[gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 3a (In Progress) -- Summary of Group Rating Session 21 Dec 2009

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

Jaime:

 

Just a couple of thoughts concerning your email message below.  

 

1)      I recommended to Gisella a 90 minute session when we attempt the X
axis group ratings.   It took us about 7 minutes per element yesterday and
we have 11 more to discuss.   Allowing time in the beginning and at the end
for intro and wrap-up, we will still be pressed to complete the exercise ?
and I am assuming only one polling iteration for each project. 

2)      I think that, if we recommend reaching full consensus on each
element, it will take more than one iteration to accomplish.  As we saw from
yesterday?s session, several times we ended up with something like this
after polling: 

Rating

1

2

3                  (2 votes)

4                  (2 vote)

5                  (1 vote)

6

7

In the interest of time and process, it seemed reasonable to accept the
median or 4 as the group?s rating.   We could, however, impose a rule that
polled votes cannot span more than two consecutive rating categories
(Range=1).   In the above case, with a more restrictive rule, we would then
have a 2nd round of discussion and attempt another poll; and so on....
Does anyone want to try that approach during our X rating session?   If so,
we should probably allow closer to 120 minutes for the session.  

 

In terms of another testing method, the only thing we held open was to
possibly test rating in small groups of, say, 2-3.   We can discuss that
option in our call in early January assuming that we complete the X ratings
early next week.

 

Ken

 

From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jaime Wagner
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 9:20 AM
To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 3a (In Progress) -- Summary of Group
Rating Session 21 Dec 2009

 

I think we are progressing quite well and much of our success is due to the
quality of Ken?s work.

 

I understand that tasks remaining are:

1)      Finish X (onus) ratings in the same way we did with the Y (bonus)
axis. [One hour meeting]

2)      Exercise the method of convergence by ?defense of extremes? through
more iterations. We did just one and the usual maximum is three. 

 

Am I wrong or there was an idea of testing another method?

 

I like the idea of a revision by another group, but I don?t know if it
wouldn?t delay the process. In a certain way the whole council will review
the process once they apply it.

 

Like Wolf I had to rely entirely on the short descriptions which are very
good but still short - as they should be. Anyway, even ignorant, I have an
opinion. And it?s wise to change it in front of sensible arguments. When it
comes to value judgments knowledge counts but diversity of opinions and
backgrounds adds too.

 

Jaime Wagner
j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx             

+55(51)8126-0916
skype: jaime_wagner

 

From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: terça-feira, 22 de dezembro de 2009 08:20
To: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 3a (In Progress) -- Summary of Group
Rating Session 21 Dec 2009

 

Adrian,

 

I welcome this idea and would be happy if we could encourage others to be
supportive this way. My personal experience in trying to rate the council
projects seems to be comparable to a blind person using a crutch to find his
way.

What I've learned yesterday is that with regards to some projects I need
more background info than provided with the short description. Otherwise I
may misinterprete the intention, targets and community implications (e.g.
IRTB, IRD).

My personal rating approach is in two steps: first setting the X and Y
"values" relatively to each other according to my opinion; secondly fine
tuning the absolute figures. If new ideas can help, Adrian, I'd very much
appreciate.

 

Thanks, and Merry Christmas to all of you

 

Wolf-Ulrich

 

 

  _____  

Von: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Adrian Kinderis
Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. Dezember 2009 04:19
An: Ken Bour; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 3a (In Progress) -- Summary of Group
Rating Session 21 Dec 2009

Team,

 

I know I have been distant on this topic but I have been reading and
watching with interest.

 

Can I suggest the following (and it is only a suggestion);

 

In our organisation prior to a task being started, for example a release of
software into production, the Production Support Team will do a detailed
plan. This plan is the reviewed by the ?Red Team? which are knowledgeable
team members that were not involved in the preparation of the plan. The
logic being that, a fresh set of eyes for review may be better to pick holes
in the plan. 

 

Is it worth while me, and potentially others, putting my hand up to act as a
?red team? for this body of work? I could wait until you are complete and
take a look at the plan with a view to providing feedback?

 

Just a thought on how I could help given I have had limited interaction with
the team.

 

Merry Christmas to all.

 

Adrian Kinderis

 

From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Tuesday, 22 December 2009 10:59 AM
To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 3a (In Progress) -- Summary of Group
Rating Session 21 Dec 2009

 

WPM-DT Members:

 

I thought we had a productive call today even though we did not finish both
sets of X and Y dimensions in our group rating session.  As I indicated in
my earlier email, it was an extremely ambitious undertaking to attempt 21
elements in 45 minutes by the time everyone is connected and we have gotten
through the agenda preliminaries.  

 

Five team members participated in today?s DELPHI rating session:   Jaime,
Olga, Chuck, Wolf, and Liz (Staff).   Ken handled the session administration
including opening/closing the polls at the appropriate time and keeping
track of the results.   

