Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 3a (In Progress) -- Summary of Group Rating Session 21 Dec 2009
I absolutely agree and it was not my intention or wish to take the lead on this. Adrian, everyone in the group seems to agree that your idea is a good one, and that you should take the lead on it if you are OK with that. Stéphane Le 26 déc. 2009 à 16:07, Gomes, Chuck a écrit : > One key elment of a red team is that the members have "fresh eyes', i.e., > have not been very actively involved in the process to date. I think Adrian > meets that criterion because he has not been actively involved in our work, > but I don't think the same applies to Stephane. That is not a criticism > because it has been very valuable to have Stephane's involvement; it would > just be harder for him to do the review as a fairly independent reviewer. > > Chuck > > From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis > Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 7:39 PM > To: Stéphane Van Gelder > Cc: 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’d be happy to be involved as leader, however, as vice chair, and a fellow > member of this group, I’d also be fine you wanted to take the lead (should it > be deemed necessary of course). > > As you wish... > > Adrian Kinderis > > > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, 24 December 2009 9:58 PM > To: Adrian Kinderis > Cc: 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 think it's an excellent idea. > > Is this red team something that would require a leader or coordinator? And if > so, which seems likely, would you be willing to be that person? > > What do others think? > > Stéphane > > Le 22 déc. 2009 à 04:18, Adrian Kinderis a écrit : > > > 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… > > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|