Discussion around the Assessment Guide which some thought was a new component but others felt it was part of the initial discussion reached consensus that it is a needed and valuable component but one that may be challenging and time consuming to develop. The group agreed to leave it and determine if their will be sufficient interest/time to flesh it out in parallel with the full model.
Once again the thorny discussion of scope came up largely because the first attribute is called scope. After an in depth conversation the group reached consensus that the model itself does not address scope but rather how well the scope is defined. Similarly, the model will not address Impact but rather how capable the practice is at assessing impact.
The group suggested pushing these understandings of scope and impact up into the introduction portions of the document and to change the attribute names to reflect these viewpoints.
The group reached consensus on the structure of the documentation and decided to assign those present to lead the editing of each of the attributes and ask the rest of the working group to reach out to an attribute lead and contribute.
Attribute leads will work with volunteers from the EEAM-edu Working Group to edit their attribute by COB July 31.
Assignments, J.J. is on Scope Definition, José is on Engagement, Louis is on Impact Assessment, Greg is on Delivery, and Piet is on Management.
Review updates to documents and prepare to discuss them prior to the next meeting on Wed. August 2.