[gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 3a (Rating Test #1 - In Progress)

["Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Team Members:

 

As discussed in our last teleconference on 10 December (2000 UTC), we agreed
to begin our first testing exercise and to complete it on or before our next
session scheduled for 17 December (same time).  

 

This first test involves each team member INDIVIDUALLY rating all 15
Projects using the following 7-point Likert scale.    

 


Scale:

Interpretation:

        

1

Far Below


2

Moderately Below


3

Slightly Below


4

Average


5

Slightly Above


6

Moderately Above


7

Far Above

 

Scale Guideline:

 

A way to think about the scale?s application, in this exercise, is as
follows:  

 

Although you may begin rating projects on either dimension or both
simultaneously, for this purpose, I will start with Value/Benefit.  As you
look at all 15 projects taken together (see Attachment: Consolidated GNSO
Projects?), which one (or more) represents your best perception of AVERAGE
in terms of Value/Benefit.   For example, suppose that you happen to think
that Project ?WG? is an AVERAGE project in terms of Value/Benefit compared
to all the others.   Once you have ?anchored? your perceptual scale in this
way, then it is a matter of deciding whether the other projects are Far
Below, Moderately Below, Slightly Below, Slightly Above, Moderately Above,
or Far Above that ?average? project in terms of this dimension.   This same
process can be used, of course, for Resource Consumption.  

 

If you have trouble deciding on an AVERAGE project, consider anchoring at
either of the scale extremes, that is, determine which project you think is
FAR ABOVE or FAR BELOW all of the others in terms of Value/Benefit (or
Resource Consumption).   There are no absolute or independent referents --
you are being asked to rate these projects RELATIVE to each other.   

 

Instructions:

 

Attached is an Excel Template (GNSO Project Prioritization Rating Template)
that you should use for rating each project on both the X and Y dimensions.
Directions are contained inside the template.   Please enter your Name in
the space provided and the Date you complete the form.   Please do not
forget to RESAVE it to another name as described inside the spreadsheet.  

 

***Please note that all cells are LOCKED except those in which you will
enter your ratings***   

All other spreadsheet cells are protected in order to simplify the data
aggregation step and to prevent accidental mistyping.   

 

For your convenience, I have posted the latest approved definitions below
(including Stéphane?s recent change).  

 

Y ? Value/Benefit ? this dimension relates to perceptions of overall value
and benefit to:  1) the global Internet community; and 2) ICANN
stakeholders.  Components of this dimension may include, but are not limited
to:  new opportunities for Internet growth/expansion, enhanced
competitiveness, resolution/improvement of serious performance or
infrastructure problems, increased security/stability, and improved user
experience.  

 

X ? Resource Consumption ? this dimension relates to perceptions of total
human capital expenditure anticipated and includes such factors as
complexity (e.g. technical); intricacy (e.g. many moving parts to
coordinate); lack of cohesion (e.g. many competing interests); length of
time/energy expected; and availability/scarcity of resources including
budgets/funding -- all of which contribute to the total resource consumption
and overall cost (economic and otherwise) required to develop a
recommendation.  

Expected Output:

 

The outcome of this exercise, once we receive and process (e.g. average) all
of your individual ratings, will look something akin to the chart below
although the projects will be in different locations.    To produce this
illustration, I assumed 4 raters and used a random number generator (1?7)
for each project on both dimensions ? SO PLEASE ? do not construe any
meaning from this diagram.   

 



 

 

If you have questions about any of this material, I will keep an eye out on
the email list this weekend and am happy to be of assistance.    

 

Good luck with this rating exercise!  

 

Ken Bour

 

P.S.  The consolidated GNSO Project List (attached) now shows WPM in Table 2
per Stéphane?s recommendation.  I wrote a short description for it which I
hope is OK with the team.

Attachment: GNSO Project Prioritization Rating Template.xls
Description: MS-Excel spreadsheet

Attachment: Consolidated GNSO Projects & Short Descriptions (KBv2).doc
Description: MS-Word document