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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Ken.
Regards
Olga

2010/2/14 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
>
>
>