Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] Introduction to draft Work Prioritization model

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
see my comments below.
Thanks again for this excellent summary of ideas Liz.
Regards
Olga

2009/11/20 Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>

>  Work Prioritization Team:
>
>
>
> As a way to help bring everyone to the same level on the GNSO Work
> Prioritization project, I have attempted to consolidate various emails and
> organize our latest thinking into a single document.    Again, this is a
> suggested draft starting place offered by staff and the group is encouraged
> to modify it as you feel appropriate.  There are three sections as
> follows:
>
>
>
> 1)      Recommended construct and methodology (see also attached
> spreadsheet)
>
> 2)      Draft definitions for two dimensions
>
> 3)      Procedural questions to be considered
>
>
>
> *1)      **Recommended construct and methodology*
>
>
>
> For this effort, Staff is envisioning a two dimensional matrix or chart
> (X,Y) to help the GNSO Council graphically depict its work prioritization.
> This concept is based on having each discrete project rated on two
> dimensions:  Value/Benefit (Y axis) and Difficulty/Cost (X axis).   Section
> 2 below outlines the preliminary draft definitions for each dimension (or
> axis), so we will concentrate in this section on what the chart means, how
> it would be produced, and the rating/ranking methodology including sample
> instructions.
>
Just for your information, I have been experimenting with a three dimensions
graph, adding the third dimension into a buble size but it was confusing and
difficult to differenciate among categories.
I prefer the two axis approach, x y, as explained here.

>
>
> *Illustration*:   The chart below shows 8 illustrative projects (simply
> labeled ABC, DEF, GHI, etc.) plotted on two dimensions:  Value/Benefit (Y
> axis) and Difficulty/Cost (X axis).  In this sample depiction, Q1, Q2, Q3,
> and Q4 represent four quadrants which are drawn at the midpoints of each
> axis (arbitrarily set to 10).   Thinking about Value/Benefit versus
> Difficulty/Cost, Q1 includes those projects that have the highest value and
> lowest cost; whereas, Q4 would contain projects with the lowest value and
> highest cost.   Project ABC, in this example, is ranked 3.25 on Difficulty
> and 7.75 in Value; therefore, it is located squarely in Q1.   Conversely,
> project GHI, is rated 7.75 on Difficulty, but only 1.00 on Value and is
> thereby placed in Q4.
>
>
>
I have some difficulties here in understanding the concept of value vs cost.
For example, If there is an action item that is very important for the
council but it costly, then its relevance is affected because of the cost?
Or should we add time somewhere? if there is a critical due date for an
action item, does this affect its value as an expected outcome?




>
>
>
>
> How do the projects end up with these individual X, Y coordinates that
> determine their placement on the chart?
>
>
>
> There are several options for rating/ranking individual projects.   We will
> look specifically at two alternatives below:
>
>
>
> *Rating Alternative A:  *
>
>
>
> One option is to ask each Council member, individually and separately, to
> rate/rank each project on both dimensions.   Even with this alternative (and
> B following), there are different methods possible, for example, (1) place a
> ranking from 1 to n for each project under each column, or (2) use something
> a bit simpler, e.g. High, Medium, and Low to rate each project relative to
> the others.   Since it is arguably easier to rate each project as H, M, or L
> versus ranking them discretely from 1 to n, we will illustrate the former
> approach here.   Keep in mind that an ordinal ranking methodology would
> simply substitute a number (from 1 to 8 in our example) instead of the
> letters H, M, or L.
>
>
>
> *Directions*:    Rate each project on a scale of HIGH, MEDIUM, or LOW for
> each dimension (Value/Benefit, Difficulty/Cost), but keep in mind that the
> rating should be *relative* to the other projects in the set.   There are
> no fixed anchors for either dimension, so raters are asked to group projects
> as LOW, MEDIUM, or HIGH compared to each other.   A HIGH ranking on Value
> simply means that this project is perceived to provide significantly greater
> benefit than projects ranked as MEDIUM.
>
> We should avoid redundant scales that are difficult to determine, a typical
example is 0-10 scale where there is few difference between 8-7 or 4-5.
LMH sounds good to me.

