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

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

This might be a RESEND.   It was originally forwarded from the wrong email
account.   I just installed Office Pro 2010 and am still getting used to the
different look/feel on Outlook.    

 

From: Ken Bour [mailto:kenbour@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 10:31 AM
To: 'gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: WPM-DT: Step 5 (In Progress)

 

WPM Members:

 

In preparation for our call today (7 January 2010), I have uploaded all of
our latest documents (e.g. Projects List, Brief Descriptions, Test
Data/Charts, and X/Y Definitions) to the Adobe Connect room
(http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/gnsowprioritization/) so that we can review
them together.   

 

In addition, I took a stab at modifying both the X and Y definitions in
light of comments/notes from previous discussions and those on the list
(changes in red font).   FOR DISCUSSION.  

 

Y - Value/Benefit . this dimension relates to perceptions of overall value
and benefit to the following communities:  1) the GNSO, 2) the global
Internet community; and 3) ICANN stakeholders.  Components of this dimension
may include, but are not limited to:  new opportunities for Internet
growth/expansion, enhanced competitiveness, resolution/improvement of
serious performance or infrastructure problems, increased
security/stability, and improved user experience.  

 

X - Resource Consumption . this dimension relates to perceptions of total
human capital expenditure anticipated and also includes such factors as
complexity (e.g. technical), intricacy (e.g. many moving parts to
coordinate), lack of cohesion (e.g. many competing interests), length of
time/energy expected; availability/scarcity of resources -- all of which
contribute to the total resource consumption and overall cost (economic and
otherwise) required to develop a recommendation.  [Note:  for projects
already in progress, please estimate only those expenditures remaining from
the point of rating through to completion of the final recommendation; prior
historical/sunk expenditures and future implementation/services costs are
not to be factored into this dimension].  

As a tentative agenda, I might suggest the following general approach based
on my summary from our last call.  As we go through the material, we might
ask ourselves if there are any changes recommended to work already
completed, i.e., what worked, what didn't work.   It is not meant to be an
exhaustive set of topics, but some of the concepts that we might consider in
our assessment.   

 

1)      Quick review of Team's objectives (copied below).   Recalling that
our goals were originally drafted, "To ensure that the process we select and
recommend:

.         is user-friendly, unambiguous, and straightforward to execute; 

.         produces realistic outputs that will enable the Council to make
effective prioritization decisions; and

.         is structured not only as a one-time exercise, but considers the
inclusion of new projects as they are proposed in the future." 

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

a)      Is the format for the Project List (Tables 1 & 2) and Short
Descriptions acceptable?  

b)     For removed projects, are the categorizations useful (I, M, X)?  

c)      How do we finalize the project list and when should that action
occur?

d)     Should "implementation-only" projects be included (relates to
definitions below)?  If so, should there a separate process (and model?) for
their prioritization?  This project was initially conceived as a way to
assist GNSO with the prioritization of limited community resources (vs.
Staff).   Once a project has been approved, does there continue to be a need
for substantial community resources or primarily Staff?   

3)      Two-dimensional model and definitions for X and Y:

a)      Ken posted modified definitions to the email list (above).any
changes?  

b)     Should Y and X be rated by DIFFERENT parties to avoid
cross-correlation between X and Y?  

4)      Ratings scale 1-7 from Far Below Average to Far Above Average:

a)      Is the team still OK with the 7 point scale for both dimensions?  

5)      Individual vs. Group Ratings:

a)      What is the team's assessment of the pros/cons between individual
vs. group ratings?  

b)     If we recommend group sessions, would we recommend that Councilors
struggle to complete individual ratings first?   Would they be submitted and
analyzed for commonality as we did in our test?  

c)      If group ratings are recommended, what sizes and configurations
would the team recommend?  

d)     Should this WPM-DT perform another sequence of tests using smaller
groups (e.g. 2 or 3)?  

e)      Should rating sessions be facilitated (by Staff?) using Adobe
Connect with polling feature?  

Assuming no changes to the testing process after this step, the team could
then focus on HOW (Step 6) it might utilize the data in terms of developing
a prioritization (the ultimate goal of this effort).   

 

I look forward to talking with you at 1700 UTC.  

 

Ken Bour