Project VRM - User contributions [en]

VRM West Coast Workshop 2009

2009-04-01T04:07:01Z

Iain: /* Agenda/Session topics */

The first ProjectVRM West Coast Workshop (tag [http://technorati.com/tag/vrm2009 vrm2009]) will take place on Friday-Saturday 15-16 May, 2009 at [http://www.sap.com/usa/index.epx SAP Labs] at [http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=3410+Hillview+Ave.,+Palo+Alto,+CA+94304,+USA&sll=40.768582,-74.492798&sspn=0.372862,0.744324&ie=UTF8&z=16&iwloc=addr&om=1 1410 Hillview Street in Palo Alto]. The event will go from 9am to roughly 5pm on both days.

As with earlier VRM gatherings, the purpose of the workshop is to bring people together and make progress on any number of VRM topics and projects. The workshop will be run as an "unconference" on the open space model, which means session topics will be chosen by participants. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology Here is the Wikipedia page on open space.]

In open space there are no speakers or panels -- just participants, gathered to get work done and enjoy doing it. Participation includes contributing to the [[VRM Workshop 2008]] wiki.

== Agenda/Session topics ==
''This is a live agenda. The canonical copy will be on the wall at the workshop.''

'''''Session 1'''''
* '''B:'''
* '''D:'''

'''''Session 2'''''
* '''A:''' Getting rid of those tick-boxes....
* '''B:'''
* '''C:'''
* '''D:'''

'''''Session 3'''''
* '''A:'''
* '''B:'''
* '''C:'''
* '''D:'''

'''''Session 4'''''
* '''A:''' [[VRM + Enterprises]]
* '''B:'''
* '''C:'''
* '''D:'''

'''Day 2'''

'''''Session 5'''''
* '''A:'''
* '''B:'''
* '''C:'''
* '''D:'''

'''''Session 6'''''
* '''A:'''
* '''B:'''

'''''Session 7'''''
* '''A:'''
* '''B:'''

'''''Session 8'''''
* '''B:'''

'''''Session 9:'''''
* '''A:'''

== Registration ==

The workshop is free. You can register through [http://vrmwestcoast2009.eventbrite.com/ this EventBrite link]. Feel free to also add your name to the [[VRM West Coast Workshop 2009 Attendees]] list.

The EventBrite link above caps attendance at 100. SAP is prepared for 50-70, however. So register early. - Doc

== Schedule ==

=== Friday May 15 ===

Morning Refreshments - 8:30

Opening 9-11
* TBD (will involve brief reports from various VRM projects)

Sessions 11-4:30
* 11-11:30 Agenda Making
* 11:30-11:45 Lunch, which will be provided by SAP
* 11:45 - 12:45 - Session 1
* 1:00-2:00 Session 2
* 2:15-3:15 Session 3
* 3:30-4:30 Session 4

Sessions reporting to the group, 4:30-5:30

In open space workshops, topics are suggested by participants in the Agenda making session, which is attended by everybody. Participants write the title of their topic on a sheet of paper with a bold marker, add their name, then describe the topic to the group and post it on a large "spreadsheet" of times and session locations, a blackboard in the front of Pound 101, which will be our main room.

One person in each session will take notes, either directly (or eventually) on the workshop wiki. At the end of each day somebody from each discussion session will report progress to the group.

7:00PM:
'''Non-hosted Dinner'''
* Location: TBD
* Time: TBD
* Attendees (please add your name here if you plan to attend so we can get reservations):
**

=== Saturday May 16 ===

Morning Refreshments - 8:30 (Open. We provide this ourselves. How to do this is TBD.)

Opening group gathering (adding or moving sessions, reports of insights from yesterday) - 8:30-9:00

Sessions: 9am-4pm
* 9:00-10:00 Session 5
* 10:10-11:10 Session 6
* 11:20-12:30 Session 7
* 12:30-1:45 LUNCH - TBD
* 1:45-2:45 Session 7
* 3:00-4:00 Session 8

Closing session, summarizing both days, personal comments, more - 4:00-5:30

==Space==

We have a large room on the main floor at SAP. There will be breakout spaces. These are TBD.

