W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > April 2017

Re: Stakeholder Management

From: Ku, Ja Eun <jku@illinois.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:11:30 +0000
To: David Sloan <dsloan@paciellogroup.com>, Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
CC: Shari Butler <shari.butler@pearson.com>
Message-ID: <FC4AF630-6F0E-431A-999D-AD382C12CE84@illinois.edu>
I am very much supportive of prioritizing the Silver research questions. This effort will help background research work (including literature review) to be pair up with current research questions and to support its ongoing research. In addition, it provides me with a criterion in posting research questions to the community group page. 

I am looking forward to this discussion!

JaEun Jemma Ku, PhD
Internet Applications Systems Specialist
University library
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
424 Library, M/C 522
1408 West Gregory Dr.
Urbana, IL 61801
1-217-244-2145
jku@illinois.edu
http://a11yfirst.library.illinois.edu/

 
 


On 4/26/17, 5:10 AM, "David Sloan" <dsloan@paciellogroup.com> wrote:

    Hi Jan, all
    
    These are really helpful thoughts to start the discussion going. Here are my views.
    
    1. I’m not aware of a prioritisation of Silver research questions; so far there’s been a de facto prioritisation based on which questions researchers are interested in tackling. 
    
    That’s a very pragmatic approach, given that we’re harnessing the skills and interests of volunteers. But it does leave the risk that some hard but important questions go unanswered.
    
    The list of questions came from some early work done by the Silver TF, before I was involved (I think), and added to by researchers. So I agree we should have some form of ranking activity that helps us prioritise questions that aren’t yet being addressed.
    
    2. I agree that we need to be careful about how we manage stakeholder involvement in projects, so that involvement is appropriate for each individual’s role, availability and preferences. We’ll also be hoping stakeholders can contribute to surveys (and help encourage participation). 
    
    So I agree that it would be good to have an initial survey inviting stakeholders to express their preferences for involvement. For example, if we haven't already (and I don’t know if we have), we could ask stakeholders about the following preferences:
    * I’d be willing to take part in a survey
    * I’d be willing to promote participation in a survey
    * I’d be willing to have my contact details and role passed to Silver researchers interested in involving me in their projects (that way stakeholders can still say yes or no to each individual contact)
    
    This way, we secure permission from stakeholders to have their contact details passed to researchers. Researchers can then manage their recruitment from the stakeholder group based on the project they’re running. Researchers may in any case have their own recruiting approaches, but the stakeholder pool can augment that where necessary.
    
    We’d also want stakeholders to be able to update their preferences, so that once they have sufficient involvement, they have the option to become unavailable for any other project.
    
    3. If a researcher has access to a participant pool that hasn’t been put together by Silver, then that’s a great opportunity. However, I think it’s the responsibility of that researcher to manage access to the pool by other Silver researchers. 
    
    That would involve:
    * gaining consent from each participant in their pool to be contacted by other Silver researchers,
    * providing a description of the characteristics of members of the participant pool to other researchers who may be interested in recruiting from the pool, and
    * describing the process of contact and recruitment, and any restrictions that may exist in type of participation 
    
    We could put together a short process covering this scenario?
    
    Hope this helps!
    Dave
    
    
    > On 25 Apr 2017, at 17:13, McSorley, Jan <jan.mcsorley@pearson.com> wrote:
    > 
    > Hi Everyone,
    > 
    > I just wanted to start a dialog about how best to manage our stakeholder list with researchers.
    > 
    > Sarah shared a link in today's meeting that we can share with stakeholders.  While this shows the general categories of stakeholders, I believe that we still have some work to do before sharing stakeholder contacts with our researchers.  Here are my thoughts:
    > 	• We need to complete a survey of stakeholders to find out who wants to be involved in certain research tasks and we need to articulate stakeholder expectations to those involved in research activities.
    > 	• We need to complete our researcher expectations for how to interact with stakeholders and then determine how to give them access to the stakeholders they are most interested in engaging.
    > 	• ​We need to determine what, if any parameters, we are going to put in place for researchers who have access to ​stakeholder groups that are not a part of our current list, but who may fall within an established stakeholder category.  For example, Scott Hollier has access to several hundred alumni across the world who have completed the web accessibility online course and certificate offered by his university in Australia.  These alumni are working as developers / web professionals in various industries.  How do we protect and/or vet this group and what are Silver's expectations for how information will be shared from research conducted with this group?​
    > 	• ​Has the Silver Task Force prioritized which re​search questions are important to answer first?  For example, have we thought about which research questions are most important for the 1st phase of research that is intended to feed into the development of prototypes?  Of not, is this something that we could do during one of our meetings and perhaps add a prioritization score to the research questions listed on the wiki page?
    > 
    > ​Thanks in advance for your thoughts and guidance.
    > 
    > Best to you,​
    > 
    > Jan McSorley
    > VP, Accessibility
    > Psychometrics and Testing Services
    >  
    > 400 Center Ridge Drive, Suite E
    > Austin, TX  78753
    > M - (512) 673-9569
    > Twitter: @Jan_McSorley
    > Skype:  jan.mcsorley
    > www.linkedin.com/in/janmcsorley
    >  
    > Learn more at pearson.com
    >  
    > 
    > 
    > We put a man on the moon in the 1960's ... surely we can make information technology fully accessible to people with disabilities.  It can be done ... it must be done ... it will be done!
    
    David Sloan
    
    UX Research Lead
    The Paciello Group
    dsloan@paciellogroup.com
    
    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of any portion of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this message in error, please notify the sender at the above e-mail address, and delete this e-mail along with any attachments. Thank you.
    
    
    

Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2017 16:12:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:23:49 UTC