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

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

Thanks Olga.

Stéphane

Le 15 févr. 2010 à 17:04, Olga Cavalli a écrit :

> Stephane,
> I think that the group has gone through a process that has been long but 
> constructive, if it was not made by the group the same questions and thougts 
> would have been raised by the GNSO council as a whole when presenting a first 
> approach.
> This is why I think it is constructive.
> I understand that it may sound frustrating from a private company 
> perspective, but this is a group with multistakeholder views and processes 
> are longer.
> As I said to Adrian, we are open to other suggestions and ideas. I know he 
> will be the "read team" but in the mean time perhaps you or him can give us 
> other ideas to move forward.
> As a group we should present our conclusions and outcomes in a face to face 
> meeting in Nairobi.
> Others are also welcome to comment about Adrian an Stréphane´s concerns.
> Regards 
> Olga
> 
> 
> 
> 2010/2/15 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
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>> 
> 
>