Re: [Maturity] Model Task Force 04-10-24 Meeting Agenda

Keith,



Thank you for your April 10th note to the MM group with regard the work / version of the assessment tool you presented to our subgroup several months ago. I wanted to provide a quick summary of the team’s conclusions to the presentation at that time and provide some additional comments / questions with regard to the referenced note as well.



At that time, the subgroup determined that while there is nothing to preclude using your version of assessment tool as proposed and presented to both the scoring subgroup and the overall chartered MM workgroup for your use, it was unclear that the added complexity provided additional benefit / meaning. As a bit of history, our subgroup the team was formed with the specific objective to revise and simplify the assessment tool scoring method previously published, for ease of use and to help facilitate the use of our model / assessment tool as an industry best practice, if not a de facto “standard” published as a W3C note. We believe the team has accomplished this objective.



Please see my comments below encapsulated in <jk> <jk> in response to the 5 benefit you outlined.

Alignment with Priorities: Weighted assessment tool allows organizations to align the assessment tool with their specific priorities, emphasizing dimensions and proof points most crucial for the organization’s success. <jk> Every organization has unique qualities and culture. There is nothing in the current version of assessment tool and scoring methodology that prevents them from prioritizing proof points or even dimensions based on various factors…risk, business need, market differentiation, regulation, etc. What is important is driving these high priority proof points to full maturity, and it’s unclear how weighting itself facilitates getting the proof points to the end stage of full maturity. <jk>

Customization for Specific Needs: Weighted assessment tool enables customization of the maturity assessment tool to address the unique needs and goals regarding accessibility different organizations. <jk> Similar to my comment above, there is nothing in the current assessment tool that prevents customization. In fact, we have designed the assessment tool to accommodate the addition of new proof points or removal of proof points deemed not applicable.  One overarching point is that no two organizations will have the same priorities and introducing weightings in a generalized model like ours,  could steer priorities in the wrong direction for some organizations. Also, too much variability in the customization of the assessment tool from one company to another reduces its benefit if used as a comparative tool when evaluating competitive vendors in the procurement process. (This is currently done in today using the PDAA model in multiple states) The more consistency in its use, the less confusion in the marketplace, and easier to compare vendors and their commitments to accessibility.(Another example of this would be the VPAT Templates as the standard format for reporting ICT accessibility industry wide. <jk>

Precision in Evaluation: Weighted assessment tool allows for a more precise evaluation of maturity by assigning appropriate weights to each stage of maturity.  The result recognizes the inherent inequity and bias within maturity assessment while allowing for nuanced assessment. <jk> In general, maturity assessments by their very nature,  are somewhat subjective, not meant to be precise, don’t need to be. They do need the ability to show assess states of maturity and evaluate maturity progress as snapshots in time. Determining what stage a proof point may sometimes even be a judgement call and not driven by metrics. With that said, I would be interested in better understanding what is meant by “inherent inequality and bias” <jk>

Incentivizing Improvement: By assigning weights to stages of maturity, weighted assessment tool incentivizes organizations to prioritize efforts in areas that have the most significant impact on accessibility maturity. The result encourages them to allocate resources and focus on initiatives that drive meaningful improvements. <jk> Wouldn’t the organization’s own established prioritization (project management 101 😊 ) and proof point progression into higher stages accomplish this already in a simpler fashion? It’s unclear how adding the complexity of adding weighting to our current assessment tool and assessment tool methodology would be a better approach <jk>

Strategic Resource Allocation: Weighted assessment tool facilitates strategic decision-making by providing clarity on where resources should be allocated to maximize the impact on accessibility maturity. The result will help organizations identify areas that require immediate attention and prioritize areas for improvement accordingly. <jk> As in my previous comment…why wouldn’t the organization’s established prioritization (project management 101 😊 ) and proof points progression into higher stages accomplish this already in a more simple fashion? It’s unclear how adding the complexity of weighting to our current assessment tool and assessment tool methodology would be a better approach <jk>



I just would like to reiterate…there is nothing to prevent someone from using the current assessment tool scoring as a departure point, expanding it, or customizing it for a specific organization or application, but adding additional complexity to the assessment tool that we are working to simplify to help ensure high adoption is contrary to the groups approach. The fear is that adding complexity will inhibit adoption of the model.

If you would like to pursue further, I suggest that we have another working session with you and the assessment tool scoring group to go through some of the comments in response to your points to better understand the rationale for weighting. There may be something that could be somehow addressed another way.

Please let us know how you would like to proceed.

