Reviewing what?

[CANative]

Wait a minute!

Why isn't this a scope of work problem? The scope of work should be to include enough data and information to develop and report credibly. The client couldn't understand the report and neither could I. That's why I fixed it by including enough data to make sense of the conclusion. I "expanded the scope."

Sorry. I'm a little lost on nuances.

 

[Fred]

Greg,
It will take some getting used to that "scope of work" includes everything, so that whatever the problem is, it's a scope-of-work problem.

 

[Rudy Canoza]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the SOW is an "outline" or "Table of Contents" of the steps necessary to analyze, produce and report a credible opinion of value (sic. appraisal) and not a "Novel" explaining each step of the process in minute detail.

After all, if you go to that much detail in the SOW, what's the point of the report?

/Let it go...

 

[joe huffman]

Not sure if you are doing a "desk review" sounds like you are being ask to do a "Review" with an expanded scope of work to include your own "Appraisal" in order to agree or disgree with the original value conclusion....

 

[Fred]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the SOW is an "outline" or "Table of Contents" of the steps necessary to analyze, produce and report a credible opinion of value (sic. appraisal) and not a "Novel" explaining each step of the process in minute detail.
After all, if you go to that much detail in the SOW, what's the point of the report?

I would say no. Rather it is the “steps” themselves. “Work” is what you do to develop an appraisal. That work divides roughly into two functions: research and analysis. The research and analysis can vary a lot of ways. For example, your analysis could include three superficially developed approaches or one approach developed to exhaustion. You could research one thing a lot or many things a little. Because the amount and type of work can be measured along a lot of dimensions, the word “scope” is used because breadth and depth and other one-dimensional terms don’t suffice.

 

[Rudy Canoza]

I would say no.

I would say yes. The SOW defines the level of effort required to develop the report. The report is the vehicle to deliver the results of the analysis and conclusions.

How in the world can a SOW contain results when it is, by definition, an outline? That's like putting all the information contained in the chapters of a book in the TOC...

/I'm just sayin'...

 

[CANative]

What we have here is a failure to communicate...

I think what Steve is saying is that the Scope IS the level of work not the definition.

I could be wrong though.

 

[Fred]

How in the world can a SOW contain results when it is, by definition, an outline? That's like putting all the information contained in the chapters of a book in the TOC...

Sorry, but "scope of work" is not a report section or reporting function - unless you want to say scope of reporting to refer to how thorough a report is.

I would say yes. The SOW defines the level of effort required to develop the report. The report is the vehicle to deliver the results of the analysis and conclusions.

You might want to be more careful. We "develop" appraisals, not reports. To the degree that work means the same thing as effort, scope is a more encompassing metric than just "level." Scope is a very common term in business and government, and I don't see where the ASB is trying alter its meaning here.

When you say scope of work is "by definition" a table of contents, where might I find this definition. Have you read the ASB defintioins of the term?

 

[George Hatch]

I was under the impression that this discussion is about "how can a reviewer develop a reasonable opinion of a workproduct without knowing the original appraisers SOW?"

If so, we are definitely discussing the contents of the appraisal report, because that's where the information about the SOW is contained.

2-2.b The content of a Summary Appraisal Report must be consistent with the intended use of the appraisal and, at a minimum:

(vii) summarize sufficient information to disclose to the client and any intended users of the appraisal the scope of work used to develop the appraisal;

Comment: Because intended users reliance on an appraisal may be affected by the scope of work, the report must enable them to be properly informed and not misled. Sufficient information includes disclosure of research and analyses performed and might also include disclosure of research and analyses not performed.

The burden of disclosure is on the appraiser, and the benchmark for the understandability of the SOW is the intended user. In other words, sufficient for a non-appraiser to be properly informed and not misled. I think it's safe to say that appraisers who are reviewing are more than qualified to develop and support a reasonable and appropriate opinion of a workproduct that includes this level of disclosure.

Conversely, if an appraiser adheres to this requirement, how could a reviewer not understand exactly what was going on?

 

[Rudy Canoza]

Sorry, but "scope of work" is not a report section or reporting function - unless you want to say scope of reporting to refer to how thorough a report is.

You might want to be more careful. We "develop" appraisals, not reports. To the degree that work means the same thing as effort, scope is a more encompassing metric than just "level." Scope is a very common term in business and government, and I don't see where the ASB is trying alter its meaning here.

When you say scope of work is "by definition" a table of contents, where might I find this definition. Have you read the ASB defintioins of the term?

I'm not buying your take on this, sorry...

The SOW is a road-map telling ther reader where you went to get to where you are...nothing more or less...