Talk:Towards a five year plan 2013-18

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Some starter questions:Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

How long should the plan be?

Comments
  • A piece of string - failing that, 6-10 pages, with some discursive commentary or notes, or 3-4 without Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Should it relate to the Foundation's Strategic Priorities?

Comments
  • Yes Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Also yes; we know these are likely to remain an important part of the FDC process and we should build in alignment as far as we can. The Land (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    Alignment will probably happen automatically, since we are working towards the same goal. What we need to make sure we do for the FDC process is present our priorities in such a way that the alignment with the WMF's priorities is immediately clear. --Tango (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Should it create its own strategic Priorities?

Comments
  • Yes, absolutely Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no point having this document if it doesn't. The Land (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

How do we reconcile global and local community interests?

Comments
  • Priority to local Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Would these actually conflict? The Land (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

Please don't equate the Wikimedia movement with the WMF! --Tango (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Apologies! ;) Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


I think the process needs to start with a situational analysis and this is something the whole community can get involved with. We should ask questions like;

  • What are we good at now? What aren't we good at now?
  • What assets do we have?
  • Where are we within the "ecosystem" of other open-knowledge, cultural, and educational institutions? What do we have a natural advantage in vs what could easily happen without us?

We then need to establish what our long-term objectives are, and build the strategy about how we can reach those goals, then set targets for each year that will serve as markers to the overall strategy. The Land (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

How much depth should we look for?

Comments
  • Not too much, especially for 2+ years ahead. We are still very much in a formative stage, with no real idea what will will look like in 5yrs time. Many key factors, above all the number of active volunteers, are still apparently out of our control. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    Taking control of things like number of active volunteers is almost certainly something that needs to be in the plan... --Tango (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Another way to ask this question is: where do we draw the line between the five year plan and the annual plans? Our planning needs to go into a lot of depth, but after a certain point that depth should be in annual plans, not the five year plan. It's difficult to describe where to draw that line in the abstract, so this may be a discussion to have once we are actually formulating the plan and have specific examples to discuss. --Tango (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

What should we NOT put in?

Comments
  • Lots of detail Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Who should we consult and involve?

Comments
  • Membership & community. Donors. Some other chapters. WMF probably unlikely to want to comment. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • We can conduct most of the work in public and that's a start. We ought to consider what questions really need wide input from the community, and we could (for instance) conduct a survey or ask for input quite widely. The Land (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

How should we consult and involve them?

Comments
  • Ask for comments. I'd like to see some organized events with a session discussing. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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
  • Annually is enough for the full 5yrs. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd envisage a progress review exercise, involving the community and presented to the Board, each year as part of the annual planning and budget-setting progess. I would probably suggest a review for continued suitability and the like perhaps 2 years in?
Retrieved from "https://dev.wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Talk:Towards_a_five_year_plan_2013-18&oldid=33455"