Grants:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/Wikimédia France/Staff proposal assessment
Wikimédia France received a funds allocation in the amount of 94,000 in 2012-2013 Round 1.
This funds allocation was recommended by the Funds Dissemination Committee on 15 November 2012 and approved by the WMF Board of Trustees on 1 December 2012.
This staff proposal assessment for Wikimédia France's proposal to the FDC for 2012-2013 Round 1 may be viewed in tab view or standard view. To discuss this aspect of the proposal to the FDC, please visit the discussion page.
Applicants should read this document to familiarise themselves with the assessment criteria; however, it should be edited only by FDC-related staff. The staff will use the document to set out their objective assessment of each funding request from eligible entities – specifically, to determine the extent to which plans align with the mission goals of the Wikimedia movement, and the extent to which the entity is well-placed to execute those plans effectively. The staff will base this report on proposals from entities and input from the community and other stakeholders (including, where required, deeper due-diligence on the entity's previous track record within the Wikimedia movement). The staff will provide completed reports to the FDC, which will then make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees on funding allocations.
Proposal overview
| Wikimedia France | [Responses] |
| Date of submission [mm/dd/yy] | 10/04/2012 |
| Adherence to proposal process [yes/no] | yes |
| Adherence to legal, regulatory, and policy regulations [yes/no] | yes |
| Adherence to US anti-terrorism laws [yes/no] | yes |
| Currency requested (e.g., EUR, GBP, INR) | EUR |
| Exchange rate used (currency requested to $US) and date accessed (mm/dd/yy) | 1.25 as average of July, August and September |
| Total amount proposed to the FDC for the upcoming year annual plan [in $US] | 961,109 |
| Total amount proposed to the FDC for the upcoming year annual plan [in currency requested] | 768,150 |
| Summary staff assessment [substantial concerns: none/some/many] | many |
Annual plan
Table I: Financial summary
| FDC funds allocated last year ($US) | FDC funds proposed this year ($US) | Change from what was allocated last year (as a +/− %) | Proposed change in staff costs (USD and % increase or decrease) |
| N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Strategic alignment
To what extent does the plan address the strategic goals and priorities of the movement (one to two paragraphs)?
- WMFR’s proposal is most strongly aligned with the strategic priorities of Increase participation, Increase reach, and Improve quality. Its initiatives in Francophonie and local languages in Africa are the most significant focus of its budget at 24% of WMFR’s total program expenses, followed by education initiatives, GLAM programs, and microgrants. WMFR plans to encourage innovation through research and online tools such as Semanticpedia, a platform for semantic tools in French Wikimedia projects.
Context of the entity and community
- To what extent does the context of the entity (e.g., community participation, fundraising context, sociopolitical environment) enable or inhibit the entity's potential for impact?
- To what extent does the entity's experience or maturity enable or inhibit the entity's potential for impact?
- WMFR requested funding from the FDC for a period of 18 months even though the FDC process is meant to support annual plans because WMFR reports that this is the only possible method to obtain funding that will cover its plan, bring the FDC process into alignment with its fiscal year and keep WMFR in compliance with French law.
- Over the past 2 years, WMFR’s credibility and image in France has improved as a result of successful GLAM partnerships and positive press coverage, and this has led to significant opportunities for WMFR to expand its work within France and in Francophone Africa where it has established partnerships.
- WMFR is a mature chapter established in 2004 with a good history of reporting its activities. WMFR has acknowledged that declining volunteer involvement is a risk and at the same time WMFR is seeking to increase staff. WMFR currently has only 20-30 active volunteers. In terms of assessing impact, WMFR has articulated some outcomes as part of its metrics of success, moving beyond only output indicators. However, WMFR has only provided a budget, not a strategic or annual plan with more details.
Feasibility and risks for the annual plan
How feasible is the annual plan (one to four paragraphs)? Specifically:
- To what extent are the budget, staffing, availability of volunteers, and other resources realistic for achieving the anticipated outcomes?
- Are the timelines realistic for the proposed initiatives and associated activities?
- Are there acknowledged and/or unacknowledged risks in the proposal?
- WMFR’s proposed budget of about USD 1,400,000 is for a period of 18 months and may need to be annualised to meet FDC criteria. The amount proposed to the FDC is 961,109 USD which is 69% of the proposed budget and a significant increase over the previous year's movement funds allocation. Much of this increase is in staffing: WMFR would like to move from 5 to 9.3 fulltime positions. Staff expenses would therefore make up a very significant portion of the new budget, or around 58%. However, WMFR’s total proposed budget has decreased by 12% from this year’s budget due to delays in hiring and underspending on programs. In the absence of a well-articulated annual or strategic plan, it is difficult to assess the risks and realistic timelines for the initiatives outlined in the FDC proposal. The WMFR Chapter has conveyed to the FDC that it is undergoing some internal issues. We believe these may have the possibility of affecting WMFR's 'ability to execute' currently.
