Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Some "do" and "don't" ideas -- hat-tip to Wendy

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think the 2nd and 3rd from the end are a bit much (deep reviews 
every 2-3 months and weekly status reports). I think the issue is 
that chartering organizations (or perhaps the chartering organization 
leadership) should NOT just forget about the CWG. But lets keep the 
bureacracy light.
Alan

At 23/11/2011 10:34 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:

> hi all,
>
> i was quite taken with Wendy's idea to develop a list of "do"s and 
> "don't"s on our call yesterday and thought i'd devote my first cup 
> of coffee to starting a list like that.  here's the result.  feel 
> free to ignore any and all of these -- made for a great 
> thought-exercise.  my son is flying home for Thanksgiving today (the 
> worst travel day of the year in the US), so airplanes are on my mind...
>
> Do -- devote a lot of time and effort to develop a detailed charter 
> for the CWG working group that is deeply endorsed by the sponsoring 
> organizations.  Don't -- put the WG leaders in the position of 
> having to invent pieces of the charter while the working group is 
> under way -- this is like repairing an airplane while it is flying.
> Do -- ensure that the puzzle that's to be solved by the WG is 
> extremely clear and includes a chronology of how the puzzle came 
> about (including other WGs that have attempted to solve the same 
> puzzle in the past, descriptions of other unresolved conflicts, 
> etc.).  Don't -- put a WG to work on a puzzle that is ill-defined or 
> addresses deeper/hidden issues -- this is like launching an airplane 
> without maps or a destination.
> Do -- include as many affected stakeholders in the WG as possible 
> (radical thought -- if staff or Board are affected-stakeholders, 
> include them as sponsors and members).  Don't -- consciously leave a 
> stakeholder group unrepresented -- this is like leaving passengers 
> at the terminal.
> Do -- define the scope of the work to be done with bright-line, 
> easy-to-understand language that is again deeply endorsed by the 
> sponsors.  Don't -- leave blurry edges for WG leaders to interpret 
> on their own -- this is like flying an airplane without closing the 
> doors before takeoff.
> Do -- break the work into manageable "chunks" that it can be 
> completed within 8-12 months (18 at the absolute outside).  Don't -- 
> knowingly set up extremely long efforts -- this is like trying to 
> fly a plane from London to Wellington, NZ without stops or alternate crew.
> Do -- include the approach and methods that the WG is expected to 
> follow in the charter (at least at a high level).  Don't -- leave 
> the job of methods-development or selection to the WG team -- this 
> is like asking the pilots write their own pre-flight checklist.
> Do -- identify and address WG-readiness issues before launching the 
> effort.  Don't -- start up a WG without providing time and resources 
> for the members to "get ready" for the work to follow -- this is 
> like putting an unprepared crew on the airplane.
> Do -- entrust a couple of WG-liaisons from each AC/SO to form a 
> Steering Committee for the WG.  Don't -- require the whole AC/SO to 
> arrive at consensus over every issue that the WG needs guidance or 
> feedback on.  Don't -- put WG leaders in the position of avoiding 
> getting feedback because the process will take several months -- 
> this is like requiring the airline Board of Directors to approve a 
> decision to hold a flight due to bad weather.
> Do -- conduct deep reviews of WG progress every 8-12 weeks with the 
> Steering Committee.  Don't -- wait until major deliverables are 
> complete before conferring with WG leaders over issues and concerns 
> -- this would be like not checking to see if the plane is following 
> its flight plan.
> Do -- establish a weekly routine of status and progress 
> reporting.  Don't -- make this so complicated or time consuming that 
> the reports don't get completed -- this is like making the 
> instruments so complicated that the pilots don't have time to look 
> out the windows to see what's in front of them.
> Do -- strive to make the job of leading and participating in WGs 
> work that can be accomplished by people of ordinary ability.  Don't 
> -- set the work up in such a way that it requires "super-heros" to 
> get the work done -- this would be like setting up airplanes so that 
> only test-pilots would have the skills to fly them.
> now *that* was some fun to write.
>
> i hope this brightens up your next cup of coffee.
>
>
>
> mikey
>
>
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone   651-647-6109
> fax             866-280-2356
> web     http://www.haven2.com
> handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)