Composition of Working Groups
|
Same for
all topics at a given time
|
Direct
appointment / Strict task force Model
|
Indirect
appointment / loose task force model
|
open working
group model
|
-
|
High risk of excluding concerned groups
|
-
|
huge individual workload
|
-
|
not every group member can be an expert for
every topic
|
-
|
if done at board level: no checks and balances
|
|
-
|
risk of excluding concerned groups
|
-
|
limited manpower
|
|
|
-
|
may result in too large groups, leading to bad
signal/noise ratio, and in turn triving expert participants away.
|
-
|
working grouop may be dismissed as self-selected,
captured by noisy fractions
|
-
|
few if any resopnsibilities assigned to specific
individuals
|
|
+
|
continuity
|
+
|
limited, workable group size
|
+
|
assigns responsibility to well-defined set of
representatives
|
|
+
|
group members chosen by expertise (in theory)
|
+
|
workload more evenly distributed
|
+
|
limited, workable group size
|
+
|
assigns responsibility to well-defined set of
representatives
|
|
+
|
less risk of excluding concerned groups
|
+
|
group members chosen by expertise (in theory)
|
+
|
workload more evenly distributed
|
+
|
limited, workable group size
|
+
|
assigns responsibility to well-defined set of
representatives
|
|
+
|
little risk of excluding concerned groups or
individuals by design
|
+
|
workload may be distributed well
|
|