|
|
| (93 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | == What's the Problem? ==
| |
| | | | |
| − | In any group there will be competition and cooperation. Politically this translates to right wing and left wing. In business it is free enterprise and public service. And the supporters of each side usually claim that their way is the best. However, any thoughtful analysis must eventually come to the conclusion that both are needed in the right balance for the happy, healthy, effective and efficient functioning of any group. After all have you ever seen a bird with one wing fly? Competition without cooperation ends up with disparities in wealth and opportunity. Cooperation without competition results in complacency and mediocrity. And like any system that is out of balance it is not stable and will fluctuate to a lesser or greater extent from one extreme to the other trying to find an equilibrium.
| + | == What is VoteWrap? == |
| | | | |
| − | Almost all the current forms of Democracy are out of balance as they are inherently more competitive than cooperative. Just look at political parties, they are like sporting teams or waring tribes who battle each other and the truth is usually injured in the first five minutes of play and has to be stretchered off the field. Once you join a political party you can't be the member of another party. To be a candidate for a political party you have to win preselection which is often a no holds barred fight. If you don't join a political party and run as an independent you still have to compete with all the other candidates to win a seat in an electorate. Each political party has a person called a 'whip' to keep the elected representatives in line. So it is not surprising that our political system is out of balance. And, this is also true of the business world where competition is considered a key element for success. This is reflected in words such as 'hard ball' and 'aggressive timeframes'. At best cooperation is mostly seen as a luxury that can only be afforded when the competition is not too strong and at worst something for wimps.
| + | '''''VoteWrap is arguably the ultimate consensus seeking, decision making process.''''' |
| | | | |
| − | Traditionally group business required a common physical forum. In the internet age we have had an explosion of collaborative spaces which do not require a physical location. Examples are Lotus Notes, Wikis, Blogs, SharePoint, Forums, Bulletin Boards, Shared Excel Spreadsheets, Google Docs and Facebook to name a few of the more well known ones. This has made it easier to have your say but it is harder to be heard as their are so many more people raising and commenting on issues. For example when a news items appear online and are opened for comment there will often be a large number of respondents having their say. Most of the comments will be either for, against or some degree of undecided. If you have ever tried to read all the comments you will know that it quickly becomes very tedious after the first couple of dozen and most people just give up.
| + | The VoteWrap Method improves the handling of contention in collaborative environments by using the innovation of a variable consensus level calculated from how important and urgent issues are to each voter. And, by dynamically integrating the formal and informal elements of voting.<br> |
| | + | <br> |
| | + | Finally I have completed a base build of VoteWrap using Google Technology ( Sheets, Forms & App Script ).<br> |
| | + | <br> |
| | | | |
| − | This problem can be solved by applying the "object oriented" method of software development to the creation and management of documentation. With this approach in the news forum example the thousands of words written by hundreds of people can end up being just tens of words with the 'for', 'undecided' and 'against' positions noted against the chosen words for the issue. So instead of having to read all the relevant and irrelevant comments to understand the issue and what the collective position of all participants is you only need to read the distilled set of words and see the aggregated position of all participants.
| + | =[http://www.dicksonreps.net/sovereign-nation Click here to give VoteWrap a spin]= |
| | + | <br> |
| | + | <br> |
| | + | [https://www.facebook.com/pages/VoteWrap/134510919920086 VoteWrap Facebook page] |
| | | | |
| − | Another example where 'Object Oriented Documentation', or 'OO Doco', can be applied with great benefit is in the documentation of the software development life cycle (SDLC). Traditionally many documents are produced that give a particular view of the same element depending upon which phase of the SDLC it is being viewed from. For example in a simple SDLC a 'user requirements' document is written, this is then expanded into 'functional requirements', then the 'technical specification' is produced after which the actual software code is created. Then a 'test plan' is written which is then elaborated into 'test cases'. Out of testing there are 'defects' & 'Issues' documented and interim and final 'test summary' reports. Almost always there will be 'change requests'. Further on there will be 'training guides', 'user manuals' and 'marketing' documents.
| + | <br> |
| | | | |
| − | The complexity is increased further as each document goes through its own cycle of producing draft copies for review. Then the review comments have to be merged back into the next draft. Where there are differences in the review comments these need to be resolved with the reviewers. This is usually a time consuming process especially as reviewers are making comments in isolation and they do not know that other reviewers have already fixed an issue or that they have information that would influence how they see the issue. Furthermore in the process of resolving issues usually many emails are generated which often contain valuable information that does not make its way into the final document/s. And this is just to produce the first draft! No wonder documentation is usually poorly done ( if at all ) and is almost always out of line with the code produced and the real requirements of the system.
