Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Workgroup process -- I'm failing you

[Marc Perkel <marc@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike - this is just spirited debate. Ideas, positions, and differences 
need to be expressed. You're doing fine.
Mike O'Connor wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm feeling like we're stuck (perhaps headed for process-failure), and 
> I think it's my fault.  So I've put some cogitation into this note.  
> For you people who hate "process" bear with me, I'm doing my best to 
> correct a series of mistakes and this is my best shot.  My sense is 
> that if we don't get this fixed that we're headed for a non-starter 
> deadlock, which would make me sad especially since it would be my fault.
> We're all feeling our way through what a Working Group process ought 
> to look like.  I'd like to talk about my mistakes in that context and 
> offer some suggestions for going forward.
> Big mistake -- not recognizing the different roles that we play and 
> allowing the conversations to get all jumbled up.
> I think we've started to polarize our points of view on the list by 
> not separating our roles.  I think what's happening is that we have 
> Proposal Developers and Proposal Evaluators all mixed up in an 
> amulet.  This has led to a lot of frustration, and conversations at 
> cross purposes.  Lots of the "you aren't listening to me" posts stem 
> from this mistake.  It's the cause of my "sales memo" post yesterday.
> Big mistake -- departing from a neutral stance in my Chair role.
>
> I think I've gotten too close to the "developing the proposal" process 
> and find myself advocating positions too much.  I think I confuse the 
> conversation when I do that, so I'm going to stop (or at least 
> severely restrict my role).
> Medium mistake -- encouraging a too-unfocused conversation on the 
> email list.
> Whew.  This is a *lot* of email.  I'm kindof enjoying the breather on 
> the list today.  Just like we tend to get tired and cranky at the end 
> of the phone calls, I think we get tired and cranky in the blizzard of 
> email.  It's especially hard when the conversation seems to move away 
> from agreement rather than toward it -- but I'm not sure which causes 
> which.  It also leads to a body of information that's almost 
> impossible to summarize fairly.
> Suggestion -- clarify roles and responsibilities
>
> I'd like to propose that we define some roles, and that people decide 
> which ones they'd like to take on.  My initial idea is that we have 
> Proposal Developers (use "DTeam" in email headers for filtering) and 
> Proposal Evaluators ("ETeam").  There may be others, but I think this 
> will get us started.
> Suggestion -- form a Developers subgroup
>
> Proposal Developers write proposals, refine proposals, gather needed 
> facts and information, argue the merits of various solutions, refine 
> proposals based on reactions and input from Evaluators.   The goal -- 
> a finished proposal that gets a thumbs up from all Evaluators.
> Suggestion -- form an Evaluators subgroup
>
> Evaluators hold the "customer" role I alluded to in my sales-memo post 
> yesterday.  They get to say "no, that part of the proposal doesn't cut 
> it for me or my constituency and here's why."  They *may* suggest 
> improvements, but they don't have to -- that's up to the Developers to 
> tease out through questioning and conversation.
> Suggestion -- structure the conversations between Developers and 
> Evaluators with proposal drafts
> I think we need to develop revisions to the proposals, and then review 
> those revisions as a clump rather than piecemeal.  Developers crank 
> away on a draft until they feel like it's ready for review, then the 
> Evaluators provide feedback on the draft and it's back to the 
> Developers to hammer in the changes.
> Suggestion -- Developers appoint spokespeople
>
> Let's face it people, some of us rub others the wrong way.  So 
> Developers should decide on one or two folks who will "pitch" the 
> proposal and the others will be available for comments when needed.  
> Evaluators might need to do this too, but I don't think so.
> Suggestion -- People can participate in both groups
>
> I don't want to totally divide the house.  But if you want to 
> participate in both groups, make sure you know which hat you're 
> wearing at any given time.  Participation by observing is easy, just 
> read all the email.  Beyond that gets tricky, so just be careful what 
> you say and how you say it.
> Suggestion -- Chairman Mikey's nominations
>
> Developers; Dave, Joe, Marc, Rod R, Mike R and others who'd like to 
> join them.  Rasmussen is the pitchman.
> Evaluators; Constituency reps and others who'd like to join them
>
> Suggestion -- First draft, first pitch
>
> I'm going to take a stab at a first-draft Proposal (in Powerpoint) 
> over the next few hours and post it to the DTeam sub-list.  I'd love 
> to see a revised draft out in time to be pitched to the ETeam during 
> the phone call this Friday.
> Again, sorry to all for leading us to this place.  As I've said 
> before, all the successes will belong to you, and the failures to me.
> Thanks folks,
>
> mikey
>
>
>
> voice: 651-647-6109
> fax: 866-280-2356
>
> web: www.haven2.com
>
>
>
>