[gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Step 6 (In Progress)

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

WPM Team Members:  

 

As promised in my summary email from our 9 Feb teleconference, the following
represents a set of Step 6 action items and new questions for the team to
consider starting with its session scheduled for 16 Feb.  Where appropriate,
I tried to include and consolidate material from earlier sessions and
summaries.  

 

Action Items:

 

1)      Project Criteria Definitions:  Suggest draft changes to both the
original Y and X definitions for team discussion and approval at the next
WPM meeting (16 Feb).  Note that, because we are no longer presenting the
material in a 4-quadrant chart/graph, we won't need the axis labels, so I
removed them.  

 

Value/Benefit . this dimension relates to perceptions of overall value,
benefit, importance, and criticality primarily for the GNSO, but also
considering ICANN's stakeholders and the global Internet community.
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. 

 

KB Comment:  Since this will be the only criterion used in determining the
initial prioritization, I wonder if we can simplify the title to simply
Value.  I tried to capture the "urgency" dimension by adding importance and
criticality to the definition.  

 

DifficultyResources Needed . 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.  For projects already in
progress, estimates include only those resources remaining from the point of
assessment through to completion of the final recommendation; prior
historical/sunk resources are not factored into this dimension. 

KB Comment:  the team agreed that this criterion would only be used in
tie-breaking circumstances when two or more projects have the same Value
rating, but must be prioritized individually for some reason.  Please note
that I changed the title back to "Difficulty," per Jaime's suggestion so
that the team could look at and consider the definition both ways.  I made
no other wording changes to the definition approved on 26 January.  

2)      Step 6 Analysis:  Identify additional Step 6 questions (e.g.
group/individual methodology) that the team needs to consider. 

 

Questions from earlier summaries that might be productive to discuss and,
where appropriate, confirm and finalize:  

.         Should the prioritization result in an unambiguous ranking from 1
to n (no ties) or can projects be grouped into one or more buckets (or tied
with the same rating)?  [Note:  this question may have been answered in our
last session and may just require confirmation.]

.         What frequency should the WPM process be exercised (e.g. monthly,
semi-annually, annually) or, if ad hoc, what trigger events cause one to be
initiated?  [Note:  Ken proposed quarterly in his last 12 Feb email summary.
The team should discuss and finalize.]  

.         How are new projects added to the list and incorporated into the
process in terms of evaluation/ranking?  [Note:  we discussed an approach
and probably just need to confirm it per Ken's 12 Feb email summary.] 

Chuck suggested that the team develop managerial questions that the Council
might ask itself.  Ken offers the following to stimulate team discussion:  

o   Should this new project have resources assigned and, if so, what types,
skills, and quantities are needed?  

o   Are there sufficient resources (Staff and Community) available to
undertake this project without causing adverse impacts to other project work
in progress?  

o   To undertake this new project, should any other project work be stopped
or postponed? 

o   Should this new project have a date/deadline imposed, thus establishing
urgency?  If it is determined to be urgent, can any real consequences be
identified that will cause the date to be perceived and treated as critical?


.         Since the rating process is relative, is it possible to slot a new
project without reevaluating all of the others at the same time?  [Note:  if
the Council rates ALL projects at least quarterly, the team thought that a
new project could be introduced without having to go back and redo the
entire process.  Success will hinge, in part, on whether 3 months (worst
case) is sufficiently short such that Councilors can remember what was done
in the last rating session.  Does this item need any more team discussion?] 

.         How are changes to project status identified, recommended,
approved, and incorporated?  [Note:  if the entire process is engaged
quarterly, would that answer this question?] 

.         Individual vs. Group Ratings:

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

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

c)      If group ratings are preferential, 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)?

Other considerations: 

.         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?

.         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?

.         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)? 

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

 

3)      Process Outcomes:  Continue discussion, as challenged by Jaime:
What is/are the real outcome(s) of the prioritization?  Can the team provide
concrete and persuasive answers to this question that would satisfy others
who have not been deeply involved with the process (e.g. "Red Team")?
Related questions:  

.         In what specific ways will a prioritized list of projects assist
the Council?  

.         What decisions or outcomes does the team expect from executing the
rating/ranking/prioritization processes?  

 

4)      New Item?  Ken proposed that the team consider making another
recommendation related to the implementation of desperately needed project
management tools for both Staff & Community to assist with the Council's new
"managerial" role in the policy development process.  Repeating Ken's
thoughts from the 8 Feb WPM summary.

"To facilitate its management responsibilities, projects should be
documented and tracked on an on-going basis using a feature-rich web-based
application (several open source options available) that will assign Staff
and Community resources to projects/tasks complete with time tracking and
collaborative toolsets (e.g. integrated blogs, wikis, calendar, document
repositories) that enable work to be performed efficiently, effectively, and
transparently."  

 

I look forward to our discussion on 16 Feb at 1700 UTC.

 

Ken Bour