RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: ANNEX-Draft #1
Nice work Ken. I added my comments to Ken's & Liz's.
Chuck
________________________________
From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 3:37 PM
To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: ANNEX-Draft #1
WPM Team Members:
Attached, as promised, is a first draft of the ANNEX in which
Liz' feedback is incorporated. As you will note, the steps and
instructions are a bit shorter less technically complex than I
originally envisioned, which I attribute directly to our model
simplification - a welcome outcome!
I made a slight alteration (see below) to Jaime's original
methodology, but I believe that I kept it in the spirit of what he
recommended.
Jaime:
a) if Range<=2 there will be no discussion.
b) if Range>2, extreme value raters (and only them) will
have a set amount of time (2 to 3 minutes each) to justify their rating
and a new iteration occurs.
c) After the second voting session If Range<=3 take the
median and stop, otherwise extreme raters defend their rating and a new
iteration occurs.
d) After 3 voting sessions, if Range<=4 take the median and
stop.
Ken:
a) After individual Councilor ratings are aggregated, if
Range <=2, compute Median; DONE
If Range > 2, discussion ensues... [Note: see my comments below
about "extreme" positions]
b) After 1st Round, if Range <=2, compute Median; DONE
If Range > 2, proceed to Round #2...
c) After 2nd Round, if Range <=3, compute Median; DONE
If Range > 3, proceed to Round #3...
d) After 3rd Round of discussion and polling, compute Median
and STOP [Note: there is no need for another Range calculation unless we
recommend continuing to a 4th Round].
As noted above, Jamie has recommended that ONLY the extreme
ratings should be "defended" in the group discussion. While I concur
that time is a challenging constraint, I am not sure this approach will
lead to consensus more effectively than an airing of all views. As we
saw in our own testing, an extreme position can be persuaded by a
"middle of the road" explanation; but, if that argument is never heard,
the opportunity is missed. If only the extremes justify their
positions, it is almost like the majority is being convinced to move
further away from consensus. Let me posit an example to illustrate
what I mean. Suppose, for a particular project, the following
arrangement of ratings occurred after the individual Councilor ratings
were processed:
Councilors Rating
2 2 (10%)
4 5 (20%)
13 6 (65%)
1 7 ( 5%)
The Range starts out at 5 (7-2), so there isn't consensus by our
definition. In the first discussion round, should the 7s and 2s
(extremes) be asked to persuade the 5s and 6s (85%!) to move their
ratings up/down or have the majority try to convince the outliers that
their values are too high/low? I don't believe either approach will be
ideal in all cases. From my vantage facilitating the team's test
discussions, it seemed most helpful when those with deep knowledge and
experience provided their rationale, which led to greater group
understanding and, ultimately, consensus. It may take longer to do it
this way, but, since our goal is group consensus, the more productive
discussion that occurs in Round 1 may prevent the need for Rounds 2 and
3.
I look forward to our session on Monday. Based upon early
Doodle results <http://www.doodle.com/xfzdc8w9d2ht27nr> , it looks like
time will be either 1800 or 1900 UTC. Please check the WPM email list
tomorrow (after 1200 UTC) at which time Gisella will close the poll and
let us know the time slot for Monday's call. I will upload the latest
versions of both documents to the Adobe Connect room
<http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/gnsowprioritization/> .
Ken Bour
Attachment:
Annex-Work Prioritization (KBv1-LGv1)-CG.doc
|