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

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

Jaime,

Your candor is appreciated, don't worry.

However I think the point we are trying to make is that the group is so focused 
on the work it has embarked upon, and more specifically the method chosen to 
carry that work out, that it is finding it hard to look at the bigger picture.

I understand that having done all this hard work, it's hard to consider the 
fact that we may have gone in the wrong direction. But that is what is being 
suggested here.

Maybe we need a simpler model that allows for "authority defining priority" 
(nice one BTW). After all, a Chair is elected to be a leader and take command 
decisions on such topics as this one. If that possibility is mixed in with a 
basic model that takes out the "I'm the boss so I do what I want" element but 
still allows the Council's leaders to take executive decisions based on the 
integrity of a working model, then maybe that is a quicker way to reach this 
group's goals than working to perfect a model as complex as the one before us 
now.

But if the group feels it can reach its goals in a short time frame by 
continuing along its present path then that's great. I'm not getting the 
impression that this work will be finished anytime soon, but if I'm wrong then 
I'm happy to be corrected.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 15 févr. 2010 à 17:53, Jaime B Wagner a écrit :

> Stéphane and Adrian,
>  
> Adrian’s example of its own company simply states that “authority defines 
> priority”. Well, in a more political or less structured environment, 
> authority does not stem only from vote or capital, but depends on other 
> things such as knowledge and moral behavior. Indeed I think that, for 
> authority to be effective, this should be the case even in private companies. 
> Authority should not be confused with the sheer will of the powerful. So the 
> chair as well as the whole council should base its decisions on some 
> principles accepted by all.
>  
> The discussions of such principles, basic as they are, is not straightforward 
> and can be distressful. To avoid the whole council to go through this 
> process, that could result simply in abandoning any effort, is the reason why 
> this group was formed.
>  
> I think we made considerable progress, much to be credited to Ken’s work, and 
> that your proposal of a new ground zero just shows that kind of impatience 
> that would impede any progress should this attempt be undertaken by the whole 
> council.
>  
> Excuse my sheer frankness but I think they go along the same pace of your 
> observations and that both are made with sincerity and with the best 
> intention of coming to a good conclusion.
>  
> Jaime Wagner
> j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> cel: +55(51)8126-0916
>  
> De: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Em nome 
> de Stéphane Van Gelder
> Enviada em: domingo, 14 de fevereiro de 2010 20:00
> Para: Olga Cavalli
> Cc: Adrian Kinderis; Ken Bour; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Assunto: Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Summary & Action Items-Step 6 (In Progress)
>  
> 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
>  
>  
>