>
>
> If there are 20+ raters, we could provide a simple blank matrix and ask
> them to provide their individual scorings.   For example, assume that the
> matrix below is one individual’s ratings for all 8 illustrative projects:
>
>
>
> *PROJECT*
>
> *VALUE/BENEFIT*
>
> *DIFFICULTY/COST*
>
> ABC
>
> *L*
>
> *H*
>
> DEF
>
> *L*
>
> *M*
>
> GHI
>
> *H*
>
> *L*
>
> JKL
>
> *M*
>
> *M*
>
> MNO
>
> *L*
>
> *L*
>
> PQR
>
> *H*
>
> *H*
>
> STU
>
> *M*
>
> *M*
>
> VWX
>
> *M*
>
> *L*
>
>
>
> Once we have all results submitted (could be simple Word, Excel, or even
> Text Email) from all individual raters, Staff would convert each LOW to a
> Score of 1, MEDIUM = 5.5, and HIGH = 10 (see attached spreadsheet, Rankings
> tab).    We would then average the rankings for all raters and produce a
> chart as shown in the attached spreadsheet (see Summary tab).   *Note:  We
> only used 4 raters in the spreadsheet for illustrative purposes, but it is
> trivial to extend to as many raters as we decide to involve.   *
>
>
>
> *Rating Alternative B:  *
>
>
>
> Instead of asking each Council member to rate/rank each project
> individually, the Council could use a grouping technique (sometimes referred
> to as “DELPHI”).  For example, suppose we set up 4 teams based upon existing
> Stakeholder Group structures as follows:
>
>
>
>             Team1:           CSG  = 6
>
>             Team2:           NCSG = 6
>
>             Team3:           RySG (3) + RrSG (3)  = 6
>
>             Team4:           Others (NCA, Liaison) = 4-5
>
>
>
> Using this approach, we would have 4 small teams and we would ask for a
> single CONSENSUS score sheet from each one (whether ordinally ranked or
> rated H, M, or L).   Then, we would average those results to produce the
> overall chart (similar to the example in the spreadsheet).   We should make
> it clear that we are discouraging teams from individually rating and
> averaging their own results.   The benefit, from this modified DELPHI
> approach, is that individuals (especially new Council members) can learn
> from each other and develop, collectively, what they think the most
> appropriate answer should be.
>
I like this approach better than the individual one, it brings more value to
group work.

>
>
> The above methodologies are subject to further discussion.  Ultimately, the
> Council will need to decide:
>
>
>
> 1)      What work prioritization construct should be utilized (we have
> suggested a simple two dimensional Risk/Cost vs. Value/Benefit displayed in
> a four quadrant model)?
>
> 2)      How should it be executed, e.g. participation, consensus ranking
> (Delphi), individual ratings averaged, etc.?
>
> * *
>
> *2)      **Draft definitions for the X, Y dimensions*
>
> *  *
>
> Staff proposes the following starting definitions for the axes in this
> conceptual model.
>
> * *
>
> X – Difficulty/Cost … this dimension relates to perceptions of complexity
> (e.g. technical), intricacy (e.g. many moving parts to coordinate), lack of
> cohesion (e.g. many competing interests), and, therefore, overall cost/time
> to develop a recommendation.  We could have – but chose not to – create a
> third axis to indicate the amount of time required.  This adds complexity
> and we decided that initially we would include the concept of time into the
> definition for level of difficulty.
>
>
>
> Y – Value/Benefit … this dimension relates to perceptions of benefit to
> ICANN and its stakeholders in terms of internet growth/expansion, enhancing
> competitiveness, increasing security/stability, and improving the user
> experience.
>
>
>
> Please feel free to word-smith the above descriptions…**
>
> * *
>
> *3)      **Procedural questions to be considered*
>
> * *
>
> Once the matrix is developed and all projects plotted, what should the
> Council do with the results?   This is an important question to answer
> BEFORE the rating/methodology are finalized and executed.
>
> * *
>
> The Council should discuss and decide questions such as:
>
>
>
> 1)      How often should it be exercised and/or what event triggers an
> analysis?
>
> 2)      What decisions or outcomes are expected from the process?
>
>
>
>
>
> Please let me know if we can provide any additional assistance prior to and
> during the upcoming conference call on Monday.
>
>
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
>
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Olga Cavalli, Dr. Ing.
www.south-ssig.com.ar