Versions Compared

Version Old Version 4 New Version 5
Changes made by

Ken Bour

Ken Bour

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Note

Notes to SCI Members and Other Reviewers:

  1. In this Draft v2 version of the questionnaire, I am attempting to take into consideration a dimension raised by Mikey O'Connor and only partially accommodated in Draft v1. To evaluate any dynamic system, we could subdivide it into three basic or core components: Inputs → Processes → Outputs. In Draft v1, we captured most of the processes, the outputs, but only a few of the inputs, namely, the team members, tools, and experts. I did not ask about the other resources that impinge upon the success of a WG, e.g., its charter and constraints (required processes, time horizon). In Draft v2, I have reconstituted the questionnaire (still five sections but renamed), reorganized some of the original questions, and added a few new ones. 
  2. This Draft v2 also shifts the rating scale to 7 points as suggested by Avri Doria.

...

Info

In the next three sections (II, III, and IV), you will be asked to rate the EFFECTIVENESS of each dimension; the scale interpretation will be provided appropriate to each element.

...

II. Inputs ...includes the charter/mission, team members, tools, and resources.

Thinking about the overall EFFECTIVENESS of the Working Group's Inputss Inputs, how would you rate each of the following elements on a scale where 1=Highly Ineffective and 7=Highly Effective:

Assessment CategoryRating

The Charter/Mission of the WG where:
1-Highly Ineffective means confusing, vague, ill-structured, unbounded, unrealistic (e.g., time, constraints), unachievable; and
7-Highly Effective means understandable, clear, well-structured, bounded, realistic (e.g., time, constraints), achievable

1234567SKIP

The Expertise of WG members where:
1-Highly Ineffective means novice, elementary, inapplicable, unusable; and
7-Highly Effective means knowledgeable, advanced, applicable, usable

1234567SKIP

The Representativeness of WG members where:
1-Highly Ineffective means narrow, skewed, selective, unbalanced; and
7-Highly Effective means broad, diverse, balanced

1234567SKIP

The external Human Resources (e.g., briefings, experts, consultants, liaisons) provided to the WG where:
1-Highly Ineffective means inappropriate, inadequate, untimely, not helpful/useful; and
7-Highly Effective means appropriate, adequate, timely, helpful/useful 

1234567SKIP

The Technical Resources (e.g., systems, tools, platforms, supporttemplates) provided to and utilized by the WG where:
1-Highly Ineffective means difficult, challenging, clumsy, awkward, tedious, slow, not helpful/useful; and
7-Highly Effective means easy, straightforward, clear, efficient, fast, helpful/useful 

1234567SKIP
  

The Administrative Resources (e.g., support, guidelines, documentation) provided to and utilized by the WG where:
1-Highly Ineffective means inappropriate, inadequate, untimely, not helpful/useful; and
7-Highly Effective means appropriate, adequate, timely, helpful/useful 

1234567SKIP
Comments:(Free-form Text Box)

 

...

III. Processes ...includes norms, operations, logistics, and decision-making.

Thinking about the overall EFFECTIVENESS of the Working Group's

...

Processes, how would you rate each of the following elements on a scale where 1=Highly Ineffective and 7=Highly Effective:
Assessment CategoryRating

The Participation climate within the WG where:
1-Highly Ineffective means inhospitable, unilateral, frustrating, unproductive; and
7-Highly Effective means inviting, democratic, accepting, respectful, productive

1234567SKIP
The Behavior of WG members where:
1-Highly Ineffective means disruptive, argumentative, disrespectful, hostile, domineering; and
7-Highly Effective means accommodating, respectful, collaborative, consensus-building
1234567SKIP
  

The Decision-Making Methodology (consensus)where:
1-Highly Ineffective means broken, ignored, not observed, disrespected; and
7-Highly Effective means honored, followed, observed, respected

1234567SKIP
Comments:(Free-form Text Box)
III. Logistics and Requirements
Thinking about the overall EFFECTIVENESS of the Working Group's Logistics and Requirements, how would you rate each of the following elements on a scale where 1=Highly Ineffective and 7=Highly Effective:
The Communication/Collaboration Tools provided to and utilized by the WG where:
1-Highly Ineffective means difficult, challenging, clumsy, awkward, tedious, slow, not helpful/useful; and
7-Highly Effective means easy, straightforward, clear, efficient, fast, helpful/useful The Briefings and Subject Matter Experts provided to the WG where: 1-Highly Ineffective means inappropriate, untimely, not helpful/useful; and
7-Highly Effective means appropriate, timely, helpful/useful 
Assessment CategoryRating

The Session/Meeting Planning (Agenda) where:
1-Highly Ineffective means disorganized, haphazard, unstructured, untimely notice; and
7-Highly Effective means organized, disciplined, structured, timely notice

1234567SKIP

1234567SKIP
1234567SKIP
Comments:(Free-form Text Box)
IV. Products and Outputs

Thinking about the overall EFFECTIVENESS of the Working Group's Products and Outputs, how would you rate each of the following elements on a scale where 1=Highly Ineffective and 7=Highly Effective:

Assessment CategoryRating

The Working Group's primary Mission where:
1-Highly Ineffective means not achieved and/or accomplished per the Charter; and
7-Highly Effective means completely achieved and/or accomplished as directed

1234567SKIP
The Quality of the WG's outputs (a.k.a. deliverables) where:
1-Highly Ineffective means incomplete, inadequate, materially deficient/flawed, unsupported; and
7-Highly Effective means complete, thorough, exhaustive, reasoned, supported
1234567SKIP
Comments:(Free-form Text Box)
V. Personal Fulfillment and Demographics
Your Chartering Organization is interested to learn about your own

...

Participation and personal

...

Fulfillment as a result of having invested time and effort volunteering on a Working Group. In addition, we have included a few

...

Demographic questions that will assist in understanding and interpreting your feedback. 
Assessment CategoryRating

My personal Participation in helping the WG achieve its mission where:
1-Highly Ineffective means immaterial, negligible, insignificant, unimportant
7-Highly Effective means material, substantial, significant, important

1234567SKIP

My personal Fulfillment considering the time, energy, and work efforts I contributed to this WG:
1-Highly Unrewarding; and
7-Highly Rewarding

1234567SKIP
How did you learn about the WG?

 

Please select one from the drop-down list:

  • I was informed or invited by my SG/C or ICANN-affiliated organization
  • I was contacted by an ICANN Staff member
  • I was contacted by an individual seeking to recruit volunteers for the WG (e.g., GNSO Councilor, interim Chair)
  • I learned about the WG through one of ICANN's websites (or Wikis)
  • I learned about the WG from another organization not directly associated with ICANN
  • A professional colleague or associate informed me about the WG
  • Other (please describe): _________________________________
Approximately how long have you been involved with ICANN:

Please select one from the drop-down list:

    • Less than 1 year
    • 1 - 2 years
    • 2 - 4 years
    • 4 - 6 years
    • 6 - 8 years
    • More than 8 years
Considering the most recent twelve months, on average, approximately how many hours per week do you spend on ICANN-related activities:

Please select one from the drop-down list:

    • Less than 10 hours
    • 10 - 20 hours
    • 20 - 40 hours
    • 40 - 60 hours
    • 60 - 80 hours
    • More than 80 hours
Comments: (Free-form Text Box)

...