Strategy monitoring plan 2014-15

This is a draft policy that is open for community consultation until 28th February 2014. If you have comments or suggestions for improvements, please make them on the talk page. The board intends to adopt a finalised strategic plan 2014-2019 at its meeting in March 2014.

Each of the measures listed in this table defines a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for the charity, and will be tracked and reported on. All KPIs that can realistically have numerical targets should have them. Some KPIs can be measured numerically but not realistically targeted, while yet others are amenable only to a best-judgement evaluation (that we call an 'eval score') or are qualitatively assessed using a narrative. Narratives are useful in addition to hard numbers as they enable us to 'tell the story' of our impact.

The various KPIs for each Outcome, when taken together, can give us a qualitative indication of what the charity's impact is against each Outcome.

Outcome	Outcome Measure	Proxy?	Annual target (to 31 Jan 2015)	Notes
G1.1 The quantity of Open Content continues to increase	Number of uploads		Track only	Measure to be tracked and reported, but no annual target since number could vary wildly
	Sum of positive edit size [1]	y	Track only	Needs more research; may not be able to do this year
G1.2 The quality of Open Content continues to improve	Files in mainspace use on a WM project (excluding Commons)			Baseline values to be determined before deciding on target
	Files that have featured status on a WM project (excluding Commons)			Baseline values to be determined before deciding on target
	Featured Picture status on Commons			Baseline values to be determined before deciding on target
	Quality Image status on Commons			Baseline values to be determined before deciding on target
G1.3 We are perceived as the go-to organisation by UK GLAM, educational, and other organisations who need support or advice for the release of Open Content.	Sum of GLAM reputation scores [2] of organisations that we have partnerships with	y		Baseline values to be determined before deciding on target
	Score in annual national survey of public opinion [12]			Survey questions to be determined
G2a.1 We have a thriving community of WMUK volunteers.	Number of Friends			(work is ongoing as to how this would work; to be shared with community before implementation)
	Number of very active [3] volunteers			Baseline values to be determined before deciding on target
	Volunteer Activity Units [4]			Baseline values to be determined before deciding on target
	Leading Volunteer Activity Units [5]			Baseline values to be determined before deciding on target
G2a.2 WMUK volunteers are highly diverse.	Proportion of Volunteer Activity Units [4] attributable to women		20%
	Proportion of Leading Volunteer Activity Units [4] attributable to women		15%
	Volunteer Activity Units [4] in activities to encourage other diversity or minority engagement	y		Baseline values to be determined before deciding on target
G2a.3 WMUK volunteers are skilled and capable.	Volunteer Activity Units [4] in training sessions and editathons	y		Baseline values to be determined before deciding on target
	Annual survey capability score [6] (self-identified)
	Automated Wiki capability score [7]			May not be possible this year: needs significant work
G2b.1 We have best practice governance and resource management processes, and are recognised for such within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charity sector.	Progress on targets in the Hudson and Chapman governance reviews		All targets that we agree with completed and externally accredited
	Progress towards PQASSO 2		Complete all internal preparations for PQASSO 2 ready for external accreditation
	Progress towards clean annual report by external auditers		Clean annual report
	Level of external recognition		Narrative + 2/5 eval [16]
G2b.3 We have high quality systems to measure our impact as an organisation.	Progress towards full implemention of automated and manual tracking/measuring systems [8]		Narrative + 2/5 eval [16]
G2b.2 We have a high level of openness and transparency.	Transparency score [9] as measured by annual survey			Survey questions to be determined
	Transparency compliance [10] as measured by Govcom against published transparency commitments		Narrative + 5/5 eval
G2b.4 We ensure a stable, sustainable and diverse funding stream.	Number of separate donors
	Funds received from sources other than WMF fundraiser or FDC		£
	Proportion of funds from sources other than WMF fundraiser or FDC
	Proportion of funds from direct debits
G3.1 Access to Wikimedia projects is increasingly available to all, irrespective of personal characteristics, background or situation.	QRPedia codes scanned [11]			Baseline values to be determined before deciding on target
	QRPedia codes scanned [11] using a language other than English			Baseline values to be determined before deciding on target
	New readers enabled to access Wikimedia websites			Need to define more closely
G3.2 There is increased awareness of the benefits of Open Content.	Awareness score [12] in annual national survey of public opinion			Survey questions to be determined
G3.3 Legislative and institutional changes favour the release of Open Content.	Responses to EU and UK government policy consultations.	y	Narrative
	Involvement in EU and UK advocacy activities	y	Narrative + 2/5 eval [16]
G4.1 Technical communities with missions similar to our own are thriving.	Number of shared activities [12] with technology-based groups or organisations having similar goals to WMUK	y	At least two events
	Total Activity Units [13] in shared activities [14] with technology-based groups or organisations having similar goals to WMUK	y		Baseline values to be determined before deciding on target
G4.2 There are robust and efficient tools readily available to enable the creation, curation and dissemination of Open Content.	Uses [15] of the tools we host or support			Baseline values to be determined before deciding on target
	New tools we develop or help develop
G4.3 There are robust and efficient tools readily available to allow WMUK - and related organisations - to support our own programmes and to enable us to effectively record impact measures.	Uses [15] of the tools we host or support			Baseline values to be determined before deciding on target
	New tools we develop or help develop
G5.1 A thriving set of other Wikimedia communities	Funding to support other chapters and Wikimedia groups	y	£
	Activities for or jointly with other chapters and Wikimedia groups		At least 3 events in total (including G5.2 and G5.3 events)
	Total Activity Units [13] in shared activities [14] with other chapters and Wikimedia groups			Baseline values to be determined before deciding on target
G5.2 An increased diversity of Wikimedia contributors	Activities specifically directed to supporting the diversity of other chapters and Wikimedia groups	y	At least one event
G5.3 Wikimedia communities are skilled and capable.	Activities specifically directed to help train or to share knowledge with other chapters and Wikimedia groups	y	At least one event

