Re: Minutes: [Maturity] Model Task Force 06-05-24 Meeting Agenda

Regrets for today. I'm out of town.

sent from my phone

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024, 1:25 AM David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com> wrote:

> I’ve reviewed the Google doc that we are updating the Editor’s draft with
> to see if Jason’s request about including monitoring effectiveness has been
> addressed. It appears every dimension has at least one stage where
> effectiveness is somehow monitored. I’ve pasted the findings below. We will
> discuss tomorrow and should be able to resolve Github Issue 154.
>
> Communications:
>
>
>
> The level is in *Optimize* when proof points demonstrate that::
>
>    - authoring, editing, and reviewing processes, procedures, and tools
>    are in place, used consistently, and are regularly evaluated and refined to
>    ensure that all internal and external communications are fully accessible
>    - accessible communications training relevant to each individual’s
>    position is required, measured, and monitored for improvement.
>
>
>
>
>
> Proof Points:
>
>
>
> None listed
>
>
>
> Knowledge and Skills
>
>
>
> The level is in *Optimize* when proof points demonstrate that:
>
>    - all personnel position descriptions, hiring announcements, and
>    project management consistently communicate the required and preferred
>    accessibility knowledge and skills
>    - the workforce is periodically evaluated to ensure knowledge and
>    skills are current with the most up-to-date standards and accessibility
>    practices
>    - training is part of the onboarding process
>    - periodic analysis has been used to identify gaps in knowledge as
>    well as training materials
>    - annual training (conferences, events, online, etc.) is provided to
>    maintain skills current with ICT accessibility requirements and industry
>    best practices
>    - workforce inclusion training incorporates accessibility for persons
>    with disabilities, and certification programs are available
>    - tracking systems are in place and consistently used to maintain
>    training inventory, measure skills, and track completion
>    - training to enhance accessibility knowledge and skills relevant to
>    each individual’s position is required, measured, and monitored for
>    improvement.
>
>
>
> Proof Points:
>
>
>
> *3.2.2.1 Assessing Current Skills to Identify and Address Gaps*
>
> Assessments may include:
>
>    - organizational surveys that identify current skill levels and gaps
>    - tracking employee training for ICT accessibility skills
>    - certification or competency reviews and programs
>    - accessibility criteria integration into employee performance
>    measurements.
>
>
>
> Support
>
>
>
> The level is in *Optimize* when proof points demonstrate that:
>
>    - fully trained customer support staff able to support users'
>    accessibility questions
>    - multiple ways to communicate with technical support that meets the
>    needs of customers with disabilities are provided
>    - ICT accessibility support is available for all internally and
>    externally used ICT
>    - training programs are in place for ICT support staff, and staff has
>    been trained
>    - continuous improvement plans are ongoing
>    - accessibility support training relevant to each individual’s
>    position is required, measured, and monitored for improvement.
>
>
>
> Proof Points
>
>
>
> *3.3.2 Proof Points*
>
>
>
> Support proof points may include but are not limited to:
>
>    - written policy on requesting and providing employee ICT-related
>    accommodations
>    - publicly available (and accessible) web accessibility statement with
>    pointers to support mechanisms
>    - support mechanisms are accessible
>    - help topics or FAQs that are specific to accessibility
>    - training for customer support agents (or internal ICT support staff)
>    in accessibility, assistive technology, and disability etiquette and
>    awareness
>    - established disability-focused employee resource groups (ERG) with
>    executive sponsorship
>    - validation process in place to manage accessibility feedback
>    - accessibility feedback is incorporated to facilitate continuous
>    improvement of identified ICT
>    - defined and documented methods to evaluate the effectiveness of
>    accessibility support, actively in use.
>
>
>
> ICT Development Lifecycle
>
>
>
> The level is in *Integrate* when proof points demonstrate that:
>
>    - there are ongoing process improvement efforts for accessibility in
>    the ICT development lifecycle per role or discipline
>    - accessibility requirements are considered and practiced but not
>    consistently applied during ICT design, development, and testing across the
>    ICT portfolio
>    - remediation of existing products, applications, and websites has
>    started
>
>
>    - training on ICT development lifecycle accessibility, relevant to
>    each individual’s position, has started.
>
> The level is in *Optimize* when proof points demonstrate that:
>
>    - there’s an ICT development accessibility thought leader at the
>    organization who adheres to a structural, standardized, and reporting
>    approach
>    - design specifications include accessibility guidance, developers
>    consistently create accessible User Interfaces (UI), manual and automated
>    accessibility testing is performed during development, and automated
>    accessibility testing is incorporated into Continuous
>    Integration/Continuous Delivery (CI/CD) build pipelines
>    - release management includes gates for accessibility quality
>    - maintenance releases are re-inspected for accessibility
>    - ACRs are updated and made available, as needed, for procurable ICT
>    - research deliberately seeks out and evaluates input from users with
>    disabilities
>
>
>    - ICT development lifecycle accessibility training, relevant to each
>    individual’s position, is required, measured, and monitored for improvement.
