Versions Compared

Old Version 3

changes.mady.by.user Ken Bour

Saved on

compared with

New Version 4

changes.mady.by.user Ken Bour

Saved on

Key

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

Working Group Self-Assessment Questionnaire

info
Note

Notes to SCI Members and Other Reviewers:

  1. In this Draft v2 version of the questionnaire, I am attempting to take into consideration
an evaluative element
  1. a dimension raised by Mikey O'Connor and
overlooked
  1. only partially accommodated in Draft v1.
In thinking broadly about any
  1. To evaluate any dynamic system, we
would normally examine three sub-systems:
Note
  1. 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, reorganized some of the original questions, and added a few new ones. 
  2. This Draft v2 also shifts the scale to 7 points as suggested by Avri Doria

Notes to SCI Members and Other Reviewers:

  1. Initially, the questionnaire material is presented in plain text for the purposes of editing/finalizing the content. Once the design, structure, sequencing, and language have been approved, the intention is to enter the questions into an online tool (e.g., QuestionPro, SurveyMonkey, Wiki) to facilitate data collection, analysis, and reporting.
  2. I recommend a 5-point versus 7-point scale for this purpose. The principle advantage is that it is easier (less stressful) for respondents to make selections when the option set is smaller. The disadvantage is that the statistics will generally exhibit more central tendency (toward the mid-point or 3) because the scale is narrower.
  3. All of this material is submitted as DRAFT and I welcome the SCI's feedback, questions, and challenges. For example, you will notice that I did not insert a question to assess Leadership because I think it can be inferred based upon other dimensions (e.g., Participation, Behavior). If a Chair, or other leader, contributed to an ineffective and inhospitable climate, we would hope to see one or more supplementary text comments to that effect.
  4. I have not attempted to complete this questionnaire to determine length. It "feels" to be within an acceptable range based upon others I have designed; however, we should perform a test to ensure that it (a) can be completed in a reasonable period; and (b) is clear, comprehensible, and straightforward.

...

Welcome and Introduction

Thank you for accepting the invitation to complete this questionnaire concerning your experiences with the __________________________ Working Group (WG). Your Chartering Organization (CO) and other ICANN stakeholders are keenly interested in learning about the effectiveness of its chartered teams by asking participants for their assessments, perspectives, and insights concerning various aspects of the Working Group's operations, norms, logistics, decision-making, and outputs. The results of your feedback will be used to identify improvement areas in the guidelines, tools, methods, templates, and procedures applicable to Working Groups. Summary reports will be shared not only with your Working Group, but the larger GNSO stakeholder community. 

...

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.

...

I. Inputs ...includes the charter, team members, tools, and resources.

Thinking about

...

the overall EFFECTIVENESS of the Working Group'

...

s Inputs, how would you rate each of the following elements on a scale

...

where 1=Highly Ineffective

...

 and 7=Highly Effective:

Participation climate within inhospitable, unilateral, frustrating, unproductive5 inviting, democratic, accepting, respectful, productive Behavior disruptive argumentative disrespectful hostile, domineering5 accommodating respectful collaborative consensus-building5
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, untimely, not helpful/useful; and
7-Highly Effective means appropriate, timely, helpful/useful 

1234567SKIP

The Technical Resources (e.g., tools, platforms, support) 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
  
Comments:(Free-form Text Box)

 

II. Norms and Operations
Thinking about the overall EFFECTIVENESS of the Working Group's Norms and Operations, 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
57-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:
Assessment CategoryRating

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

1234567SKIP

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
57-Highly Effective means easy, straightforward, clear, efficient, fast, helpful/useful 

1234567SKIP

The Briefings and Subject Matter Experts provided to the WG where:
1-Highly Ineffective means inappropriate, untimely, not helpful/useful; and
57-Highly Effective means appropriate, timely, helpful/useful 

1234567SKIP
Comments:(Free-form Text Box)

...

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 57=Highly Effective:

Assessment CategoryRating

The Working Group's primary Mission where:
1-Highly Ineffective means not accomplished per the Charter; and
57-Highly Effective means completely 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
57-Highly Effective means complete, thorough, exhaustive, reasoned, supported
1234567SKIP
Comments:(Free-form Text Box)

...

Assessment CategoryRating

My personal Participation in helping the WG achieve its mission where:
1-Highly Ineffective means immaterial, negligible, insignificant, unimportant
57-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
57-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)

...