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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Please find my ratings below which I've already submitted to Ken. I did not 
read any other rating in advance just to find my own stomach feeling.
 
Wolf-Ulrich

 

  _____  

Von: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich 
Gesendet: Montag, 14. Dezember 2009 16:45
An: 'Ken Bour'
Betreff: AW: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 3a (Rating Test #1 - In Progress)


Hi Ken,
 
just my first "feeling" regarding the project ratings. That's really an 
interesting exercise where several times I've asked myself about my logic.
 
Best regards
 
Wolf-Ulrich
 
 

  _____  

Von: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Im 
Auftrag von Ken Bour
Gesendet: Freitag, 11. Dezember 2009 22:21
An: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 3a (Rating Test #1 - In Progress)



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: WUK_GNSO Project Prioritization Rating Template.xls
Description: WUK_GNSO Project Prioritization Rating Template.xls