Notes on the Progress table

Ref	Term	Definition	Notes	To do	Examples
[1]	Positive edit size	Sum of edit sizes in characters where text content has been added overall to the mainspace of a Wikimedia wiki.	We are here measuring quantity not quality of educational text content. We ignore all edits where content has been deleted overall, on the basis that deletions cannot generally be equated with the negative addition of content by that editor. We are aware that such an approach is relatively broad-brush, and will actively seek improved tools/measures in this area.
[2]	GLAM reputation score
[3]	"Very active" volunteers	Volunteers who typically do something with WMUK on at least a weekly basis
[4]	Volunteer Activity Units	A unit is defined as one volunteer attending one WMUK event	"
"	Need to decide how to estimate the number of unit equivalents contrubuted by volunteers who do non-event based things
[5]	Leading Volunteer Activity Units	A subset of [4], counting only units contributed by vounteers who are the lead or one of the leads on the activity
[6]	Annual survey capability score	To be defined	Proposed survey to be repeated annually by WMUK	Questions to be written
[7]	Automated Wiki capability score	To be defined	Automated measure of volunteer capabilities on the Wikimedia wikis.	Tool to be written	The number of volunteers moving from 'new' editors to more experienced as per WMF categories.
[8]	Tracking/measuring systems	The manual and automated systems by which WMUK tracks Outputs/Outcomes in accordance with the Strategic Plan			CiviCRM output
[9]	Transparency score	To be defined	Proposed survey to be repeated annually by WMUK	Questions to be written
[10]	Transparency compliance	An eval measure [16]	As measured by Govcom against published transparency commitments	Commitments to be defined
[11]	QRPedia codes scanned	The number of times QRPedia codes are used to direct to a Wikipedia article	Either in aggregate, or when directing to a page in a language other than English.	This a is a subset of [15]
[12]	Awareness score	To be defined	Proposed survey to be repeated annually by WMUK	Questions to be written
[13]	Total Activity Units	A count of the number of units contributed by volunteers (not necessarily WMUK volunteers) on shared activities [14]	With technology-based groups or organisations having similar goals to WMUK
[14]	Shared activities	Activities that WMUK jointly lead with some other group	Does not include activities run by other groups that WMUK volunteers or staff simply attend or engage with
[15]	Uses of tools	The number of times in aggregate a WMUK tool is used.
[16]	Eval measure	A best-judgement evaluation on a scale of 1 to 5 (5=best)	Used in lieu of a objective metric where such a metric is impossible or currently impracticable to obtain