Re: FW: Maturity model - initial read/thoughts

Hi everyone,

Are we meeting today?

On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 10:55 AM David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com> wrote:

> Hello, everyone. Stacey Swinehart Ganderson will be joining us this week,
> and from here going forward, as our guest. Below is her review of the
> Maturity Model draft. Please review and be prepared to discuss on Wednesday.
>
>
>
> *From: *Stacey Swinehart <stacey.swinehart@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Friday, February 24, 2023 at 1:52 PM
> *To: *David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com>
> *Subject: *Re: Maturity model - initial read/thoughts
>
>
>
> It's a lot, that's why I want to stress that these don't need responses
> from you :)
>
>
>
> *Main questions: How do you envision a team, company, etc. use the model? *
>
> ·         When would they start using this model?
>
> ·         Where do they start/What initial steps would they take?
>
> ·         What happens if they have one person with 8 hours per week or
> less available to be documenting (and doing the due diligence with others
> that they work with to get that data)? Is this model still a feasible
> option for them?
>
>
>
> *Questions that came up as I was reading through each section: *
>
> ·         Is the model only for SDLC/external-facing products? Or, does
> it encompass internal products, experiences, processes? This isn’t clear,
> but at first read of the introduction it seems external facing products
> only.
>
> ·         Integrate stage - who’s creating the roadmap? Or is this
> meaning it’s baked into the roadmap for various teams? Part of OKRs?
>
> ·         I feel like there’s a stage missing between Launch and
> Integrate based on the criteria definition. Or, perhaps launch needs a
> broader scope of definition. Launch in this instance might actually be a
> short timeframe, and how this is defined integrate might be as well.
> There’s a lot of planning and potentially internal research, staffing,
> out-sourcing, etc. that might happen to make the items in integration come
> into play. So integrate feels a bit light on the criteria as well. I feel
> like most of the heavy lifting would occur in launch and integrate but it
> doesn’t read that way to someone that isn’t well versed in what it take to
> build accessibility into their processes and culture.
>
> ·         I would expect training and education (up-skilling) to be
> called out somewhere in this as well as accountability. Who’s accountable?
> While accessibility is everyone’s job, there are definitely structures in
> place in organizations where performance is based on certain things…and
> very rarely is accessibility one of those things. So that would need to be
> a big lever to pull inside of a company becoming more mature.
>
> ·         Are there suggestions for how long things take? Execs love to
> know that even if it’s as ambiguous as “this phase will take as long as it
> takes, or depending on funding and resourcing and the size of your
> organization it can take 2-4 years” (and in some cases how broken the org
> is)
>
> ·         For the overarching maturity rating…how do you know when you
> get to each one via the dimensions? What if you have integrate for most
> things, but not for others? Where do you land on maturity ratings? Is it
> confusing if the dimension ratings are the same as the overarching rating?
> Trying to think about how these ladder up to the overarching one “at a
> glance” or for the non-expert that might be using this.
>
> ·         Do we have suggested steps in how to achieve the dimensions? Is
> that something that W3C would do?
>
> ·         For knowledge and skills - how do they determine what is
> relevant to a role or experience level? What if they don’t have an expert
> on staff? Where can they find insights into making some decisions on that?
> —> if this is listed later in the doc it would be helpful to note that this
> info is provided.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Observations as I was reading:*
>
> ·         executives in an organization as an intended audience…I’m just
> getting into section 2 and it’s already too long for execs. They’ll pass
> this off to a person or a team. They want a TLDR on what the model IS not
> the definitions, dimensions, how to do it, etc. They’re going to pawn if
> off (sorry, delegate) to someone else.
>
> ·         can it fit onto 2 slides, and then the “now what” for next
> steps.
>
> ·         A company may have to do a separate assessment of their current
> practices before they can even start on a model/the assessment in this
> model.
>
> ·         Would love to see a more “how to” type of document to
> compliment this document. Like a toolkit for a company or a team to use.
> “now that you have this info, here’s how you can go use it ASAP without
> tons of training.” — here’s the WHY and the WHAT now here’s the HOW.
>
> ·         I know this is trying to be agnostic so it can cover a wide
> variety of businesses, education, government… But as I'm looking at the
> proof point section, I could see where something like this could be broken
> up into areas that match more closely to how an entity might be structured
> for better understanding of how it affects how they run. For example, a
> large corporation has an operations area. Accessible communications might
> fall into operational standards (or even HR, depending). There’s a lot of
> assumption in organizations that accessibility doesn’t reach into those
> operational areas in the org, and if that’s not clear how will they be set
> up for better success to implement these types of broad-reaching
> changes/needs?
>
> ·         I think it’s possible for an org to move back and forth between
> a stage based on how they’re prioritizing, funding and staffing the
> initiatives. Similar to the design phases within SDLC. Teams might go back
> and forth depending on new insights/data, prioritization and staffing, or
> even if there’s a pivot.
>
> ·         I like how there are ratings for the dimensions. I don’t think
> I caught that earlier in the introduction that this would be the case.
>
> ·         Looking at the spreadsheet (and I wasn’t sure on which tabs
> were the newest or ones I should look at) - the spaces for evidence make it
> seem like an easy thing to track and then list out. But it can be really
> weighty and time consuming. And what if one or two teams are doing amazing
> but others are struggling? How does that affect how you document and
> evaluate maturity in this model? Could be cool to have the evidence
> evaluation for the gaps so they know where to shore up and focus (that
> might be the intention here already?).
>
> ·         I can see this being very overwhelming and just documenting
> everything on an on-going basis could be someone’s full time job. Many
> companies don’t provide a program manager, product, TPM or other to assist
> in accessibility efforts. This may be quite hard for many to implement.
>
> ·         Looking at the first tab for spider graph, this is actually a
> very simple and easy way to understand experience and maturity and is
> commonly used in performance evaluations/discussions and competencies. I
> actually wonder if there’s a simple version for people without experts or
> for smaller businesses that will need less. Maybe there’s something in this
> model as a first step into how to start and build this journey?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 3:43 PM David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com> wrote:
>
> No worries. That’d be great
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2023, at 10:22 PM, Stacey Swinehart <stacey.swinehart@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Hey there!
>
> I dug into the model a bit so I can be ready to listen and understand for
> the next meeting. I have some initial thoughts and questions. None of them
> require a response, just more of a brain dump. Do you want me to email
> those to you?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Stacey
>
>