Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] WG Self-Assessments

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

er….  "Ken", not "Kan"…  sorry about that.

On May 23, 2013, at 7:25 AM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> hi Kan,
> 
> thanks for joining us, and thanks for your thoughts on moving forward.  as i 
> mentioned on the call, i'm quite keen on this approach.  one of the things 
> i've been fussing about recently is the need to beef up the resources and 
> attention devoted to working groups (the bottom of the bottom-up process).  i 
> think most of you have seen my rant about this topic in one place or another 
> already, but here's a link to it to get it into the SCI conversation.
> 
>       http://bar.com/w
> 
> one of my strongest interests is trying to figure out ways to build a deeper 
> "bench" of working group participants and leaders.  i think that a good 
> self-assessment process for WGs could provide a lot of help in showing people 
> what goes on in WGs, where we need to beef up the preparation 
> new-participants get, what kinds of coaching and assistance Chairs could use, 
> etc.   
> 
> the "art" in all this is to avoid accidentally creating structures that drive 
> bad behavior.  the old adage "that which gets measured gets done" applies 
> here -- and we've all seen the strange effects that can inadvertently fall 
> out of ill-chosen metrics.  for example, there's currently a lot of interest 
> in driving "on-time" into the WG process.  a good metric in many cases -- but 
> tricky to apply correctly in a consensus-based decision-making process.
> 
> that's another reason i like where this is going.  i can't think of a better 
> person to work on this effort than you, Ken.  it's great to have the 
> combination of your process-improvement expertise and your deep understanding 
> of what ICANN, the GNSO and the PDP process are all about.  i'm really 
> looking forward to working with you on this.
> 
> mikey
> 
> 
> On May 22, 2013, at 5:31 PM, Ken Bour <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Dear SCI Members:
>>  
>> I appreciated the opportunity to attend your teleconference this afternoon 
>> and to present an alternative approach to the “survey” you have been 
>> contemplating. As requested, this memo is a summary of the points I outlined 
>> for your consideration.
>>  
>> Background
>> As some of you may recall, I was the original drafter of the WG Guidelines 
>> and Charter Template and provided Staff support to the Working Group Work 
>> Team during its first year or so. One of the concepts we engineered into the 
>> framework was that Chartering Organizations would ask each WG to perform a 
>> self-assessment at the end of its life-cycle. The idea was to promote a 
>> critical examination of the processes/procedures such that the feedback 
>> could be incorporated into a continuous improvement of the WG Guidelines.
>>  
>> After consulting with Julie Hedlund and Rob Hoggarth, I reviewed the current 
>> version of the WG Guidelines (ANNEX 1 of the GOP) and noticed that, indeed, 
>> vestiges of the self-assessment concept are still present in the document. 
>> In particular, please see the following sections:
>>  
>> Section 5.0 Products & Outputs
>> The products and outputs of a Working Group may be prescribed by the Charter 
>> such as a report, recommendations, guidelines, self-assessment or defined by 
>> the process under which the WG operates (e.g., Policy Development Process).
>> ·         Self-Assessment Template (TBD)
>>  
>> 6.2 Working Group Charter Template
>> 6.2.4.4 Closure and Working Group Self-Assessment
>> This section of the Charter should describe any instructions for WG final 
>> closure including any feedback and/or self-assessment that is requested by 
>> the Chartering organization. This section might also indicate if there is 
>> any specific format, template, or prescribed manner in which the feedback is 
>> to be provided.
>>  
>> I have been away from this subject for more than a year, but it appears as 
>> though no Chartering Organization has yet asked a WG to generate a 
>> self-assessment. Perhaps one reason is that the original template work was 
>> never completed.
>>  
>> One option that the SCI may wish to consider is to suspend the development 
>> of a one-time online survey and, instead, convert the questions (after some 
>> refinement) into a semi-permanent “WG Self-Assessment Template,” which could 
>> be incorporated into the WG Guidelines (as was originally intended) and 
>> completed by all WGs (individually and/or collectively) as part of their 
>> closure process. I see several advantages to this approach:
>> 1)      Feedback would come from actual and recent WG participants (targeted 
>> audience).
>> 2)      The information collected should be fresh given that the group 
>> recently completed its work (salience).
>> 3)      If the self-assessment template is reviewed (Chair checklist item?) 
>> with team members the start of deliberations (revealing questions that will 
>> be asked at the end) and something occurs that uncovers a gap or error in 
>> the guidelines, the WG could note it for later inclusion in the 
>> self-assessment.
>> 4)      Unlike a static survey, incorporating a self-assessment instrument 
>> into each WG’s process provides a dynamic catalyst for continuous 
>> improvement.
>> 5)      If the Chartering Organization (e.g., GNSO Council) determines, 
>> based upon feedback from one or more WG self-assessments, that the 
>> guidelines (or even the self-assessment template itself) need to be amended 
>> for any reason, it can direct Staff or another community team to address any 
>> deficiencies or issues uncovered.
>>  
>> Thinking about this concept further and picking up on Mikey’s comment about 
>> the learning objectives, my recommendation would be to broaden the 
>> self-assessment to ask not just about the WG Guidelines document, but the 
>> quality and effectiveness of other important success factors. If the SCI 
>> concurs, I would be willing to assemble an initial draft of a WG 
>> Self-Assessment Template that would attempt to assess the usefulness and 
>> effectiveness of:
>> 1)      Support Infrastructure … charter, procedures, tools/templates, and 
>> mechanics supporting the WG’s operations;
>> 2)      WG Processes/Operations … leadership, norms, decision-making 
>> (consensus), and outputs.
>>  
>> That sounds like a lot of content, but I believe any resulting template 
>> should be designed so that it is (a) simple/straightforward to complete 
>> (perhaps employing the ICANN Wiki capability?) and (b) respectful of 
>> respondents’ time (length).
>>  
>> I look forward to your comments via the SCI email list.
>>  
>> Respectfully,
>>  
>> Ken Bour
>>  
> 
> 
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: 
> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
> 


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)