Change Reviewer assigment logic so apps aren't left unread
My scholarships need 3 reviews each, but getting 1-2 would be better than none. The current logic seems to consistently get the 3 reviews before assigning the next one, because I inevitable end of with hundred unread of my thousands of applicants and have to move the deadline out and email the reviewers again to finish their scoring before the extension expires.
Thsi is REALLy frustrating, and it would help if the logic priority (as allowable) that had all applications get 1 read, then 2 reads, then 3, etc. The curent process creates a ton of extra work and stress for me in the additional communications to reviewers, running reports to see who is left unread, which reviewers haven't completed their assignments, etc.
People flake out, but if the logic was built with a definite prioritization, it would save me putting in 80 hour weeks every cycle to get each application read at least 1-2 times.
-
Guest
- Mar 23 2021
- Reviewed: Need Further Info
| Client Name "shard name" | ucla, prospective-ugstudents-ucla |
| User | System Admin |
| Functional Unit | Reviewer Groups |
| Employee Name | Tamara Tsang |
Related Enhancements
Hi Carrie! All applicants in the first round of assignments do have reviewers assigned to them, but as you know....not all reviewrs read. And they don't always notify us, so we can lock them, and have their applications reassigned. I frequently have applicant pools over 3,000 for my largest recruitment scholarship and less than a week to have them reviewed and awarded. I usually have around 1200-1500 reviewers and ask for a Max of 3 reviews.
So, we review over the weekend and every year I get to the deadline and find I have hundreds of applicants who have only 0, 1 or 2 reviews submitted. I usually wind up extending the deadline and/or locking out those who didn't read and extending the deadline. I'd rather everyone have 2 reads than some at 3 and so many with less. I could move forward without reassigning with an average, even if it's really too low for my taste. Not many options though with such a short deadline to award- I can't keep extending for long. :(
I'm not sure if there's a way to modify the assignment logic (a minimum and a max?), so that it could move towards forcing the applicant assignments towards all getting one read, then two, etc up to the max set, as it would require a more dynamic tracking during the review. I'm sure I'm not the only one faced with reviews that don't meet the minimum to move forward with awarding, I'm just not sure of the best way to overcome the challenge. :/
Thanks!
Hi Tamara,
I apologize for the delay, I'm getting caught up on reviewing enhancement requests today. For this one, are you seeing that some applications are not getting any reviewers assigned to them? You mention moving out the deadline and emailing the reviewers again - are you emailing reviewers that were already assigned but missed the deadline? Or do you also have to update assignments as part of this process?