Working Group Self-Assessment Questionnaire

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. 

If you have any questions or concerns about this self-assessment instrument, please send an email to: ___________________________ and we will try to address them promptly. 

This questionnaire is organized into five sections and should take approximately _____ minutes to complete. Although most of the questions will ask you for an effectiveness rating (1-5 Scale), there will be an opportunity within each major section to add free-form text comments. You are encouraged to provide supplementary explanations or other supporting information that will help the Chartering Organization understand and interpret your input. If there is any individual question for which you do not wish to provide a rating, a SKIP option is available. 

I. Personal Identifying Information (Required)

Anonymity Provision: Although this assessment instrument is requesting personal identifying information, it is being done ONLY as a preventive measure to ensure that (a) all WG Members' input has been received and (b) any spurious or duplicate entries do not undermine or contaminate the value of the feedback to the Chartering Organization. Please be assured that: (1) your individual responses will not be accessible by anyone other than the ICANN Staff Administrator; and (2) they will not be disclosed or published in a way that could be matched to your identity without your express permission. 

Name: 
Email: 
Organization:

Please select one from the drop-down list:

    • Registry Stakeholder Group
    • Registrar Statkeholder Group
    • Business Constituency
    • Intellectual Property Constituency
    • Internet Services Provider Constituency
    • Non-Commercial Users Constituency
    • Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency
    • At-Large/ALAC
    • Other ICANN SO/AC
    • Representing Self
    • Other (please describe): _____________________
Working Group Role:

Please select one from the drop-down list:

    • Leader (Chair, Co-Chair, Vice-Chair, Other Officer)
    • Contributing Member
    • Liaison
    • Observer
    • Advisor/Consultant
    • Support (e.g., secretary, technical, administrative)
    • Other (please describe): _____________________

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. 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 5=Highly Effective:
Assessment CategoryRating

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

12345SKIP
The Behavior of WG members where:
1-Highly Ineffective means disruptive, argumentative, disrespectful, hostile, domineering; and
5-Highly Effective means accommodating, respectful, collaborative, consensus-building
12345SKIP

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

12345SKIP

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

12345SKIP
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 5=Highly Effective:
Assessment CategoryRating

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

12345SKIP

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

12345SKIP

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

12345SKIP
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 5=Highly Effective:

Assessment CategoryRating

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

12345SKIP
The Quality of the WG's outputs (a.k.a. deliverables) where:
1-Highly Ineffective means incomplete, inadequate, materially deficient/flawed, unsupported; and
5-Highly Effective means complete, thorough, exhaustive, reasoned, supported
12345SKIP
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
5-Highly Effective means material, substantial, significant, important

12345SKIP

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

12345SKIP
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)
Please feel free to provide any additional comments about your Working Group experience,
this Self-Assessment, or any other matter not covered elsewhere in this questionnaire:		(Free-form Text Box)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR FEEDBACK! 

***END***

  • No labels

2 Comments

  1. Avri Doria

    I recommend stressing people with a seven scale.

    The anonymity clause is problematic.  so while it should be restricted to group members, it should not be visible to anyone unless they give their permission for it to be open.

    working group role: i recommend adding  Background Contributor  (someone who mostly just tracks unless they want to register an issue, but is not an observer)

    i don't know what to say about personal fulfillment questions.  can't figure out how i would answer that from previous workgroups.

     

     

    1. Ken Bour

      Avri:

      • 7-point scale. I actually started with the larger scale, both for the Stakeholder Sat survey and this one. ICANN management opted to shrink to 5 points for the former so I followed suit in this case. It is easy to shift and I am happy to make that change if the SCI concurs. This is exactly the type of feedback I was seeking before we commit to an online format. 
      • Anonymity: My intention was to protect/safeguard the individual's identity except to the Administrator unless permission is expressly granted. How can I change the disclaimer wording to accommodate your concern?
      • Background Contributor: Sounds good to me if that terminology will be understood by most respondents and the distinction is useful for analysis purposes. 
      • Personal Fulfillment: I smiled when I read your comment. My thinking was simply that the bottom-up process requires a TON of work on the part of many volunteers. If there was something we could say, legitimately, about how rewarding the experience is for people, it might be helpful in future recruiting efforts. If we learn, through the self-assessment, that the WG process is NOT personally rewarding for a majority of volunteers, then there is important work yet to be done so that people do feel that their time was well spent. Maybe the wording needs tweaking?

      Thanks for your blazingly fast feedback. I had barely finished editing my own pages! (big grin)