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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Adrian,
thanks, and I also like the idea of you acting as "red team".
What do others think?
Ken, how could we fit this role into our excercise?
Best wishes for xmas!!
Regards
Olga

2009/12/23 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>  Agreed. Let me know how you want me to assist and support.
>
>
>
> *Adrian Kinderis*
>
>
>
> *From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 23 December 2009 2:20 AM
> *To:* Adrian Kinderis; Ken Bour; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 3a (In Progress) -- Summary of
> Group Rating Session 21 Dec 2009
>
>
>
> I like the idea of having Adrian do a 'red team' review of our proposal
> toward the end of our work.  By waiting until we are nearly finished, as red
> teams normally do, it allows him to be more independent.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Adrian Kinderis
> *Sent:* Monday, December 21, 2009 10:19 PM
> *To:* Ken Bour; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* 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 2
> nd rating session, we also agreed to try for an evaluation meeting the 
> 1stweek of January; a 2
> nd 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…
>
>
>
>


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