[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test

[Ken Bour]

SCI Members:

 

As your guest consultant on this project, I would like to weigh-in on
Mikey's inquiry.

 

Given that we have made a lot of progress recently and the concepts,
rationale, design, and questionnaire are fresh on our minds, I recommend
that we move to the next phase as soon as practicable. 

 

I agree with Mikey's observation that there is an advantage to being "done"
with the work plan before undertaking the assessment, but I hope that we do
not have to postpone forward progress until October-November unless there is
no other reasonable course of action available. 

 

If the "Thick WHOIS" WG is not quite ready, may I suggest that we identify
another WG for testing that has recently closed? Perhaps Marika could offer
a recommendation. It would take me just a few minutes to customize the
letter and the questionnaire for another team.

 

Regards,

 

Ken Bour

 

From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 8:56 AM
To: Ron Andruff
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; 'Ken Bour'
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test

 

thanks all,

 

this looks great.  here's a choice for you.  i could either forward this
*now* or i could wait until the Thick Whois WG is done (we're likely to wrap
up well before Argentina).  

 

the advantage of "now" is that we get feedback sooner.

 

the advantage of "done" is that's when the evaluation fits in the workplan.


 

i'm very much on the fence.  either way would be fine with me.  Avri, you're
in that WG.  i'm especially looking to you for preferences/thoughts here.

 

mikey

 

 

On Aug 7, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com> wrote:





Dear Mikey,

 

As a member of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI),
you have been intimately involved in helping develop a new instrument that
we are calling "Working Group Self-Assessment." Delving back into the
history of the GNSO Improvements initiative (2008-2012), it had always been
envisioned that there would be team member evaluations of Working Group
processes; however, no prescription for such an instrument had been
undertaken until now. The purpose of these assessments is to provide
Chartering Organizations, such as the GNSO Council, important information
about how well its Working Groups are functioning through an examination of
their Inputs -> Processes -> Outputs and ultimately leading to continuing
process improvements.

 

As the Chair of the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group, we appreciate your
willingness to ask your team members if they would help us test the latest
version of the questionnaire that has been customized at this link:
<http://thickwhois.questionpro.com> http://thickwhois.questionpro.com. All
of the background information and instructions are contained within the
instrument, so there is little more that you need to do other than provide
an invitation and, say, a 2-3 week timeframe to complete it.  

 

Our consultant, Ken Bour, will monitor the completion process, provide
status updates to the SCI, and be available to provide technical assistance
if needed by any of your team members.

 

It would be most helpful if your members would complete the questionnaire as
though it were a real self-assessment for the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group,
despite it being a test at this time. That approach will ensure that the
instrument is thoroughly and exhaustively tested.

 

How to Provide Further Feedback to the SCI

The questionnaire is designed, of course, to ask about Working Group
members' experiences - not the Working Group itself. To provide your team
members with a place where they can provide feedback about the instrument,
we created a separate page in the "Thick WHOIS" ICANN Wiki space (Link:
<https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag> https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag)
where that type of information can be aggregated. We are also set up to
accept emails if any of your members would prefer that method. Please ask
them to submit any feedback to our Consultant on this project: Ken Bour at
<mailto:ken.bour at verizon.net> ken.bour at verizon.net.

 

In particular, we are interested in learning:

.         Are the questions intelligible and is the wording clear as to
intent?

.         Are the design and format straightforward?

.         Does the scaling (1-7) make sense?

.         Are the instructions clear?

.         Is the online presentation (QuestionPro) easy to complete?

.         Can the entire questionnaire be completed within 30 minutes?

.         Are there any important elements of the Working Group's operations
that have been neglected?

 

Thank you in advance for your WG's involvement in testing this assessment
instrument.

 

Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI

 

 

Ron Andruff

RNA Partners

 <http://www.rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com

 

 


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130808/a60937f9/attachment.html>