Talk:Towards a five year plan 2013-18: Difference between revisions
(Add headings to make discussing each question easier (or at least it will be once there are a few comments)) |
|||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
==What sort of internal structure should it have, e.g. work areas, targets, success criteria, SWOT analysis etc?== | ==What sort of internal structure should it have, e.g. work areas, targets, success criteria, SWOT analysis etc?== | ||
I would like to see the plan being placed in a context of both the Wikimedia movement (WMF) and our own strategic goals - these can be broad commitments linked to our mission and values. The plan could be broken down by operational areas; Governance, Finance, Outreach, Fundraising, Communications, Membership, Community etc and then each should have sections with SMART targets for the period. I'm not sure smaller (i.e. 1 year, 3 year) targets work as well here because there will have to be some year-to-year flexibility to accommodate the unforeseen - but the broad goal should remain) | |||
This is much in line with the plan we've already developed, and is a conventional way of working in the HE sector - have a look at [http://www.bradford.ac.uk/media/universityofbradford/allfiles/documents/making-knowledge-work-2009.pdf |my former employer's] five year plan as an example. | |||
The additional virtue of this is that Trustees, Staff and Volunteers can start to frame spending decisions and proposals for programmic work in the same way i.e. how to they serve the strategic goals and SMART targets within the plan. Not really rocket science, and personally speaking, I'd really appreciate having this sort of structure in which to plan the work of my role :-) [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
==How much depth should we look for?== | ==How much depth should we look for?== | ||
Revision as of 11:26, 9 January 2013
Some starter questions:Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
How long should the plan be?
- Comments
Should it relate to the Foundation's Strategic Priorities?
- Comments
Should it create its own strategic Priorities?
- Comments
How do we reconcile global and local community interests?
- Comments
What sort of internal structure should it have, e.g. work areas, targets, success criteria, SWOT analysis etc?
I would like to see the plan being placed in a context of both the Wikimedia movement (WMF) and our own strategic goals - these can be broad commitments linked to our mission and values. The plan could be broken down by operational areas; Governance, Finance, Outreach, Fundraising, Communications, Membership, Community etc and then each should have sections with SMART targets for the period. I'm not sure smaller (i.e. 1 year, 3 year) targets work as well here because there will have to be some year-to-year flexibility to accommodate the unforeseen - but the broad goal should remain)
This is much in line with the plan we've already developed, and is a conventional way of working in the HE sector - have a look at |my former employer's five year plan as an example.
The additional virtue of this is that Trustees, Staff and Volunteers can start to frame spending decisions and proposals for programmic work in the same way i.e. how to they serve the strategic goals and SMART targets within the plan. Not really rocket science, and personally speaking, I'd really appreciate having this sort of structure in which to plan the work of my role :-) Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
How much depth should we look for?
- Comments
What should we NOT put in?
- Comments
Who should we consult and involve?
- Comments
How should we consult and involve them?
- Comments
How do we make sure it reaches the widest possible community?
- Comments
How often should it be reviewed, by whom and in what ways?
- Comments