If we need additional small session spaces, there are outdoor and patio areas available as well. There will be wi-fi. Bring extra power strips just in case we need them.

== Possible Topics ==

There are many. Here is a list to get us started. Add or subtract whatever you like...

*
*

== Getting There ==

SAP Labs is a beautiful facility with plenty of parking in the hills of southwest Palo Alto. A map is [http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=3410+Hillview+Ave.,+Palo+Alto,+CA+94304,+USA&sll=40.768582,-74.492798&sspn=0.372862,0.744324&ie=UTF8&z=16&iwloc=addr&om=1 here].

Those with cars, offering carpool possibilities, add to the list here:

* [http://searls.com Doc Searls]
*
*

== Participation over the Net ==

Streams will be set up.

We also have an IRC channel via Freenode, at #VRM.

== Materials ==

*
*
*

Compliance Committee

2008-05-05T20:49:52Z

Iain:

The objective of the Compliance Committee is to
'''Create and oversee VRM compliance program'''

The background to this proposal is that we suspect that, over time, applications or organisations may claim to be 'VRM' practitioners, but not in fact be so (i.e. they do not comply with one or more of the core principles). As such, we wish to have ways and means of limiting the impact of these false claims.

Our proposal is that:

1) We develop a series of statements of good/ best practice in the areas that define VRM (see below *), build those into a process through which organisations can be assessed on a five point scale. Each statement would have to be 'owned' by a VRM expert and would include:

- the statement of good practice itself (e.g. data within a VRM application will be portable).

- 5 answer options (ranging from 'never heard of this practice = 0 to 'yes we do this and can prove it' = 100%)

- detailed compliance text explaining the practice and issues around it

* VRM practices could be clustered, for example, into:

- Individual (user)-centrism

- ability to generate a 'win-win' for buyer and seller

- approach to personal information (portability etc)

- use of open standards

- overall transparency of service offering

This would allow a 'VRM index' score to be generated at overall level, for each subject area, and for each individual practice. These scores then drive compliance (e.g. scores below 35% are non-compliant, scores below 65% are 'pending and scores 65 and above are compliant). They also drive benchmarking, i.e. to what extent is my application VRM compliant, which in turn drives improvement activity and the consulting/ services activities that go along with that.

The score also becomes a published reputation with a reputation/ compliance mark provided. We'd run a white list (VRM compliant) and a black list (were compliant but are no longer so) with the bit in between being 'pending assessment'.

2) We establish an entity that owns the VRM Compliance and Benchmarking Program, which could be Berkman, could be hosted by the Liberty Alliance or could be a new entity. This is a key step and obviously feeds into the VRM Organisation work stream.

3) We make the VRM Compliance/ Benchmarking assessment available in two forms.

a) a face to face assessment of large organisations which we'd outsource to organisations which specialise in assessing and from which the entity above would earn revenues (a % of the assessment charge).

b) a 'lite touch' self-assessment variant typically for smaller businesses/ non-profits.

4) Over time, and as VRM applications and standards emerge, we develop a complementary technical compliance program in which applications are physically tested to ensure compliance to a specific, pre-agreed technical standard.

Hope that helps give a flavour of what we have in mind.

Compliance Committee

2008-05-05T17:24:47Z

Iain:

The objective of the Compliance Committee is to
'''Create and oversee VRM compliance program'''

The background to this proposal is that we suspect that, over time, applications or organisations may claim to be 'VRM' practitioners, but not in fact be so (i.e. they do not comply with one or more of the core principles). As such, we wish to have ways and means of limiting the impact of these false claims.

Our proposal is that:

1) We develop a series of statements of good/ best practice in the areas that define VRM (see below *), build those into a process through which organisations can be assessed on a five point scale. Each statement would have to be 'owned' by a VRM expert and would include:

- the statement of good practice itself (e.g. data within a VRM application will be portable).

