The DGov Score is a further formalization of preliminary research conducted in Project Statis during May - July 2019, and inspired by the DeFi Score by Consenys Researchers.
The DGov Score is a point-based analytic framework for evalauting the governance of blockchain projects relative to other blockchain projects.
The name "DGov Score" and the continuation of work from Project Statis was intially conceived on the DGov Foundation forums.
You may find the DGov Foundation link below in references.
We have initially formalized the DGov Score into 10 categories, with components under each category.
Current categories are as follows:
- membership (internal actors);
- decision-making protocols;
- governing bodies;
- governance metrics;
- binding documents, rules & regulations;
- principles and values, vision, mission, and objectives;
- external actors;
- organizational structure (e.g., hierarchial);
- opportunities; and
- history.
Some of these categories overlap. If it is deteremined that the overlap is non-negligble, then we plan to remove the category.
- Joining and Leaving Process;
- Rights granted;
- Duties and Obligations;
- Costs associated;
- Membership Classes;
- Voting power; and
- Stakeholders (may be duplicative of Membership Classes).
- Number of protocols employed;
- Tools for decision-making;
- Types of decisions; and
- Number of historic decisions.
- Number of governing bodies;
- Types of governing bodies;
- Purpose and practices of governing bodies;
- Membership requirements of governing bodies;
- Presence of advisory council; and
- Location of governing bodies.
- Number of governance proposals submitted;
- Number of governance proposals accepted / submitted;
- Number of governance proposals rejected / submitted;
- Number of governance proposals dead or dormant / submitted;
- Number of governance platforms;
- Number of votes / eligible voters;
- Frequency of communication of governance decisions to the public;
- Frequency of releases of important documents (e.g., financing reports, annual reports) (preferably on a yearly basis);
- Number of new members joining over a period of time (daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, etc.);
- Number of current members leaving over a period of time (daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, etc.); and
- Number of historic decisions.
- Number of enabling documents (e.g., manifesto or constitution);
- Existence of BDRR;
- Relative adherence to BDRR;
- Legitimacy of BDRR;
- Relative automation of BDRR;
- Penalties for noncompliance with BDRR; and
- Frequency of BDRR amendments.
- Formalized PVVMO;
- Existence of PVVMO;
- Relative adherence to PVVMO; and
- Frequency of PVVMO formal or informal changes.
- Relative influence (positive or negative) of external actors on governance changes or execution;
- Relative presence of collusion between members and external actors;
- Relative possibility for third party capture (e.g., 51% attack or corporate capture);
- Existence of community protocol for external actors;
- Relative acceptance of ideas, contributions and critiques by external actors;
- Relative respect for external actors in similar fields;
- Relative respect for external actors in dissimilar fields;
- Existence of global communication channels; and
- Existence of brand guide.
- Relative level of hierarchy;
- Types of governance systems (e.g., sociocracy, holacracy);
- Relative practice of democratic governance systems (e.g., sociocracy) (maybe duplicative of component above);
- Relative promotion of collaboration among members; and
- Type of organizational culture.
- Probability of being allocated greater responsibilities;
- Probability of being allocated greater voting power;
- Potential for growth within the organization; and
- Potential for growth outside the organization.
- Number of significant events;
- Number of significant cultural changes;
- Age of the organization;
- First-mover;
- Activity level of the Founder(s);
- Major changes in leadership; and
- Number of rebrands of the organization.
The scoring for the components will be based on a 10-point scale for a grand total of 90 points.
Each category is scored from 1 - 9.
In scoring the categories, please assess the components in making your decision on a scale from 1 - 9, with 1 being "very negative," 2 - 4 is "negative," 5 being "neutral," 6 - 8 is "positive,' and 9 being "very positive." With component scoring, use the average score (score total / number of subcomponents)
- PVVMO is not formalized (negative)(score: 3);
- PVVMO does exist (positive) (score: 6);
- High rate of adherence among members and governing bodies to PVVMO (positive) (score: 8); and
- PVVMO has only been formally changed once (very positive) (score: 9).
In this situation, a score of (26 / 4) = 6.5 would be granted for the PVVMO category.
In this revised formalization, the components describe above will be used in conjunction with the organizational dimensions, capacity, and effectiveness (part of the 3-step framework)
I am adding 4-5 dimensions from the organizational design/structure literature to the DGov Score Framework, in addition to the components discussed above.
Organizational dimensions derived from:
Holotiuk, Friedrich; Beimborn, Daniel; and Jentsch, Christian, “THE DETERMINANTS AND ROLE OF AGILITY IN DIGITAL ORGANIZATIONS” (2018). Research Papers. 182. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2018_rp/182; and Meijaard, J., Brand, M., & Mosselman, M. (2005). Organizational Structure and Performance in Dutch small Firms. Small Business Economics, 25, 83-96. https://www.rug.nl/staff/m.j.brand/SBE_2005_organizational_structure.pdf
The dimensions are as follows:
- decentralization: "the locus of authority in decision-making"
- formalization: “relevance of codes and procedures for coordination”
- integration/coordination: "describes the degree to which organizations coordinate activities between individuals and functions through formal coordination mechanisms "
- specialization /complexity: “degree of functional professionalism and expertise in tasks”
- departmentalization: “specialized units oriented towards specific markets, projects, and clients”
And an interesting discussion on organization effectiveness from Holotiuk et al. and Leah L. Fitchett (thoughts on adding this as well?):
- Organizational Capacity (not necessarily effectiveness but is an interrelated concept)
- Accounting measures (objective) (generally capital assets and resources)
- Different types of capital (e.g., social capital and political capital)
- Financial market measures (objective)
- Strategic growth (subjective) (growth in comparison to competitors)
- Client satisfaction (subjective) (whether clients are satisfied with Org’s offerings)
- Goal-attainment (outcomes pursuant to self-proposed goals and/or its mission) (also types of outcomes)
- Objectives and Strategies pursuant to the objectives
- Reputation (public recognition and social trust)
- Member engagement and leadership development (may not be needed here)
Based on Fitchett, L.L. (2019). The Roles of Local Organizations in Collaborative Resource Governance: A Qualitative Case Study of Lake Associations. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/181f/05122f83102bac4cfb931b4fcfae15217c60.pdf
After including both organizational design and organizational effectiveness, the framework can be redesigned so that the framework is applied in a 3-step manner:
- Determine where the organization falls under the organizational dimensions (use components as needed);
- Determine the (mission, capacity, objectives) of the organization (use components as needed); and
- Determine the effectiveness of the organization (use components as needed).
The 3-step process based on Fitchett, L.L. (2019). The Roles of Local Organizations in Collaborative Resource Governance: A Qualitative Case Study of Lake Associations. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/181f/05122f83102bac4cfb931b4fcfae15217c60.pdf
The components described in the earlier section should be used in conjunction with the 3-step process. The components should make it easier to judge (and to make a score thereof) organizations in each step and leaves some wiggle room for the user to inject their own subjectivity.
For example, PVVMO can be used in Step 2 of the 3-step process.
After formalizing the DGov Score framework, we intend to turn our findings into a full-fledged paper that should be easily digestable so other can apply the DGov Score framework to their target organizations.
We expect the paper to go over our choices of categories and components, and a sample analysis of a project.