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

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

Stephane,
 
Leadership in a bottom-up organization has different qualities than in a 
top-down organization.  Hopefully we can learn from both types, but they are 
definitely not the same.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
        Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 1:01 PM
        To: Jaime B Wagner
        Cc: 'Olga Cavalli'; 'Adrian Kinderis'; 'Ken Bour'; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: RES: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Summary & Action Items-Step 6 (In 
Progress)
        
        
        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