Re: SPAM-HIGH: Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 3a (Proposed)

[rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Hi all

I'm Chairing two day meeting in Paris and may not be able to join the call

Will try to send some comments before

Cheers

Rosemary
Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus

-----Original Message-----
From: "Olga Cavalli" <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:45:45 
To: Gomes, Chuck<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ken Bour<ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: SPAM-HIGH: Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 3a (Proposed)

Hi,
Thanks Ken.
I inserted my comments as well.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Regards
Olga


2009/12/9 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >
 
 
Thanks Ken.  I inserted a few personal thoughts below. 
  
Chuck
 
 
----------------
 From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx>  
[mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx> ] On 
Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 3:47 PM
To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 3a (Proposed)

 
 

 
Team Members: 
  
Now that we have a finalized Project List (Step 1) and expect tomorrow to 
complete a set of definitions for the X and Y axes (Step 2), Step 3 involves 
utilizing this drafting team to exercise and test one or more ranking/rating 
methodologies as a proof-of-concept. 
  
As originally formulated, our goals in this step are to ensure that: 
a)      the process we select and recommend is user-friendly, unambiguous, and 
straightforward to execute; and 
b)     realistic outputs can be created that will enable the Council to make 
prioritization decisions once the process is actually completed.[Gomes, Chuck]  
I would add to this: "not only as a one time prioritization exercise but also 
in considering new projects as they are proposed in the future".  
Staff suggests that the WPM-DT test all candidate methodologies before making a 
final recommendation to the Council, that is, if each Council member will be 
asked to rate/rank individually, then the drafting team should perform such a 
test.   If, alternatively, the team thinks that the Council should form 
sub-groups to produce consensus rankings/ratings, then the DT should exercise 
that option.  [Gomes, Chuck]  Not sure we could adequately test the sub-group 
approach because of the small size of our group. Our subgroups would probably 
have to be groups of 2.  Of course, at the Council level the subgroups could be 
that small by design to make it simpler.  If the Council also used groups of 
two or at most three, then we could probably test the approach adequately.   
  


 
Step 3a, then, might be to decide how many candidate methodologies will be 
considered in this testing phase.   
For example, the team could choose to execute multiple approaches and, after 
comparing the pros/cons of those various trials, decide which one combines the 
best features.   
Options that have been identified thus far are: 
a)      Rating vs. Ranking:  should projects be rated (relatively) with a scale 
such as H, M, L or ranked numerically?  
If the latter option is selected, should ties be permitted, that is, can two 
projects be ranked the same (e.g. 1-1-3-4-5-5-7 …)?  [Gomes, Chuck]  I prefer 
rating to ranking and that seems to fit the X-Y axis approach we are 
considering.  As I said previously, I also prefer numercially rating to H, M, L 
because it provides more differentiation, assuming that the numerical range is 
larger than 3.  In any case, I think ties should be allowed.  Of course, with 
H-M-L, we would have to allow ties, but I support them in the other two 
approaches as well.  Chances are that ties will be broken when total results 
are compiled.
OLGA: ok with ties, also with numeric ranges, but we should avoid redundant 
scales. Eg: typical example is exam notes between 1-10, it is usually very 
difficult to tell the difference between 9 or 10 or 5 or 6, and this brings 
confusion.
  

 
 
b)     Individual vs. Gro:  should Council members rate/rank individually or 
should sub-groups be formed to discuss and recommend a single consensus answer 
from each one?   [Gomes, Chuck] Individual ranking is simpler and hence better 
meets the criteria of user-friendly and straightforward.  But there are 
ways that the sub-group approach could be simplified.  For example, subgroups 
could consist of Councilors from the same SG with NomCom appointees serving as 
a separate sub group; we could then form a subgroup of the liaisons. If the 
subgroups go across SGs, I think the ability to reach consensus may be over 
complicated. 
 
Olga: Soubgroups may add value in previous discussion to deciding the ranking, 
specially now that there are several new council members.
 Subgrups made from the same SG sounds a good approach.
 
 

 
Instead of attempting to narrow down the options, the team could perform all 4 
permutations as follows: 
1)      Rank individually in numerical order (with ties?)[Gomes, Chuck]  I do 
not like this option very much.  If it was realistic, we probably already would 
have done it. My preference would be to throw it out but if the rest of the 
group wants to test it, I am willing.
 
2)      Rate individually using a simple H-M-L scale 
3)      Rank in sub-groups in numerical order (with ties?) 
4)      Rate in sub-groups using a simple H-M-L scale 
If all four options will be exercised, the team should also discuss the most 
advantageous order.    Staff notes that it might be beneficial to work 
individually first and then in sub-groups.[Gomes, Chuck]  I agree with 
this.     Since some Councilors, like members of this team, are likely NOT to 
have deep understanding of the projects, rating/ranking individually will 
simulate that condition.   In terms of rating vs. ranking, Staff does not have 
an opinion to offer as to order.  
 
Hopefully, during our next call, we will finalize Step 2 and make progress on 
Step 3a by deciding which tests to perform and, if applicable, what specific 
order. 
I note that our original target completion date for Step 3 (Liz’s email of 23 
Nov) was  11 Dec 2009, but that would seem too ambitious.  If we have time, we 
might also discuss a revised implementation timeframe leading to a final 
recommendation. 
  
If there is anything else that Staff can do in the interim to assist this 
effort, please let us know. 
  
Ken 


-- 
Olga Cavalli, Dr. Ing.
www.south-ssig.com.ar <http://www.south-ssig.com.ar>