RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 5 (In Progress)

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jaime rasises a good question: Should implementation projects be added
to our list of projects for prioritization, separate for the projects
tasked with developing recommendations?  That increase the number of
projects quite a lot.  How would we compare implementation projects to
other projects?  Would their value be the same as assigned to the
corresponding recommendation development projects?
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jaime Wagner
        Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 9:09 AM
        To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 5 (In Progress)
        
        

        I added a comment to item 3 and to the considerations on small
groups.

         

        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 Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: segunda-feira, 28 de dezembro de 2009 20:00
        To: Ken Bour; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 5 (In Progress)

         

        Thanks Ken.  To get discussion started I inserted a few comments
below.

         

        Chuck

                 

                
________________________________


                From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Bour
                Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 3:44 PM
                To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
                Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 5 (In Progress)

                WPM-DT Members:

                 

                As promised, this second memo today will outline a few
issues that were brought up in today's discussion as well as discussing
some of what we might consider in our next session.    

                 

                Outstanding Issues:

                 

                1)      Value/Benefit (Y Axis) Definition-Issue #1:
this is a holdover from the 21 Dec session during which a question was
raised as to whether/how to modify the definition to ensure that the
narrower GNSO is represented vs. only the global Internet community and
ICANN stakeholders.  [Gomes, Chuck]  I still support including the GNSO
focus in addition to the globabl community focus. 

                2)      Resource Consumption (X Axis) Definition-Issue
#1:  we noted that there were variances in interpretation by
participants as to whether a project's Resource Consumption should be
exhaustive, i.e. from the beginning of its instantiation (sunk cost)
through anticipated closure or limited to the current period forward.
[Gomes, Chuck]  As stated in our meeting today, I think that measuring
resource consumption from the present point in time makes the most sense
because we will be prioritizing our work going forward. [J.Wagner] I
agree with Chuck.   

                3)      Resource Consumption (X Axis) Definition-Issue
#2:  another question surfaced as to whether the Resource Consumption
estimate should include only that portion of the project that relates to
developing a GNSO recommendation (e.g. Final Report) or also include an
assessment of the project's full implementation.   To bring everyone up
to speed, the example that was used was the Communications and
Coordination Work Team (CCT) and its GNSO website recommendations.
Given the Work Team's near completion of its final Technology report,
one view is that there is little work left to do; thus, a relatively low
X axis rating would result.   On the other hand, if the project is to
also consider the entire website development effort (whether performed
by Staff or outside consultants), that would produce a much higher
assessment of Resource Consumption.   The DT agreed that additional
discussion is needed to provide the Council clear guidance in terms of
where to draw the lines so that the ratings estimates are consistently
interpreted under a common rubric. [Gomes, Chuck]  We definitely need to
provide clear direction in this regard. I favor treating actual
implementation separately from the rating of resources needed and
therefore not including implementation resources in the estimate of X
values.
                [J.Wagner] I understood we had reached a consensus that
for the projects listed we would consider only the development of a
recommendation. The point that, in my opinion, requires consideration is
if we will add implementation projects to our list. I think this is a
must from the moment these projects initiate, since they imply resource
consumption. The point is: are there any implementation projects already
running?

                  

                4)      Liz and Ken would like to introduce an
additional question/concern regarding the assessments of X and Y.
Staff calculated in previous iterations that the correlation statistics
between X and Y ratings, in many instances, were high (> 50%) - a result
that continued with the DELPHI technique.   While a high correlation
between these variables is not necessarily indicative of a problem (i.e.
highly valued projects might indeed have high resource consumptions),
they should be considered independent variables.  Ken notes that, during
today's discussion of the X axis, comments were made a few times about
the "priority" of a project even when the team was explicitly evaluating
its resource consumption.   For some individuals, it may be challenging
to cleanly separate the issues between value and consumption.   One
potential remedy to this natural cross-correlation bias, would be to ask
DIFFERENT parties to rate X and Y independently.   For example, one
possibility might be to ask the Council to rate Value/Benefit and have
Staff rate Resource Consumption - especially since Staff has deeper
knowledge of and more extensive involvement with the various project
teams and also understands the amount/extent of Staff resources that are
being applied. [Gomes, Chuck]  This is an interesting idea worthy of
further discussion.  We could also consider having Staff and member(s)
of the applicable work team rate the resources needed.  We might want to
use the term "Resources Needed" instead of "Resource Consumption" to
avoid the implication that it includes resources already consumed,
assuming we agree on that approach. 

