|
One of the actions assigned at the 2006 System Safety Society Executive Council (EC) meeting at the 24th International System Safety Conference was to "develop a Society Web page for email motion discussion and EC voting." The action was assigned to Ann Waterman and me. The assigned 30 days for action closure seemed reasonable at the time, but it proved to be more of a challenge than we anticipated. Since most of the twists and turns were of my making, I got the "short straw" for explaining what was developed. I should note upfront that without Ann's help, and the skill of Norman Bell, who did the programming, the task would still be in the "good idea" stage.
For the past several years, Society matters that required the approval of the EC between the annual meetings have been addressed via notification, discussion and voting using Internet emails. The use of emails had several drawbacks, including the number of exchanges needed to complete a motion cycle, as well as the need to balance open dialogue and security.
The email motion process was in two distinct phases: the discussion of the motion and the actual voting on the motion. Each phase was generally seven days, and after the vote was completed, the Executive Secretary reported the results to the Society President and the other members of the EC.
The first "trial" development was for the discussion forum, and it generated several lessons, some of which had been anticipated but others were a surprise.
Lesson 1 - Always put your best foot forward. Before you ask for outside input, take the time to address the obvious questions. It saves wear and tear on everyone (including you and your customers). The obvious questions asked during the first trial included, "How does it know who I am?" "How can I confirm that my vote was received?" "What if I have already voted?" "Who made the motion?" and "Who seconded?" The unanticipated (surprise) questions included, "What if I want to change my vote before the deadline passes?" and "Links to backup data?" The following table provides a summary of the responses to those initial questions.
Question |
Response |
Identity of the member |
User name and password |
Vote verification |
Voter asked to confirm vote |
No alert if I have already voted |
Alert provided |
Who made the motion?
Who seconded? |
Each motion has a discussion paragraph to identify who made the motion and its full content. In both the old email method and the current online system, the Executive Secretary's submission to the EC is the "seconding" function. |
Ability to change vote later
(before voting ends) |
Not provided automatically (voter can contact the Executive Secretary for special case consideration) |
Provisions for "backup data" |
Provisions for attachments were added, and the Executive Secretary will add any background information after the initial discussion input. |
Lesson 2 - Establish the functional model (requirements) before starting the implementation. This should be "rule 1," but it was the second lesson (re)learned. For this effort, the requirements exist on two major levels: functional (what is wanted) and operational (how it is implemented).
As reflected by the early questions, the system requirements were more than simple provisions for discussion and voting. Communication with the EC membership, information about motions, the voting process and the maintenance of information needed to be addressed in more detail.
The motion cycle starts when the EC members receive an email notification of the new motion. Any time during the discussion period, they can comment on the motion, and even after the discussion period has closed, the archived motion discussion comments are available for review. Members can vote any time during the voting period, and are always asked to confirm their vote before it is recorded. Those trying to vote after the cut-off (midnight Central time of the last voting day) are greeted with a "Voting Closed" screen, but it has a provision to "contact the Executive Secretary for consideration of extenuating circumstances."
As part of the implementation, Norman and Ann understood the need for two levels of access to the area: 1) administrators and 2) the EC members. The Executive Secretary would use the administrative level to make inputs to the system, and the EC members would have access to the discussion forum and the voting area. Norman provided a full range of functions under the administrative option, including administrative control over the voting and discussion functions. The Executive Secretary can add motions, and establish the opening and closing of both the discussions and voting periods. He or she can also edit the discussion forum, but messages should only be deleted at the request of the author. The administrative function has full access to vote totals and individual voting records, and can export this information for archiving.
Several provisions were needed for the administration of the EC voter list. Norman developed provisions for identifying the members as either "active," "inactive" or "archived." The active members are the current voting members, and the inactive are past (or future) voting members. Each active member starts out with a "Not Voting" record for the new motion. When the member casts a vote, that member's vote option is changed and he is disallowed from voting again on the motion. Those who do not vote will retain the "Not Voting" status. A member whose term is up will not be deleted, as that would alter the vote traceability for past votes. Instead, his or her "member level" (status) will be set to "archived" so that a large list of inactive members is not built up in the voter list. All active members will receive email notifications and will be able to log in to discuss and/or vote. Should a member be added to the EC after a motion has been initiated, the voting on that motion will have to be made via a direct input to the Executive Secretary. (The new member will get a default message to contact the Executive Secretary.)
Lesson 3 - Remember the customer and keep the application user friendly. Ann was very good at offering suggestions on keeping the site user friendly. On the original Discussion Forum page, the exact text of the motion had less visual priority than the discussion section, so it was restructured to make the motion the dominant visual element on the page. While each EC member needs to know his or her username and a password in order to log in to the site, these were kept simple. There is also a feature for adding the username and password to each notice as a reminder. Because this is an "off-site" or virtual voting process, EC members who miss a vote can ask for relief from the Executive Secretary (as was the case in the email process before).
Lesson 4 - The job of developing an automated system is never done. As more experience is gained with the system, the need for more features becomes clear. There are three features currently under development. The first is the ability to have "automatic" reminders on voting: re-sending the motion message to the EC members on the first day of voting, and a reminder message to go to all members who have not voted on a motion at the 48-hour mark before the vote closure. The second feature is a "motion vote results" (Archive) that lists the past motions (like the discussion archive). Each motion link would contain the corresponding voting record (Vote Tally). The third addition is an "open" discussion forum that is not tied to a particular motion. This is intended to be a feedback feature on the whole system. One EC member has suggested that this kind of forum is needed for all EC discussions, but that is beyond the scope of the "Online" voting page; however, it could be added elsewhere on the Society's Web site.
Lesson 5 - You need a good system programmer (per Lessons 1 through 4). Norman added a lot of flexibility as we went along, so we were able to make positive progress as the site developed. This provided an added bonus of certain capabilities for additional features that were not part of the original scope.
There have been four motions voted upon using the system as it has evolved. The EC membership has been good about giving comments and suggestions, which have led to improvements and added features. While the system is not perfect, the actionees feel it has merit and look forward to continued refinements, based on input from the EC membership.
John Livingston is Executive Secretary of the System Safety Society, and winner of a President's Award at the 24th ISSC.
|
