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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

HI,
These are my ratings.
regards
Olga

2009/12/16 <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.
>



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

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