Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Summary & Action Items-Step 6 (In Progress)

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Olga,

As group leader, what is your response to the issues raised by Adrian and 
myself?

Do you feel the group should carry on along its present path?

Stéphane

Le 14 févr. 2010 à 22:59, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit :

> Adrian has joined us. He volunteered to red team the work.
> 
> His latest comments make a lot of sense to me. The effort that's been put 
> into this work by this group has been immense. But it's not because someone 
> is working as hard as he can that he's working in the right direction.
> 
> I've lately dropped back from the work being done on this group simply 
> because it has become, to me, unmanageable. The reason for that being the 
> extremely high level of complexity of some of the emails on this list and of 
> the proposed models. While we shouldn't shy away from complexity in our 
> search for the best solution, I think Adrian's point about how prioritization 
> works in an SME and about the length of time it is taking this group to 
> propose a method for prioritization should ring alarm bells with us. When we 
> started on this work in Seoul, did we really expect it would take up to half 
> a year to complete. I know I certainly didn't.
> 
> We asked Adrian to red team. Part of doing that is putting his finger on the 
> things that we may not be seeing simply because we've got our noses pressed 
> against the problem all day while he is able to take a more distant look.
> 
> I think we would do well to heed his alarm bells.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 14 févr. 2010 à 16:18, Olga Cavalli a écrit :
> 
>> Thanks Adrian.
>> We have been working as a group and trying to see all different points of 
>> views and ideas.
>> You are welcome to join us an perhaps bring another perspective.
>> Regards
>> Olga
>> 
>> 2010/2/14 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Team,
>> 
>>  
>> Just watching from afar...
>> 
>>  
>> I am very concerned that we are not making progress here. As a CEO of a 
>> medium size company we are prioritising work all the time. New tasks/ 
>> projects come in all the time and changes are make dynamically. Nothing is 
>> set nor perfect. My Executive Management team provide input and the CEO 
>> makes the final decision. To me, that is why we have a GNSO Chair; to be the 
>> CEO.
>> 
>>  
>> It has now been 4 months since Seoul and we have not seen any outward 
>> progress. I really think you have aimed for perfection and this has caused 
>> delay. Inexact prioritisation will not result in business lost, nor staff 
>> becoming unemployed. We may have small delays but the consequences are not 
>> critical.
>> 
>>  
>> Let’s pick a process and roll forward, understanding and accepting its flaws.
>> 
>>  
>> I know I haven’t been heavily involved and perhaps my comments aren’t 
>> helpful but I am seeing this process become more and more ICANN like... 
>> something I thought we were trying to avoid.
>> 
>>  
>> Thanks.
>> 
>>  
>> Adrian Kinderis
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
>> Behalf Of Ken Bour
>> Sent: Saturday, 13 February 2010 9:54 AM
>> To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Summary & Action Items-Step 6 (In Progress)
>> 
>>  
>> WPM Team Members:
>> 
>>  
>> Following is a summary of the WPM teleconference held on 9 February 2010 
>> (1700 UTC): 
>> 
>>  
>> Team Decisions:
>> 
>>  
>> 1)      Urgency:  Jamie and Ken reported on their email exchanges between 
>> sessions and, after additional consideration during this teleconference, the 
>> team agreed that, although “urgency” represented an intriguing potential 
>> modeling concept, to make use of it properly would require an objective 
>> measurement which does not appear feasible.  The team agreed that 
>> urgency/criticality should become a natural part of the Value/Benefit 
>> assessment and the definition will be enhanced to include that concept (see 
>> Action Items below). 
>> 
>>  
>> 2)      Resources Needed:  Ken recommended dropping this dimension as well 
>> as the 4-quadrant model for reasons provided in his earlier email (8 Feb 
>> 2010).  After discussing the pros/cons, the team agreed to simplify its 
>> model to a one-dimensional rating of Value/Benefit.  There was also 
>> consensus that, rather than discard Resources Needed entirely, it could 
>> serve as a potential tie-breaker if a decision had to be made between two 
>> projects that were otherwise tied on Value/Benefit.  The process would be as 
>> follows: 
>> 
>> Step 1:  Rate all projects using the 1-7 scale on Value/Benefit
>> Step 2:  If needed as a tie breaker, rank any tied projects using Resources 
>> Needed
>> 
>>  
>> [Note:  Jamie suggested that the team reconsider the terminology/title of 
>> “Resources Needed” preferring a return to the original concept of perceived 
>> “Difficulty.”  Ken will include this question in a separate email 
>> transmitting revised definitions for team review.] 
>> 
>>  
>> Once these decisions were concluded, the team took up another important Step 
>> 6 question, “How will the Council actually utilize a prioritization? 
>> 
>>  
>> As framework for this discussion, Ken posited that a work prioritization 
>> exercise presupposes that there is some limitation of a scarce commodity 
