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

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

I support the edits Ken made in 1) below as well as his recommendation
in 4) and look forward to our discussion tomorrow on 2) and 3).  Thanks
Ken.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Bour
        Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 11:41 AM
        To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Step 6 (In Progress)
        
        

        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