Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire

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

hi Ken,

see?  sometimes i'm not so lightning fast in my replies.

this is looking really good.  i've got just a little bit i'd like to see us 
work into the "Processes" section.  is there a way to get a question or two in 
there that gives participants a chance to talk about the PDP process?  we've 
got decision-making methodology (consensus) in there already, maybe this 
question/LO is closely related to that?  looking back at the projects that the 
SCI is working on (method to suspend/end a WG is a good example), i think some 
feedback on the *structure* of the PDP would be helpful.

for example, we have a lot of comment-periods (and subsequent reviews of those 
comments) built into the PDP right now.  Marika laid all those end to end one 
time and came up with a minimum time to get through a PDP that's pretty long.  
it would be nice to start getting feedback from WG participants as to whether 
they felt that those were all needed and whether they were helpful to the work 
of the WG.  i'm seeing a transition in the way that WG's review those comments. 
 at first, the review felt like a burden that we had to get through because it 
was a requirement imposed on us by the PD.  more recently those comment-reviews 
have been a really good source of discussion-points and preliminary language 
that we've woven into initial and final reports.  

if we stick with that example, there's a process-definition dimension (have we 
got the right number of comment-periods?) and a process-effectiveness dimension 
(did the WG effectively make use of those comments in doing their analysis?).  
both are important.  we don't want to change a good process that's being badly 
carried out, in that case we want to improve the effectiveness of the WG 
participants.  we DO want to review a bad process even though the WG has 
implemented it well if that badly-defined process is hurting effectiveness and 
timeliness.  

one reason i picked that particular example is because there's a lot of 
pressure to become "more agile" in the PDP right now.  what this often turns 
into is a shorthand for "do it faster!"  and, since the comment/review cycles 
are fixed/required that sometimes means that the only place to shorten the 
process is the deliberative portion of the WG's work.  it would be nice to be 
able to get some data from participants that might give an early indication 
that something needs to change there.  that analysis would also be helpful in 
the "let's not break/bypass the bottom-up process" and "policy vs 
implementation" conversations that are going on at the moment.

thanks Ken -- really like where this is headed.

mikey




On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Ken Bour <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> SCI Members:
>  
> I have been thinking about the topics raised by Mikey and Avri in their first 
> impressions of the Draft Self-Assessment Questionnaire. Something was 
> definitely missing from the original formulation, which led to an “Aha!” 
> moment spurring me to create a second design which, I hope, addresses a few 
> of the comments expressed thus far.
>  
> I have reconstituted the questionnaire (still five sections but renamed), 
> reorganized some of the original questions, and added a few new ones. In 
> order not to lose track of the first iteration, I made a completely new page 
> and will henceforth house all questionnaire versions under a new heading: 
> Questionnaire Drafts/Versions (https://community.icann.org/x/ai5-Ag).
>  
> In this new Draft v2 iteration (https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag), I am 
> attempting to take into consideration the dimension raised by Mikey that was 
> only partially accommodated in Draft v1. To evaluate any dynamic system, we 
> could subdivide it into three basic or core components: Inputs → Processes → 
> Outputs. In the first version, I captured many of the processes, the outputs, 
> but only a few of the inputs, namely, team member representativeness, tools, 
> and outside experts. I did not ask about the other critical inputs that 
> impinge upon the success of a WG, e.g., its charter/mission (including time 
> or other constraints) and team memberexpertise. That led to a 
> reconceptualization of the external resources questions into three buckets: 
> administrative, technical, and human.
>  
> This Draft v2 also shifts the rating scale to 7 points and adds “Background 
> Contributor” to the Role list as suggested by Avri.
>  
> I thank Mikey and Avri for their ideas/suggestions and look forward to 
> additional feedback from the team…
>  
> Ken
>  


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

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature