Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Participant Comments Regarding Step 2

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ken,
thanks for this email and the analysis of the comments.
As the whole council will be engaged in the process, I find value in sharing
this info with all GNSO members, but it could be good to hear from the resto
of the team.
Regards, have a nice weekend and good fligts to Brussels.
Olga

2010/6/11 Ken Bour <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> WPM-DT Members:
>
>
>
> I provided a few thoughts privately to Olga in support of her beginning to
> address the comments/concerns expressed recently on the GNSO Council list.
> She advised me to post them here for team consideration.
>
>
>
> The following paragraphs are intended to be exploratory responses in the
> spirit of continuing the dialogue, not definitive answers.
>
> Please feel free to comment, revise, or amplify as you deem appropriate.
>
>
>
> Concerning Stéphane’s recent comments, the WPM-DT noted in its cover letter
> to the Council that the larger project management question was one that
> would have to be tackled subsequent to the prioritization effort.   In its
> letter to the Council transmitting the WPM procedures, Olga noted:
>
>
>
> “The DT believes that prioritization is an important first step of the
> Council’s broader project management role, which should be further defined
> and will require appropriate tools to assist in the active and effective
> management of the workload.  To facilitate these managerial
> responsibilities, the DT recommends that:
>
> 1)      a process be developed to allow timely tracking of GNSO projects
> on an on-going basis; and
>
> 2)      its process be supported with a web-based software toolkit (e.g.
> excellent open source applications are available) that will assign Staff and
> Community resources to projects/tasks and offer time/milestone tracking plus
> advanced collaboration capabilities allowing work to be managed efficiently,
> effectively, and transparently.
>
>
>
> The DT remains available to assist the Council in the implementation of
> these new Work Prioritization procedures and to work with any other team(s)
> on scoping out the program/project management disciplines that will become
> central in the Council’s role as manager of the policy development
> process.”
>
>
>
> While Stéphane certainly raises important implementation questions that the
> WPM-DT also identified, they were considered beyond the scope of the WPM’s
> narrow mission.   Presumably, once a set of project ratings is finalized in
> Brussels, the Council will begin to take up the broader considerations that
> are essential to the effective utilization of this initial prioritization
> work.
>
>
>
> In a similar vein, Alan’s comments appear to come from a “managerial”
> perspective in looking at the project workload and, while understandable,
> the instructions were drafted to ask participants to rate *Value* only.
>  The narrowly drawn Value definition was provided in the transmittal email
> to the ratings spreadsheet as well as in the Chapter 6 and 
> ANNEX<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf>procedures
>  provided to the Council.   As team members know, that definition
> intentionally did not contemplate factors such as how near a project is to
> completion or how many resources it is consuming, only its benefit to ICANN
> and the GNSO.   Originally, as you will recall, the team thoroughly
> evaluated a two-dimensional model that attempted to capture costs,
> difficulty, even urgency.   After working through the implications of that
> substantially more complex modeling process, the team elected to start with
> a more straightforward assessment of *Value* as the first step.
>
>
>
> Lastly, I am a bit disappointed to learn, in the aftermath of the ratings
> process, that some individuals might have been confused as they were
> attempting to decide on specific project ratings.   I tried to make myself
> available both by phone and email; however, no one reached out for
> assistance or clarification.   I am certain that, in addition to Staff, any
> of the WPM-DT’s members would have gladly helped anyone who was confused
> about the assignment.
>
>
>
> I am looking forward to the session in Brussels!   A few of my Staff
> colleagues will be helping me perform a “practice” run later today using the
> same Adobe Connect features that the team exercised back in December.   I am
> hopeful that the process we identified and tested many months ago continues
> to hold up when extended to a much larger population…  J
>
>
>
> Does the team think it should begin engaging the recent questions and
> issues via the Council email list and, if so, is there anything else I can
> provide by way of assistance?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Ken Bour
>
>
>