| + | *(C) Copyright 2008-19 - Thor Prohaska |
| | | | |
| − | And it gets worse because when a change is found or introduced in one document it often has to be propagated into other documents. And just by having so many documents there is usually the overhead of some sort of reference codes to link requirements to specifications to test cases to defects to change requests ... etc.
| + | ====VoteWrap Archive==== |
| | | | |
| − | The 'OO Doco' solution for the SDLC is to use a collaborative space to document each element once and where relationships exist between elements make hyperlinks between them. If more detail is required on an element just add a linked page. Document change control is not required as each page in the collaborative space has a full revision history. Special codes to link elements are not required as any links use the full description. Emails are not required as the collaborative space can accept a dump of information that can then be fitted into the overall information structure at a later time. Changes to an element in one document does not have to be propagated into another document as their is only one document. All participants in the domain can see all other comments made about an element so their is minimal lag in transferring information between participants.
| + | * [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y0OGF4oOgA Click here to watch a simple demonstration of VoteWrap] |
| − | | + | * [https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anthem-Australia/209551545757693 'Anthem Australia' facebook page.] |
| − | | + | * [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxrezd7BWm4&context=C4c8ce3dADvjVQa1PpcFPGn1KkC8cp1iEirsGQ-FmzB9sQJW-XcWI=: Click here to watch the 'Share the Dreaming Australia' music video']. |
| − | | + | |
| − | When there is contention between the participants in a collaborative space over an issue then there is no clear method to resolve it. At best differences are highlighted and participants are given the option to accept or reject changes. Evidence and merit all too regularly take second place to raw politics and flawed decisions are unfortunately usually the result. The jokes about the decisions made by committees highlight this only too well.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Democracy is great! However, there’s still room for improvement. VoteWrap is a flexible democratic method that improves democracy by introducing a variable consensus level calculated from how important and urgent an issue is to each voter. And, by dynamically integrating all the following formal and informal elements of voting:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Issue Proposal | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Issue Wording
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Issue Importance & Urgency
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Voting Compulsion
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Quorum
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Resource Contribution
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Voting Finalisation
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Confidence
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Secret Vote
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Representation
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Undecided Votes
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Relative priority to other issues
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Associated sub-issues
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Complexity is reduced and time saved as VoteWrap carries your default settings into each new vote so for most Issue's you'll only need to vote for:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Importance - Low, Medium or High
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Urgency - Low, Medium or High
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Actual vote - No, Undecided-No, Undecided, Undecided–Yes or Yes
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Confidence Level - Low, Medium or High
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Voting Finalisation - Yes or No
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | With VoteWrap you can either vote for the whole issue or, if you’re not happy, propose amendments by VoteWraping dependent sub-issues for resolution.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Visual pattern recognition is a human strong point so by viewing your real time prioritised VoteWrap issues in your favourite visual format you’ll know more, sooner.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/06/50-great-examples-of-data-visualization/ | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2007/08/02/data-visualization-modern-approaches/
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Data Mining: Mapping The Blogosphere
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | http://datamining.typepad.com/gallery/blog-map-gallery.html | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==VoteWrap Current== | + | |
| − | *[[Votewrap Process Flow - Detailed|VoteWrap Process Flow]]
| + | |
| − | *[[VoteWrap Copyright|(C) Copyright 2008-10 - Thor Prohaska]][[Image:gplv3-88x31.png]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====VoteWrap Archive====
| + | |
| − | *[[votewrap_process_flow|VoteWrap Process Flow - 1st Draft]]
| + | |
| | * [http://www.anthem.net.au: Anthem Australia] | | * [http://www.anthem.net.au: Anthem Australia] |
| − |
| |
| − | ====Wiki Resources====
| |
| − | * [[getting_started|Getting Started with MediaWiki]]
| |
The VoteWrap Method improves the handling of contention in collaborative environments by using the innovation of a variable consensus level calculated from how important and urgent issues are to each voter. And, by dynamically integrating the formal and informal elements of voting.
Finally I have completed a base build of VoteWrap using Google Technology ( Sheets, Forms & App Script ).
