Meeting minutes
<gb> /issues/101 -> #101
<gb> /issues/107 -> #107
Document link for today's agenda item one: https://
New Business
Maturity Model Scoring Subgroup Update
jeff: scoring item that was simple to understand, came from conversations with Charles from his presentation. What are some better ways to do the metrics?
… decide that what we really cared about the most in proofpoints, what proof point was in what stage, with the goal of getting each one to optimize. Instead of granularity in each stage either a proof point is in a stage or not. That will have some subjectivity to it, of course.
Janina: can you attach the resource to the public maturity list/email so it gets to all of us and the archive?
Jeff: every proof point, at any given time it will only be in one stage. Signified it by numeral 1, but it can be a checkmark or other.
… if you go to the bottom there's a simple sum up of the items that have the tick marks/checkbox/number. Total proof points in each stage will be displayed. Then you can turn that into a percentage.
… Another way that might be less complex to look at. They created a more simplistic view of the spreadsheet. First column has definition of goals and outcomes for each stage, then selected the stage from a dropdown in a status column, then tabulate results at the bottom of the columns (the sample has placeholder values)
… there are multiple ways to look at the totals. Graphics, dashboard, list, etc.
Jeff: the images in the sample don't have alt text, will aim to get a future version in a more accessible format with the work in progress.
Fazio: maybe we have a select your chart type?
Jeff: you want to see the progression in each dimension
… current spreadsheet had more granularity in each stage. Instead of being in the stage or not in the stage it showed different levels inside of the stage (like partially started, etc.). That's a lot to measure and manage, especially with the subjectivity. So if it has some activity, it gets some credit in that stage.
Charles: the other thing here, i like having the one column of the states, less scrolling to see all of the states, you just are in column D and change that state from inactive to launch to optimize, etc and still have the comment section right beside it. Managing the spreadsheet is hard. People might fil in part of it and forget to make other states complete. This eliminates that hassle and would have made a huge difference at Benetech.
Mark: the one question we have, we have a percentage of completion for each dimension which is valuable (how far have you gotten and how far do you have left to go? Great reporting feature for execs). Should we aggregate that into an overall score for the organization? As an organization, here's where we're at?
Dr. Keith: I don't think there's a way to avoid that. People want to know the overall score.
sheri: no matter what we do, someone will have some sort of frustration. We need to provide the ability to see overall score and drill on into those and break it into individual stages.
Jeff: if ultimate goal is to get everything to optimize, you can come up with a score, meaning you can look at all the proof points you have in your model. Out of those there's a total number that's complete. SO you might have 17% of total proof points complete. That's the number you want to have increase.
… I think it has to be off of the number of proof points. Optimize at the end of the day that matters.
Dr. Keith: (showed a different screen) Looking at where you're doing well and where things can be approved might be best to be defined by this group rather than outside/independent (less ambiguity)
… in Jeff's tool, are they leveraging the unweighted score? Abandoning the weighted score?
Jeff: Yes. They don't require weightings. It's in a state or it's not. Count up proof points in those stages.
Charles: Should we have a weighted scoring system? One reason for yes- better to be in optimize. If in launch or integrate, so you're further along. Gives more weight as you progress. Will be intersting to see if you get a better picture if it's weighted or not weighted.
Jeff: the weighting and granularity is what we were looking at removing. Does it reallly give you the info you need? How many proof points do you have in a stage? Do you really need extra credit per stage? Just trying to move tick marks to the next stage. Will anyone use the model if it's too complex?
Sheri: Idea behind weighted score, all dimensions are equal but some dimensions are more equal than others. If you have a low score in knowledge and skills, it's really hard to get a higher score in something else.