RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 3a (In Progress) -- Summary of Group Rating Session 21 Dec 2009
Suggestion: Adrian find one person to do this with him, preferably someone who hasn't been involved in our work at all. Chuck _____ From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 8:17 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: 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 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
|