>
>
>
> Proof Points
>
>
>
> None
>
>
>
> Personnel
>
>
>
> The level is in *Optimize* when proof points demonstrate that:
>
>    - employees with disabilities are leveraged throughout the organization
>    <https://w3c.github.io/maturity-model/#dfn-organization> to achieve
>    full ICT accessibility maturity
>    - organization-wide, disability inclusion staffing efforts are
>    well-defined, evaluated, remediated, and integrated with ICT accessibility
>    efforts and goals across the organization
>    - employees with disabilities hold critical decision-making positions
>    and are included in all areas of the organization to drive accessibility in
>    every facet of the business
>    - the disability employee resource group (ERG) is leveraged to inform
>    accessibility decision-making
>    - employees with disabilities are leveraged to audit accessibility
>    - employees with disabilities are leveraged for product development
>    - employees with disabilities are leveraged for the development of
>    accessible services.
>
> Proof Points
>
>
>
> *3.5.2.1 Recruiting*
>
>    - established goals for recruiting employees with disabilities
>    - hiring announcements with diversity statements encouraging and
>    attracting applications from people with disabilities
>    - a gap analysis or needs assessment to understand where the business
>    is falling short of including applicants with disabilities
>    - preferential hiring initiatives to recruit employees with
>    disabilities, where not prohibited by law
>
> Procurement
>
>
>
> The level is in *Optimize* when proof points demonstrate that:
>
>    - full and consistent use of accessibility processes, criteria,
>    contract language, and decision-making to procure and maintain accessible
>    products and services throughout the procurement life cycles
>    - procurement processes are regularly reviewed and refined as needed
>    - training on accessibility procurement knowledge and skills relevant
>    to each individual’s position is required, and improvement is measured and
>    monitored.
>
>
>
> Proof Points
>
>
>
> *3.6.2.5 Accessibility in Procurement Program Management*
>
>    - an accessibility audit to determine where the procurement program
>    system is not meeting accessibility requirements has been conducted
>    - lifecycle of procurement contracts has a defined, documented, and
>    tracked lifecycle
>    - procurement-related accessibility metrics are tracked and documented
>    - a defined process for identifying and addressing complaints
>
>
>
> Culture
>
>
>
> The level is in *Integrate* when proof points demonstrate that:
>
>    - cultural programs have been created and initially deployed
>    - metrics have been established, and hiring practices have been
>    implemented
>    - policies are in place with partial execution
>    - diversity and inclusion are promoted, but no action plan has been
>    developed
>    - communities of practice have been established
>
>
>    - training on accessibility culture knowledge and skills relevant to
>    each individual’s position has started.
>
> The level is in *Optimize* when proof points demonstrate that:
>
>    - there’s a strong cultural awareness, appreciation, sensitivity, and
>    support for all aspects of ICT accessibility and people with disabilities
>    - policies, processes, and practices are in place, used consistently,
>    and regularly reviewed and refined as needed
>    - all employees understand and are sensitive to the importance of ICT
>    accessibility and how it fits within their roles and responsibilities. They
>    also appreciate the value of a diverse population within and outside the
>    organization <https://w3c.github.io/maturity-model/#dfn-organization>
>    - training on accessibility culture knowledge and skills relevant to
>    each individual’s position is required, measured, and monitored for
>    improvement
>
>
>
> Proof Points
>
>
>
> *3.7.2.1 Organizational Culture of Disability Inclusion*
>
>    - executive sponsor for digital accessibility
>    - executive-level digital accessibility program leadership
>    - executive statement of the organization’s commitment to digital
>    accessibility
>    - IT accessibility policy in place and implemented
>    - a proactive approach to digital accessibility included in business
>    strategy
>    - digital accessibility promotion as a market differentiator included
>    in business strategy
>    - core values incorporate digital accessibility as a necessity for
>    disability inclusion
>    - code of conduct includes digital accessibility
>    - diversity, equity, and inclusion activities include a disability
>    focus
>    - communities of practice include a digital accessibility focus
>    - ICT accessibility criteria are integrated into employee/officer
>    performance plans (if relevant)
>    - mandated and monitored employee support for digital accessibility
>    and disability inclusion
>    - monitoring and improvement of digital accessibility program
>    - accessibility and disability inclusion-specific questions included
>    in regular employee satisfaction surveys
>    - defined and documented process for employee feedback on
>    accessibility and disability-inclusion efforts
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Jeff Kline <jeffrey.l.kline@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, June 5, 2024 at 9:48 AM
> *To: *Susana Pallero <susipalleroarguello@gmail.com>, Maturity Model TF <
> public-maturity@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, David Fazio <
> dfazio@helixopp.com>
> *Subject: *Re: Minutes: [Maturity] Model Task Force 06-05-24 Meeting
> Agenda
>
>
>
> David,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the discussion today on how to integrate Metrics and goals into
> the model.
