E N D
1. Organization Structure June Perritt
IBM / Organizational Structure Tiger Team
2. Accessibility Forum – September 2001 2 Background From the May Forum
Launched the Organizational Structure Workgroup
Goals
Define organizational structure requirements
Propose alternatives for the Accessibility Forum that meet these requirements
Conduct a vote of the Forum members
3. Accessibility Forum – September 2001 3 Organizational Structure Workgroup Jim House (TDI)
June Perritt (IBM)
David Poehlman (American Council of The Blind)
Joy Relton (Unisys)
Mark Urban (National Committee for Information Technology Standards)
Gregg Vanderheiden (Univ. of Wisconsin - TRACE Research & Development Center)
Accessibility Forum Staff: Ed Reniker, Jack Corley, Phil Rosche
4. Accessibility Forum – September 2001 4 Team recommendations Goals of the Forum Structure
Required Organizational Activities
Organizational Structure Requirements
Proposed alternatives
5. Accessibility Forum – September 2001 5 Goals of the Forum Structure Achieve broad acceptance of Forum results
Articulate and resolve issues
Ensure balance among all stakeholder perspectives
Encourage member participation
Enhance success of efforts / quality of efforts
Promote communication within and across stakeholder communities
Develop external awareness
6. Accessibility Forum – September 2001 6 Required Organizational Activities Recommend policy and strategic direction
Provide ongoing management of Forum work efforts
Perform Forum work efforts
Enhance interaction among focused stakeholder groups Forum work efforts includes project workForum work efforts includes project work
7. Accessibility Forum – September 2001 7 Organizational Structure Requirements Policy and Strategic Leadership
Project Management
Project Teams
Groups with a shared perspective
8. Accessibility Forum – September 2001 8 Presentation of Recommendations Ballot to membership
Balloting period: August 15, 2001 through August 27, 2001
Three alternatives for consideration
Results
29 votes received
Distribution of votes:
Example 6
Example 5
Example 17 Total of distribution adds up to 28, not 29; we received on “vote” as input without a declarationTotal of distribution adds up to 28, not 29; we received on “vote” as input without a declaration
9. Accessibility Forum – September 2001 9 Question Is the Forum ready to adopt Example 3 as the Organizational Structure? This is start of discussion
Jack will moderate the discussion
Some outstanding questions (mostly posed by S Berger)
Do the alternatives assure fairness, openness and due process? entry and participation in the process?
Is there a need for a documented policy or procedure to identify how the committees proposed will be appointed? how decisions will be made?
What is the voting procedure?
How will the stakeholder groups be identified? who will speak for them?
This is start of discussion
Jack will moderate the discussion
Some outstanding questions (mostly posed by S Berger)
Do the alternatives assure fairness, openness and due process? entry and participation in the process?
Is there a need for a documented policy or procedure to identify how the committees proposed will be appointed? how decisions will be made?
What is the voting procedure?
How will the stakeholder groups be identified? who will speak for them?