                 

                Next Session:

                 

                1)      Next Meeting:  a Doodle poll will be forthcoming
to find a time that the DT can meet on either 5 or 6 January 2010.   

                2)      After today's work [Note: for technical results,
see companion email; Subject: Step 3a (Completed)], the team agreed to
proceed to Step 5, "Team assessment of the construct and
process/methodology and recommendations."   However, during the next
meeting, in addition to the process evaluation topics (see below), the
team also wishes to consider whether to create a Step 3b in which it
would try another rating permutation (e.g. small groups of 2-3).   If
the team elects to perform a Step 3b, we could repeat Steps 4 and 5 for
that iteration before moving to Step 6 "Focus on HOW the team might
utilize the data in terms of developing a prioritization -- the ultimate
goal of this effort."  

                3)      We should also formalize the earlier list
discussion which would add a Step 7: "Red Team Analysis of Model,
Methodology, and Procedures"  

                4)      The above step also suggests another one or Step
8:  "Finalize WPM-DT Model and Recommendations to GNSO Council"   

                 

                Considerations on Small Group DELPHI:

                 

                Following are some thoughts that the team might begin to
weigh prior to next week's session: 

                 

                *         After having rated all 15 projects both
individually and in one large group (of 5), what new information might
be learned by breaking into smaller groups of 2-3? [Gomes, Chuck]  I am
started to wonder more about this.  There was a lot of value in our
group discussion for each of the rating and the most helpful part of
that came from participants who were more knowledgeable of the
applicable projects. In a group of 2 or 3, the chances of having someone
who is knowledgeable on every project will be significantly reduced. 
                [J.Wagner] In my opinion the small groups should not do
work already done in the larger group. It seems we've lost a step (or
either I've lost something). I thought that after step 4, with the
Delphi consensus on both axis in mind, we would have a final round to
produce a one dimensional priority list. What I tried to say in our cal
is that for this step we could try the small group approach. I share
your doubts if even this would be worthwhile. Although, if there's a
doubt, I think it's in our scope to try it before discarding it.

                 

                *         What, if any, criteria, should be applied in
constructing small groups?   For example:  (a) experience/knowledge
(pairing senior Councilor with new member); (b) heterogeneous or
homogeneous by Constituency and/or SG; (c) contracted party vs.
non-contracted; ... others?  [Gomes, Chuck]  In my opinion, having
members with experience/knowledge is critical for small groups; the
smaller the groups, the more difficult it will be to have
experience/knowledge across all projects.
                [J.Wagner] Repeating: we should NOT redo ratings in
small groups. I think knowledge and experience are fundamental to do the
ratings that are already depicted in the chart produced in step 4. To
reduce it to a one dimensional priority list is much more a matter of
opinion. So the groups could be formed respecting convenience only.

                *         If small groups are constructed, should they
be facilitated by Staff using an Adobe Connect room or should
individuals get together independently to discuss and agree upon ratings
to be submitted (e.g. using form similar to the one provided earlier for
individual ratings)? [Gomes, Chuck]  The Adobe Connect tool worked very
well for us so far.  Would it work as well in smaller groups?  We should
at least test it if we decide to go that direction.
                [J.Wagner] Since our small groups are indeed small (2
people) we don't need Adobe Connect, but I think a facilitator would add
uniformity and objectivity.

                 

                Questions for DT Interim Evaluation:

                 

                The following approach is a suggestion for how we might
proceed in conducting next meeting's assessment discussion:[Gomes,
Chuck]  Looks good to me. 

                 

                1)      Briefly recap the work completed thus far:

                o   Project list (15) and requirements for inclusion as
"active"

                o   Two-dimensional model and definitions for X and Y

                o   Ratings scale 1-7 from Far Below Average to Far
Above Average

                o   Individual ratings using rating scale with final
chart plotting means or medians

                o   Large group DELPHI session using rating scale;
facilitated using Adobe Connect room with polling feature

                2)      Any changes recommended to work already
completed, i.e., what worked, what didn't work? 

                3)      How is the DT doing against its objectives thus
far?  

                 

                Final Thought:   

                 

                I have recently begun experimenting with Mind Mapping
software (using NovaMind4) and, mostly for my own purposes, I created a
map of this team's process so that I could keep track not only of the
steps (I did change sequencing a bit), but the various issues,
questions, documents, etc., that we have been accumulating via the list.
It is still a work-in-progress, but if you would like to see a copy of
the map, please click on this link:
http://www.novamind.com/connect/nm_documents/723.   It should not
require any login or other requirements to view.   I also attached a
static JPEG image in case you have any trouble with the link.  

                 

                Ken Bour