 

The team managed to complete the Y dimensions and the chart below shows the
DELPHI results for Value/Benefit (Y axis).   The orange and green values are
median results that were taken directly from the individual ratings.   Since
the original range between high and low was 1 or 2 for those projects (and
StdDev < 1.0), we accepted the median result as the DELPHI rating without
further discussion.  

 

The black figures (see Delphi column) are the results of our collective
discussion and re-rating of each project dimension.   Taking advantage of
Adobe Connect, the process we used was to start with the Value/Benefit or Y
axis and, working from top to bottom (skipping the orange/green), Ken read
out the starting individual ratings.  Then he asked those who rated at one
spectrum (e.g. high or low) to provide their thinking and rationale.
Following that, we opened the floor to any other comments.  At that point,
Ken opened the online polling feature and asked the group to re-rate this
project dimension.   In all but one case, the first poll results were pretty
close to each other, thus, we accepted the median answer.   The one case
that would have normally taken a second round (or third?) was the ABUS
project in which we ended up with five different ratings of:  2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Since time was running out, we decided to table the discussion until later;
but, on return at the tail end of the session (already 20-30 minutes over),
we opted to accept the median value of 4.   Keep in mind that we are only
testing the ?process? and not officially rating any project/dimension.  

 

        
Y VALUES = VALUE/BENEFIT

                        

Project

SVG

WUK

CG

JW

OC

LG

        DELPHI


STI

7

6

6

6

5

6

        6.0


IDNF

4

6

3

6

3

2

        4.0


GEO

2

5

1

4

1

1

        2.0


TRAV

5

2

1

4

3

1

        2.0


PED

5

4

4

4

3

6

        4.0


ABUS

5

3

1

7

2

6

        4.0


JIG

4

6

5

7

4

3

        5.0


PDP

6

7

7

6

6

6

        6.0


WG

6

4

7

6

6

5

        6.0


GCOT

6

4

5

5

4

5

        5.0


CSG

6

4

4

5

5

5

        5.0


CCT

6

3

5

6

4

5

        5.0


IRTB

4

3

4

3

3

5

        3.5


RAA

4

6

5

7

5

7

        6.0


IRD

5

4

5

7

4

4

        5.0

 

After this first DELPHI rating session, a few questions occurred to me that
may be helpful once we get to the point of evaluating/assessing the model,
its X/Y definitions, and the various rating processes that we tried.
There is no need to answer these questions on the email list unless you feel
so inclined.   They are intended to be preliminary thoughts and perceptions,
phrased as questions, from my role as your facilitator.  

 

Thinking about our first DELPHI rating session: 

1)      Even though time was compressed, did you find that you broadened
your perspectives from the discussions?

2)      Would you prefer more or less time for each project/dimension
discussion?   Should there be specific time limits or do recommend that
discussion time be kept flexible and unconstrained?  

3)      Did you feel as though you compromised your ratings (during polling)
in a way that was not the result of having changed your perspective or
learned something new?   In other words, did you feel any unwelcome or
unhealthy pressure in trying to find common ground?   

4)      Do you think that the group?s DELPHI ratings for the Y axis are
generally better (i.e. more representative of the definition) than any
single person?s individual ratings?   

5)      Did the Adobe polling process work satisfactorily?   Ken noticed
that several times, we waiting for the last result or two.   Were the early
voters influencing the later ones?   There is a feature to turn OFF the
results display so that raters cannot see what has occurred until after they
have voted.   Perhaps we will try it that way next time to see which way
works best.    

6)      I noticed that some comments made during the discussion implied that
certain individuals had been thinking of a different definition that was
previously approved for Value/Benefit, e.g. considering value/benefit only
to GNSO vs. the entire Internet community.   Should the Y axis definition be
revisited now that the team has had a chance to actually work with it?  

 

Next Steps:

 

In terms of efficiency, the group managed to rate 10 elements in
approximately 70 minutes.   For the X axis, we have 11 elements remaining;
therefore, I have suggested to Gisella a 90 minute session for the 28 or 29
December Doodle poll.   Assuming we are successful in accomplishing this 2nd
rating session, we also agreed to try for an evaluation meeting the 1st week
of January; a 2nd Doodle poll will be sent out for that purpose (Length=60
minutes).  

 

Again, thank you all for a successful session today and, hopefully, we will
have an opportunity to complete the X axis dimensions on either 28 or 29
December.   

 

Happy holidays to all,

 

Ken Bour

 

P.S.   I uploaded a new PDF to our Adobe Connect room, which now shows the
project acronyms instead of Sequence No.   Thanks for that suggestion!   I
also created a Note box that will remain visible at all times showing the
definitions for X and Y.    If anyone has other ideas for improving the
process, please let me know.   I will keep thinking about it also?