Page History
...
My current thinking is that the most important dimension to understand is how EFFECTIVE the WG was in its operations, behaviors, and protocols leading (or not) to the achievement of its mission. In particular, the WG Guidelines and Charter are important tools developed to help WGs become more effective; however, they are not ends in themselves. As a result, I do not think we should ask questions about how well organized or even useful these documents are to WG members. One reason is that a team of intelligent and committed ICANN volunteers (WG-WT) spent the better part of a year going over every paragraph to ensure that the end products were appropriately organized, thorough, clear, and useful. Apart from evaluating the broader set of tools/support that a WG is eligible to receive, we should depend upon WG members to single out any particular document(s) that are especially useful or in need of revision. A person who has participated in many WGs may never need to consult the Guidelines having learned through experience how to be a valued contributor. In my view, it is more important to know if the WG itself was effective in its forming, storming, norming, and producing stages. If any critical element of the WG process is perceived to be ineffective and the survey explanations/reasons are insufficient for proper diagnosis, the Chartering Organization can and probably should investigate further arranging follow-up interviews with WG members.
...
Individual Member (separately)
- Possible
Possible to obtain opinions and viewpoints (anonymously) that might never be acknowledged admitted or conceded by the entire group. - More More efficient to ask each individual for impressions and perspectives than to ask a group to coalesce around a single representation. A team might consider the such a self-assessment task to be more challenging and difficult (obtaining consensus) than its original mission.
- It
It may be difficult more challenging to gain an overall impression of the WG's process experience by examining individual perspectives.
Entire Team (collectively)
- A A group characterization, if achieved through consensus, may be the most balanced and informative because it will have been discussed openly by all members.
- If If a WG was dominated by one or two individuals or labored under weak leadership, that type of information would likely might be suppressed in a collective assessment unless individuals are permitted to submit minority reports. Similarly, if something negative occurred that could represent a learning opportunity or process improvement, a team may be reluctant to admit shortcomings, failures, or "air its laundry" in public.
| Note |
|---|
It is certainly possible to incorporate both types of assessments. Perhaps there are one or two overarching questions that the group could entertain collectively leaving the remainder to be answered individually. This issue can be considered as the questionnaire itself takes form... |
Demographic Information and Anonymity
I recommend that the following data fields be captured for each WG Member in order to ensure that (1) all participants' views have been registered, and (2) that no spurious (or duplicate) entries have been entered intentionally or accidentally. Respondents should be informed that anonymity will be safeguarded:
...
- Pros:
- ICANN has accounts with both services
- QuestionPro was used successfully for the Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey (2011) and the Globalization Survey (2012)
- SurveyMonkey has been used successfully for a number of GNSO questionnaires
- Anonymity of responses can be safeguarded under both services
- Cons:
- QuestionPro requires some expertise to input/modify questions and download/analyze the results
...
