Working Group Self-Assessment Questionnaire

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.

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 the most descriptive role that you fulfilled on the WG from the drop-down list:

    • Leader (Chair, Co-Chair, Vice-Chair, Other Officer)
    • Contributing Member
    • Background Contributor
    • 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. Inputs ...includes the charter/mission, 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:

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, templates) 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 about the WG's Inputs: (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, inclusive, 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

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
Comments about the WG's Processes:(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 about the WG's Products and Outputs:(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 about Personal Fulfillment and Demographics:  (Free-form Text Box)
Additional Comments:
(Please feel free to provide any additional feedback 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

3 Comments

  1. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

    Questions:

    1. Is participants' personal information (Name etc...) really required?
    2. Assessment category "democratic" (under "Processes") maybe  too close to political perceptions. Perhaps "inclusive"?
    3. Personal fulfillment(V.): can we realle expect answers meaning "immaterial, negligible, insignificant, unimportant"?

    In addition we should take into consideration that the whole assessment story for the participants should take at a maximum not more than 5 to 8 minutes

    1. Ken Bour

      Wolf-Ulrich:

      The following is my response to your questions above:

      1. Personal information is not required, but there are two reasons I recommend collecting it: (a) we need some way to ensure that the assessment instrument is not spammed or that we do not receive duplicate entries; and (b) if an individual gives consent that he/she can be contacted about any particular answers subsequently, we would need the identifying information. 
      2. Excellent word choice. I have substituted "inclusive" for "democratic."
      3. The intent was to create unambiguous behavioral anchors on the scale extremes (1, 7). I would not anticipate anyone rating his/her participation as a 1, but we might see a 2 or a 3 under certain circumstances. In thinking further about this dimension, perhaps this would be a better alternative:
        1. My personal Participation in helping the WG achieve its mission:
          1-Highly Disengaged; and
          7-Highly Engaged 

      In the Design Considerations section, I recommended using 30 minutes as the "not to exceed" limit for the questionnaire, which I had determined in prior survey research to be a reasonable standard. If the SCI decides to restrict the time to 10 minutes or less, then we already have way too much content. 

      Ken

      1. Ken Bour

        With respect to #3a above, I made the alternative change in Questionnaire (Draft v3).