SCI Team Members: I recognize that everyone is busy especially in this period just before the next ICANN meeting. In order to keep moving forward on the WG Self-Assessment project, I propose that I begin the process of programming the current questionnaire into an online tool. In this case, after evaluating the pros/cons, I am inclined to utilize QuestionPro <http://www.questionpro.com/> because of its excellent features including security protection and back-end reporting. Once it is operational, I would then suggest that we open the questionnaire to a limited test. One suggestion would be to invite 6-10 individuals who have recently served on a Working Group and ask them if they would complete the instrument and, then, comment upon its ease-of-use, time (< 30 minutes), clarity, et al. Unless I hear differently, I will begin building an online version in QuestionPro so that the SCI can see how this instrument will actually appear to future Working Group members who participate in the self-assessment. Taking this action does not mean that we cannot continue making further changes and improvements to the questionnaire, but my sense is that it we are ready to proceed to this next phase of the project. Ken Bour From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 12:08 PM To: Ken Bour Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire (Draft v3) hi Ken, i'm on board with all your proposed changes. i think this is getting really close to "ship it!" for me. :-) mikey On Jul 4, 2013, at 11:28 AM, Ken Bour <ken.bour@verizon.net> wrote: SCI Team Members: After our last teleconference (2 July), I continued my own evaluation of the questionnaire looking for ways to sharpen and improve it including addressing your feedback received thus far. I developed a new Draft v3 for your review at: <https://community.icann.org/x/eEZ-Ag> https://community.icann.org/x/eEZ-Ag. In this version of the questionnaire, I made the following substantive changes: 1. The "Expertise" question (Section II) was modified in an attempt to address Ron's observation about the expected variability in team members' knowledge/skill. 2. Tangential to Ron's concern, I added a new disclaimer in the note just before Section II to explain how respondents might approach the challenge of assigning individual ratings to complex dimensions. 3. In Section V, I substituted "Engagement" for "Participation" and changed the wording of the first question to address Wolf-Ulrich's feedback entered as a comment to Draft v2. 4. I elected to break out Personal Dimensions and Demographics into two independent sections. Each one represents a logically distinct category; furthermore, the table headings simply did not apply correctly to the Demographics questions. 5. Added a third question to the Personal Dimensions which I labeled "Willingness-to-Serve" for want of a better noun. This question seeks to understand whether the WG experience influences one's propensity to serve again in the future assuming all other conditions (e.g., topic, need/fit, availability) are favorable. In other words, are we systematically building or eroding volunteer capacity? I look forward to your feedback on this third iteration of the WG Self-Assessment instrument. As you may know, I will not be present in Durban; however, if the team wishes to continue working on this project and would like my involvement, I am willing to join in any/all sessions remotely if technical conditions (e.g., room connections) permit. Regards, Ken PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)