I quite honestly had to read this over a couple of times to make sure this is not some kind of a parody. I don't understand why people are complimenting this. L

I quite honestly had to read this over a couple of times to make sure this is not some kind of a parody. I don't understand why people are complimenting this. Let me count the ways: 1) Asking a client to produce a quantitative "job spec" like this is simply going to produce a bunch of random numbers. What basis is there for saying that "vision" counts for 15% and "financial mgmt expertise" for 25%? These are not comparable things and you can't throw numbers on them. At most you can say things like "financial mgmt is a must, and of all that have it, we want the ones with the best vision". You still have to define these... 2) How are you supposed to give such fine-grained numeric grades to candidates on things like "vision"? 3) What do you do with the chart once you have it? This is the part of the post that makes it look like a parody - he has these charts for two candidates and says "now it's easy as pie to choose", but neither chart looks hugely better than the other. Are you supposed to compare the areas with grid paper? That makes no sense and may leave you with a candidate that lacks something crucial. 4) This brings me to my final point - you may be looking for things in a candidate that are pass/fail, e.g. in his chart "dealing with government regulators" looks like a sine qua non thing. His method could well result in overlooking this. I don't get why people are calling this insightful and so on. This is extremely similar to a ton of competencies matrix methods, but this way of presenting the results is particularly bad.