>> (e.g. resource capacity).  If there is an abundance of time and resources 
>> and no real constraints, there would be no obvious need for a project 
>> ranking.  The underlying assumption is that, due to immovable constraints 
>> (in the short run), all project work cannot be undertaken simultaneously.  A 
>> prioritization, then, presumes that hard decisions are expected based on 
>> competing interests for scarce resources, e.g. perform A instead of B or 
>> move staffing from one project to another.  If it turned out that, after 
>> developing a prioritization, no project ever slowed down, stopped, or had 
>> its resources altered, a reasonable question might be:  what was the purpose 
>> or value in generating the prioritization? 
>> 
>>  
>> Chuck acknowledged that we cannot assume that projects can be eliminated or 
>> postponed simply because they have a low position on relative priority.  
>> Looking at the bottom projects test-ranked by the WPM team (e.g. GEO, TRAV), 
>> he was able to articulate convincing reasons why they probably can and 
>> should be continued even though they occupy the lowest positions on the 
>> ranking list. 
>> 
>>  
>> This discussion led to a hypothesis that, perhaps, the model may not be as 
>> useful in making stop/pause decisions about existing work, but may be more 
>> useful in deciding what to do with new projects that are introduced after 
>> the initial prioritization is performed (e.g. Vertical Integration). 
>> 
>>  
>> The first question considered was:  how should a new project be 
>> rated/evaluated and placed into the prioritization mix?  The team reached 
>> agreement on an approach to placing a new project into the ranking.  
>> Assuming that the Council will complete a full prioritization at least 
>> quarterly (TBD), it would never be more than 3 months between rating 
>> sessions.  Presuming that Councilors could readily recall what they did the 
>> last time, if a new project surfaces in the interim and cannot wait until a 
>> new quarterly reprioritization, the Council would employ the same technique 
>> that generated the most recent list.  For example, 4-5 small groups of 
>> Councilors would meet and collectively vote/decide on a rating from 1-7 
>> considering the same “average project” that was used at the last rating 
>> session.  Once a median rating is computed from the group consensus scores, 
>> the new project would take its appropriate slot in the ranking.  [Note:  Ken 
>> will flesh out this procedure when we get to the point of preparing Council 
>> instructions.] 
>> 
>>  
>> Once a new project is placed into the prioritized list, Chuck suggested that 
>> there might be a sequence of questions that should be asked/answered by the 
>> Council in deciding what to do with it.  Perhaps the team could create a map 
>> or process that the Council would use in evaluating a new project vis a vis 
>> the existing workload. 
>> 
>>  
>> In addition to assessing a new project, Jamie ventured that there might be a 
>> political value in performing the prioritization even if there is not a 
>> clear decision-making role related to stopping or postponing existing work.  
>> He commented that a project prioritization can establish for the entire 
>> organization (top to bottom) an understanding as to how all work relates to 
>> the GNSO’s primary mission and goals. 
>> 
>>  
>> In thinking about this political implication, Ken wondered if there might be 
>> a potential drawback to publishing a project ranking.  Taking the worst 
>> possible scenario, hypothetically, might certain teams working on the lowest 
>> ranked projects perceive that their time/effort is not worth continuing?  
>> The WPM team should think carefully through possible morale implications to 
>> be certain that a new problem isn’t created, unintentionally, that wasn’t 
>> there before this exercise began.  In response to this question, Olga 
>> thought that it would be possible to underscore that projects ranked at the 
>> bottom do not necessarily imply a fundamental lack of worth.  On the other 
>> hand, following Jaime’s concept of political prioritization, a project 
>> ranking does communicate overall importance.  The Council may not want to 
>> suggest, subtly or overtly, that volunteers should know or even think about 
>> any project’s relative value in deciding which team(s) to join – only their 
>> interest and expertise concerning the work itself. 
>> 
>>  
>> Action Items:
>> 
>>  
>> In addition to the above summary, Ken agreed to complete the following tasks 
>> between now and the next meeting (16 February, 1700 UTC). 
>> 
>>  
>> 1)      Suggest draft changes to both Y and X definitions for team 
>> discussion and approval at the next WPM meeting. 
>> 
>>  
>> 2)      Identify additional Step 6 questions (e.g. group/individual 
>> methodology) that the team needs to consider.
>> 
>>  
>> 3)      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”)?  
>> 
>>  
>> 4)      Ken proposed that the team also consider making a 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. 
>> 
>>  
>> Since this summary is already long, the above topics will be included in one 
>> or more separate emails so that the team can focus on the topics more 
>> efficiently and effectively. 
>> 
>>  
>> Prepared by:
>> 
>>  
>> Ken Bour
>> 
>>  
>> 
>