>
>
>
> For next week’s call, I would to propose that the *other members of the
> team the team share their thoughts on the topic / implementation and how /
> where include this in the model.*
>
>
>
> On further investigation using the latest (Stacey document) language in
> the Procurement Dimension,  there is currently a proof point here:
>
> *3.6.2.5 Accessibility in Procurement Program Management*
>
> ·         an accessibility audit to determine where the procurement
> program system is not meeting accessibility requirements has been conducted
>
> ·         lifecycle of procurement contracts has a defined, documented,
> and tracked lifecycle
>
> ·         procurement-related accessibility metrics are tracked and
> documented
>
> ·         a defined process for identifying and addressing complaints
>
>
>
> but it is sort of buried there. To ensure higher prominence and indication
> of importance, I think it would be best to remove the proof point from that
> subsection and put in a new, separate proof point subsection such as:
>
>
>
> *3.6.2.5 Procurement Metrics and Goals*
>
> ·         Establish appropriate / meaningful goals and metrics the
> procurement organization, to measure and track progress towards achieving
> those goals.
>
>
>
> If that makes sense, we would then to review the other dimensions for
> similar proofpoints already included, and handle the same as the above
> example, ensuring consistency across all of the dimensions.
>
>
>
> Again, using Procrement as an example,  I would also argue that such a new
> proofpoint can easily be subject to all 4 of the maturity stages, not just
> “integrate” and Optimize”.  See the latest language in Stacey’s document
> below:
>
> _____________________________________
>
> *3.6.1 How to Evaluate Procurement Maturity Level*
>
> 1.       Download the maturity model spreadsheet
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/maturity-model/#assessment-template-excel>.
>
> 2.       List all the organization’s current “Procurement” efforts.
>
> 3.       Compare the list to the spreadsheet to decide which proof points
> will be used to assess your organization’s “Procurement” accessibility
> maturity. Not all proof points will be used for every business or
> organization. The proof points in section 3.6.2 are non-exhaustive examples
> of criteria.
>
> The level is *Inactive* when proof points demonstrate that:
>
> ·         no effort has been made or only isolated efforts have been
> identified.
>
> The level is in *Launch* when proof points demonstrate that:
>
> ·         work has been initiated to identify and integrate accessibility
> into procurement processes and accessibility language into all ICT-related
> solicitation and contract documents and vendor responses throughout the
> procurement life cycle
>
> ·         some plans are in place for providing accessibility procurement
> knowledge and skills relevant to each individual’s position.
>
> The level is in *Integrate* when proof points demonstrate that:
>
> ·         solicitation and contract language are complete, and responses
> have been analyzed by accessibility or trained procurement professionals
>
> ·         vendors are required to submit accessibility documentation to
> be evaluated as part of the overall vendor assessment
>
> ·         a communications mechanism has been put in place to inform
> vendors of accessibility requirements
>
> ·         accessibility is a monitored element of the procurement life
> cycle
>
> ·         accessibility criteria are included in contract renewal
> negotiations
>
> ·         training on accessibility procurement knowledge and skills
> relevant to each individual’s position has started.
>
> The level is in *Optimize* when proof points demonstrate that:
>
> ·         full and consistent use of accessibility processes, criteria,
> contract language, and decision-making to procure and maintain accessible
> products and services throughout the procurement life cycles
>
> ·         procurement processes are regularly reviewed and refined as
> needed
>
> ·         training on accessibility procurement knowledge and skills
> relevant to each individual’s position is required, and improvement is
> measured and monitored.
>
>
>
> Looking forward to the continued discussion and resolution.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: A picture containing text, black, clock Description automatically
> generated] <http://strategicaccessibility.com/>
>
>  Jeff@strategicaccessibility.com
>
>  5  1  2   .   4  2  6   .   9   7  7  9
>
>
>
> *From: *Susana Pallero <susipalleroarguello@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, June 5, 2024 at 11:06 AM
> *To: *Maturity Model TF <public-maturity@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <
> janina@rednote.net>, David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com>
> *Subject: *Minutes: [Maturity] Model Task Force 06-05-24 Meeting Agenda
>
> Hola a todos,
>
>
>
> Please find attached the link for the minutes:
> https://www.w3.org/2024/06/05-maturity-minutes.html
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Susana Pallero*
>