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?	Baseline 2013 estimated	2014 target (to 31 Jan 2015)	Notes
G1.1 The quantity of Open Content continues to increase	Number of uploads		9000	Report only	Measure to be tracked and reported, but no annual target since number could vary wildly. This is assuming that donations will be tagged correctly via 'Supported by Wikimedia UK' Commons category
	Sum of positive edit size [1]	y	Unknown	Report only	Measure to be tracked and reported, but no annual target since number could vary wildly
G1.2 The quality of Open Content continues to improve	Percentage of WMUK-related files (e.g. images) in mainspace use on a Wikimedia project (excluding Commons)		5%	6%
	Number of files (e.g. images) that have featured status on a Wikimedia project (including Commons)		10	20
	Number of files having quality Image status on Commons		60	70	Reminder: image donations from institutions cannot be tagged as 'quality image'. Most of the images from 2013-14 came from Wiki Loves Monuments
	Number of files having valued image status on Commons		21	21	Reminder: can be content from institutions or individual volunteers
	Number of new articles started on a Wikimedia site (eg any of the encyclopedias), excluding Welsh Wicipedia		Unknown	200
	Number of new articles started on Welsh Wicipedia inspired by WMUK		1200	15000
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 educational Open Content.	Sum of reputation ratings [2] of organisations that we are working in partnership with, or were working with no more than than two years ago	y	660	693 (5% increase)
	Score in annual national survey of public opinion [12]		Not recorded	n/a	Survey questions to be determined in 2014. New initiative - will identify baseline in 2014
G2a.1 We have a thriving community of WMUK volunteers.	Number of Friends		0	420
	Number of active volunteers [3]		107	140 (30% increase)
	Volunteer Activity Units [4]		966	1200 (24% increase)
	Leading Volunteer Activity Units [5]		138	145 (5% increase)
	Volunteer drop out rate [7]		10%	<10%
G2a.2 WMUK volunteers are highly diverse.	Proportion of Volunteer Activity Units [4] attributable to women		Unknown	20%
	Proportion of Leading Volunteer Activity Units [4] attributable to women		Unknown	15%
	Volunteer Activity Units [4] in activities to encourage other diversity or minority engagement	y	2	4	2 activities delivered in 2013-14 (Black British Music & Diversity Conference)
G2a.3 WMUK volunteers are skilled and capable.	Volunteer Activity Units [4] in training sessions and editathons (ie WMUK volunteers being trained)	y	550	575 (5% increase)
	Leading Volunteer Activity Units [5] in training sessions and editathons (ie trainers)	y	90	95 (6% increase)
	Annual survey capability score [6] (self-identified)		Not recorded	To be decided	Questions and score measure to be devised
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		42 out of 50 of targets completed	All targets that we agree with have been completed and independently reviewed.
	Progress towards PQASSO 2		Not recorded	Complete all internal preparations for PQASSO 2 ready for external accreditation
	Level of external recognition		Unknown	Narrative + eval score [16]
G2b.2 We have a high level of openness and transparency.	Transparency score [9] as measured by annual survey		Unknown	n/a	Survey questions to be determined in 2014. New initiative - will identify baseline in 2014
	Transparency compliance [10] as determined by Govcom against published transparency commitments		Not measured	Narrative
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]		Not measured	Narrative + eval score [16]
G2b.4 We ensure a stable, sustainable and diverse funding stream.	Number of separate donors		5500	6000 (9% increase)
	Funds received from sources other than WMF fundraiser or FDC		£275000	£295000 (7% increase)
	Proportion of funds from sources other than WMF fundraiser or FDC		45%	47%
	Proportion of funds from direct debits		43%	45%
G3.1 Access to Wikimedia projects is increasingly available to all, irrespective of personal characteristics, background or situation.	QRPedia codes scanned [11]		2400 per month	3000 per month (25% increase)	DC - I'm not sure this is the correct estimate, need more info on how the stat tool works
	Projects addressed at new readers [16] being enabled to access Wikimedia websites	y	1 activity	3 activities
G3.2 There is increased awareness of the benefits of Open Content.	Awareness score [12] in annual national survey of public opinion		Unknown	n/a	Survey questions to be determined. New initiative - will identify baseline in 2014
G3.3 Legislative and institutional changes favour the release of Open Content.	Responses to EU and UK government policy consultations.	y	None	Narrative
	Involvement in EU and UK advocacy activities	y	None	Narrative + eval score [16]
G4.1 Technical communities with missions similar to our own are thriving.	Number of shared activities [14] hosted with technology-based groups or organisations having similar goals to WMUK	y	3	>= 4
	Total Activity Units [13] in shared activities [14] hosted with technology-based groups or organisations having similar goals to WMUK	y	30	40
G4.2 There are robust and efficient tools readily available to enable the creation, curation and dissemination of Open Content.	Number and availability of the project tools we host or support		Not measured	Narrative
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 internal or supporting tools we host or support		Not measured	Narrative
G5.1 A thriving set of other Wikimedia communities	Funding to support other chapters and Wikimedia groups	y	£3200	£10000
	Activities held for or jointly with other chapters and Wikimedia groups		7	7 (including G5.2 and G5.3 events)
	Total Activity Units [13] in shared activities [14] with other chapters and Wikimedia groups		140	150 (including G5.2 and G5.3 events)
G5.2 An increased diversity of Wikimedia contributors	Activities specifically directed to supporting the diversity of other chapters and Wikimedia groups	y	1	>= 1	1 in 2013 (Diversity Conference)
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	1	>= 1	1 in 2013 (Chapters Conference)

Notes and Definitions on the Progress Table

Ref	Term	Definition	To do	Notes
[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]	Institution reputation rating	Our estimate of the external reputation of each GLAM organisation or learned society that we work with. This information is solely to enable us to track our own charitable impact consistently, and we will not be publishing the values we use for individual organisations		1-12 scale of instutitional reputation.
[3]	Active Volunteers	The number of volunteers who have worked with us at least once in the preceding 3 month period
[4]	Volunteer Activity Units	A unit is defined as one volunteer attending one WMUK event. For non-event-based volunteering we estimate a rough activity equivalent
[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	Questions to be written	Proposed survey to be repeated annually by WMUK
[7]	Volunteer drop out rate	The proportion of our volunteers that drop out (no longer remain actively engaged with us) annually		Determined for each volunteer one year after first activity, two years and so on.
[8]	Tracking/measuring systems	The manual and automated systems by which WMUK tracks Outputs/Outcomes in accordance with the Strategic Plan
[9]	Transparency score	To be defined	Questions to be written	Proposed survey to be repeated annually by WMUK
[10]	Transparency compliance	Narrative	Commitments to be defined	As measured by Govcom against published transparency commitments
[11]	QRPedia codes scanned	The number of times QRPedia codes are used to direct to a Wikipedia article	This a is a subset of [15]	Either in aggregate, or when directing to a page in a language other than English.
[12]	Awareness score	To be defined	Questions to be written	Proposed survey to be repeated annually by WMUK
[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. Depending on context, the other group could be Wikimedia-related (eg a chapter) or could be external to the Wikimedia movement (eg OpenStreetMaps)
[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
[17]	New readers enabled to access Wikimedia websites	Our best estimate of the number of new readers of Wkimedia sites after removal by WMUK of their barriers to access		This figure comes from a diverse range of activities for many of which exact numbers of readers cannot be determined as we have no feedback (eg Kiwix installations in libraries, in prisons, or in Africa). We estimate the numbers by multiplying the known number of installations by our best estimate of the expected number of readers for each.