The next Foveon camera?

Karl Huber wrote:

tarmov wrote:

My point with the 'hopelessly incomplete decision models' was that a complete group decision model would have to get representative samples (individual decision models from each sample) from all relevant market segments - full decision models from individuals. You can't compose such a group decision model at the level of criteria, it won't work. The group decision has to be made at the level of alternatives.

Therefore such free form discussions as done in this forum are rather pointless. It only manages to map generally relevant criteria and perhaps relevant scenarios, no more.

...

The most plausible approach would be to treat Merrill and Quattro cameras as a relative baseline against competition. And either try to repeat that relative success or try to improve a bit, relatively.

-Tarmo

Sounds much like George Preddy is once more among us.

Strictly speaking the group decision model at the level of criteria and the group decision model at the level of alternative cameras are separate solutions to two distinct decision problems.

And here among the Sigma forum participants the group decision model at the level of criteria might only make sense if these participants would crowdfund to purchase cameras of a new model to be produced by Sigma. Ie. the stakeholders would have to put their own money into stake.

In all other cases Sigma would get better feedback from complete individual decision models at the level of (incomplete sparse subsets of) alternative cameras. Even better if at least one of the alternatives was an older Foveon camera already bought by the decisionmaker. That way Sigma could itself decide how to select individualised decision models into its own internal complete decision model, based on representative customer type covering. Or how to discern the relative importance of criteria at different performance levels.

-Tarmo