Regards,


[A picture containing text, black, clock  Description automatically generated]<http://strategicaccessibility.com/>
    jeffrey.l.kline@gmail.com
    5  1  2  .  4  2  6  .  9   7  7  9

From: Keith Newton <newtonsgroove2@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 9:53 AM
To: Nadine Auer <auer@hdm-stuttgart.de>
Cc: public-maturity@w3.org <public-maturity@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [Maturity] Model Task Force 04-10-24 Meeting Agenda
FYI:  I may miss today's meeting due to a conflict but I wanted to send a few notes on the scoring:

I think the moidel really needs the benefits of weighted scoring.  Here are five (5) ways in which the weighted scoring provides benefit to users of the model:

Alignment with Priorities: Weighted scoring allows organizations to align the model with their specific priorities, emphasizing dimensions and proof points most crucial for the organization’s success.

Customization for Specific Needs: Weighted scoring enables customization of the maturity model to address the unique needs and goals regarding accessibility different organizations

Precision in Evaluation: Weighted scoring allows for a more precise evaluation of maturity by assigning appropriate weights to each stage of maturity.  The result recognizes the inherent inequity and bias within maturity assessment while allowing for nuanced assessment.

Incentivizing Improvement: By assigning weights to stages of maturity, weighted scoring incentivizes organizations to prioritize efforts in areas that have the most significant impact on accessibility maturity. The result  encourages them to allocate resources and focus on initiatives that drive meaningful improvements.

Strategic Resource Allocation: Weighted scoring facilitates strategic decision-making by providing clarity on where resources should be allocated to maximize the impact on accessibility maturity. The result will help organizations identify areas that require immediate attention and prioritize areas for improvement accordingly.

I'll try to attend later in the meeting if my conflict ends early.  Chat soon :)

Dr.  Keith Newton (Call me "Dr. Keith")
Executive Leader and Strategic a11y in Digital Accessibility Experience
614-654-4116<tel:%28614%29%20654-4116> | https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-keith-newton  | newtonsgroove2@gmail.com<mailto:newtonsgroove2@gmail.com>


On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 6:08 AM Nadine Auer <auer@hdm-stuttgart.de<mailto:auer@hdm-stuttgart.de>> wrote:
Regrets for today.

Best wishes
Nadine

David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com<mailto:dfazio@helixopp.com>> hat am 10. April 2024 um 02:59 geschrieben:

Here are the Minutes from our last meeting:



https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-maturity-minutes.html




Email Archive:



https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-maturity/




What:  Maturity Model Weekly Teleconference



When: Wednesday 10 April 2024



11:00 AM        Boston -- U.S. Eastern  Time            (EDT: UTC -4:00)



Corresponding times in other time zones are:



http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Maturity+Model+Subgroup+Teleconference&iso=20240410T11&p1=43&ah=1




Where:  Zoom Teleconference Service



Please access Zoom via the link below:



https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_maturity-model




IRC: irc.w3.org<http://irc.w3.orgqhKKY57jjn8X4XvUUNZK7qRiY9WrlWsQ6AjP9AIhAK6GwkarYyHv7O099KZWMixgDit8-uqdc3DQ4IV3uwMn> Channel: #maturity



Agenda



Agenda+ New Business





Agenda+ Github Issues 43, 78, 85, 102, 103, 104 (Usability doc feedback)<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Wrhomdc2gJWIkDPOveiH3_ig1bddTMonEhIDZIzohrc/edit#heading=h.93exgeg396jg>



Agenda+ Maturity Model Scoring Subgroup Update





Agenda+ Github Issue #107 Definition of "Full maturity" needs to be adjusted, as there is no need to optimize anymore by then<https://github.com/w3c/maturity-model/issues/107>





David Fazio, President | [signature_1633184954] <https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidpfazio/>



[Helix Opportunity Logo]|[signature_1943303136]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helixopportunity>

W. www.helixopp.com<http://www.helixopp.com> P. +1 415.882.6034



[2023 Official National Minority Supplier Diversity Council Minority Business Enterprise Seal]     [Disability-Owned Business Enterprise Badge]      [International Association of Accessibility Professionals Organizational Member Badge]      [2023 HRCI Approved Provider Seal]      [Society for Human Resource Management Approved Provider Badge]






Nadine Auer
wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin im Projekt SHUFFLE<https://www.shuffle-projekt.de/>

Hochschule der Medien Stuttgart
Nobelstraße 10
70569 Stuttgart
Tel: 0711-8923-3081
E-Mail: auer@hdm-stuttgart.de<mailto:auer@hdm-stuttgart.de>