mixed with exotics, modern, but not stylish...local wines (if the regions grow some) that are medium long, natural, documentary clear, moderate complex but dense, mineral or floral (not baroque florid)…as in my favorite restaurant world-wide: Le Calandre
Help me, help you...
This is what I've in mind with The Quant Innovation Mesh. It helps me, the innovator and the prospective clients.
It's preselecting the type: innovations in quantitative fields.
It recommends multiple structuring into (sequential or nested) preprocessing-processing-postprocessing and highlights the need for constructors and the expectation of progressing problems that are inherent to that type of problem solutions.
They cumulate in critical situations, even dilemmas, that materialize as questions, requiring decisions. If the resolutions are well made, they help with options, quantifying the choices…
Advice is not criticism - you can try it out.
This post has been inspired by Seth Godin's post: Advice or Criticism?