- 5 answer options (ranging from 'never heard of this practice = 0 to 'yes we do this and can prove it' = 100%)

- detailed compliance text explaining the practice and issues around it in detail

* VRM practices could be clustered, for example, into:

- Individual (user)-centrism

- ability to generate a 'win-win' for buyer and seller

- approach to personal information (portability etc)

- use of open standards

- overall transparency of service offering

This would allow a 'VRM index' score to be generated at overall level, for each subject area, and for each individual practice. These scores then drive compliance (e.g. scores below 35% are non-compliant, scores below 65% are 'pending and scores 65 and above are compliant). They also drive benchmarking, i.e. to what extent is my application VRM compliant, which in turn drives improvement activity and the consulting/ services activities that go along with that.

The score also becomes a published reputation with a reputation/ compliance mark provided. We'd run a white list (VRM compliant) and a black list (were compliant but are no longer so) with the bit in between being 'pending assessment'.

2) We establish an entity that owns the VRM Compliance and Benchmarking Program, which could be Berkman, could be hosted by the Liberty Alliance or could be a new entity. This is a key step and obviously feeds into the VRM Organisation work stream.

3) We make the VRM Compliance/ Benchmarking assessment available in two forms.

a) a face to face assessment of large organisations which we'd outsource to organisations which specialise in assessing and from which the entity above would earn revenues (a % of the assessment charge).

b) a 'lite touch' self-assessment variant typically for smaller businesses/ non-profits.

4) Over time, and as VRM applications and standards emerge, we develop a complementary technical compliance program in which applications are physically tested to ensure compliance to a specific, pre-agreed technical standard.

Hope that helps give a flavour of what we have in mind.

Compliance Committee

2008-05-05T17:23:59Z

Iain:

The objective of the Compliance Committee is to
'''Create and oversee VRM compliance program'''

The background to this proposal is that we suspect that, over time, applications or organisations may claim to be 'VRM' practitioners, but not in fact be so (i.e. they do not comply with one or more of the core principles). As such, we wish to have ways and means of limiting the impact of these false claims.

Our proposal is that:

1) We develop a series of statements of good/ best practice in the areas that define VRM (see below *), build those into a process through which organisations can be assessed on a five point scale. Each statement would have to be 'owned' by a VRM expert and would include:

- the statement of good practice itself (e.g. data within a VRM application will be portable).

- 5 answer options (ranging from 'never heard of this practice = 0 to 'yes we do this and can prove it' = 100%)

- detailed compliance text explaining the practice and issues around it in detail

* VRM practices could be clustered, for example, into:

- Individual (user)-centrism

- ability to generate a 'win-win' for buyer and seller

- approach to personal information (portability etc)

- use of open standards

- overall transparency of service offering

This would allow a 'VRM index' score to be generated at overall level, for each subject area, and for each individual practice. These scores then drive compliance (e.g. scores below 35% are non-compliant, scores below 65% are 'pending and scores 65 and above are compliant). They also drive benchmarking, i.e. to what extent is my application VRM compliant, which in turn drives improvement activity and the consulting/ services activities that go along with that.

The score also becomes a published reputation with a reputation/ compliance mark provided. We'd run a white list (VRM compliant) and a black list (were compliant but are no longer so) with the bit in between being 'pending assessment'.

2) We establish an entity that owns the VRM Compliance and Benchmarking Program, which could be Berkman, could be hosted by the Liberty Alliance or could be a new entity. This is a key step and obviously feeds into the VRM Organisation work stream.

3) We make the VRM Compliance/ Benchmarking assessment available in two forms.

a) a face to face assessment of large organisations which we'd outsource to organisations which specialise in assessing and from which the entity above would earn revenues (a % of the assessment charge).

b) a 'lite touch' self-assessment variant typically for smaller businesses/ non-profits.

4) Over time, and as VRM applications and standards emerge, we develop a complementary technical compliance program in which applications are physically tested to ensure compliance to a specific, pre-agreed technical standard.

Hope that helps give a flavour of what we have in mind.