Summary of expert opinions and/or community commentary
- Summary of the opinions of subject-matter experts on the plan
- Summary of community commentary on the plan
- See WMFR's talk page
Table II: Scores, comments and feedback
Scores provide only a preliminary assessment for consideration by the FDC. The rubric for scoring is in table III.
| Dimensions | Criteria | Score (1–5) | Comments and feedback |
| Potential for impact against strategic priorities | (A) The plan addresses the Wikimedia movement global targets | 4 | The plan clearly addresses Increase reach, Increase participation, Improve quality. |
|---|---|---|---|
| (B) The initiatives in the plan have the potential to lead to the global targets, if executed well | 4 | There is a clear correlation between the priorities and the strategies. | |
| (C) The initiatives in the plan have the potential to lead to significant impact, given context and amount of funds proposed | 3 | For a request this large, proper planning documentation is not provided to indicate commensurate impact (there is no strategic or annual plan). | |
| Ability to execute | (D) The entity has the resources, skills, and capacity (staff, volunteer, non-staff) for the plan to succeed | 3 | Staff and board have skills, but there are concerns currently around capacity for the plan to succeed fully. |
| (E) The entity has a record of success in similar initiatives | 4 | WMFR has been building credibility, through GLAM partnerships and press coverage, and executing some successful programs. | |
| (F) The entity's leadership is effective, committed, and relatively stable | 2 | WMFR's board has communicated challenges around leadership and governance which may affect the entity's ability to execute successfully on the plan in the short term. | |
| Efficient use of funds | (G) The funding requested is reasonable given the proposed initiatives | 2 | The amount requested is too large in relation to the activities proposed. |
| (H) The entity has a record of using funds efficiently and staying on budget | 4 | Reporting has been adequate, and budgeting has been consistent with initiatives in the past. | |
| Quality of proposed measures of success | (I) Clear indicators of success are outlined in the plan | 4 | The plan outlines several metrics for each proposed initiative |
| (J) A plan is in place to track the proposed metrics | 2 | There is not enough clarity on how the metrics will be tracked, especially in the absence of a strategic plan. | |
| (K) The entity has a feasible plan in place to track the proposed metrics | 2 | There may not be capacity to manage evaluation. | |
| Potential to add knowledge and/or other benefits to the movement | (L) The initiatives in the plan, if successful, could be helpful and/or productively replicated elsewhere in the movement | 3 | Initiatives in Francophonie and local languages in Africa may be useful in supporting communities in Francophone Africa. |
| (M) The entity is ready to share with the movement the lessons learned from the initiatives | 4 | WMFR leadership is active within the movement and likely to share learnings; they are in partnerships with other movement entities. |
Table III: Scoring rubric
| Dimensions | Evaluation criteria | 1 = Weak or no alignment with criterion | 3 = Moderate alignment with criterion | 5 = Strong alignment with criterion |
| Potential for impact against strategic priorities | (A) The plan addresses the Wikimedia movement global targets | The plan will not directly address any global targets | The plan will partially address global targets or other goals that are closely related to the global targets | The plan will directly address several global targets |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (B) The initiatives have the potential to lead to the targets, if executed well | The initiatives have no clear connection to global targets | Some or all of the initiatives have an unclear relationship to global targets | The initiatives have been shown (by the entity or the movement) to lead to global targets | |
| (C) The initiatives have the potential to lead to significant impact, given context and amount of funds proposed | The initiatives will have marginal impact in the local community and the broader Wikimedia community, given context and amount of funds proposed | The initiatives proposed may have a significant impact in the local community, given context and amount of funds proposed | The initiatives could have significant impact at scale, both in the entity's local community and in the broader movement, given context and amount of funds proposed | |
| Ability to execute | (D) The entity has the resources, skills, and capacity (staff, volunteer, non-staff) for the plan to succeed | The entity has neither the number nor the amount of resources, skills, and capacity needed for success. | The entity has some relevant staff and volunteer capacity, but may be under-resourced for some initiatives | The entity is well-resourced with the relevant skills and capacity for success |
| (E) The entity has a record of success in similar initiatives | The entity has had trouble succeeding in similar initiatives | The entity has not engaged in similar initiatives in the past | The entity has conducted similar initiatives in the past and has been successful in achieving desired results | |
| (F) The entity's leadership is effective, committed, and relatively stable | Leadership has been unstable (e.g., changing on an annual basis) | Current leadership is committed to the entity; some concerns exist around stability or effectiveness of leadership | Current and past leaders have demonstrated the ability to develop and execute on strategic plans; leadership team has been stable and transitions have been smooth | |
| Efficient use of funds | (G) The funding requested is reasonable given the proposed initiatives | Based on FDC experience and relative to other proposals, the plan contains significant over- or under-budgeting, and/or has not thoroughly accounted for costs | Based on FDC experience and relative to other proposals, the budget is generally consistent with the initiatives; some initiatives are likely to be over- or under-budgeted | Based on FDC experience and relative to other proposals, the budget is reasonable, and rigorous cost projections have been presented |
| (H) The entity has a record of using funds efficiently and staying on budget | The entity has a poor record of budgetary management: e.g., consistently and significantly below budget (such as 50% underspending), and drawing on organizational reserves due to overspending | The entity has a middling record of budgetary management; e.g., generally on-budget for its biggest initiatives and cost items, properly recording any over- and under-spending, and with plans in place for improvements | The entity has consistently strong record of financial management; e.g., consistently staying on or below budget (within ~5% of budget), and putting surplus funds towards the entity's and/or movement's goals | |
| Quality of proposed measures of success | (I) Clear indicators of success are outlined in the plan | Initiatives have no associated indicators of success, or the proposed indicators are unrealistic and/or unmeasurable | Each initiative has indicators of success, but at least some indicators are unrealistic or are not clearly connected to the initiative | Each initiative has a realistic and carefully framed set of indicators of success associated with them, which are rigorous and time-bound |
| (J) A system is in place to track the proposed metrics | The plan does not include methodology or timing for tracking and collecting metrics to measure progress against proposed indicators of success | A proposal to track progress against indicators exists, but has flawed methodology or unrealistic timelines and initiatives | The plan includes timing and tracking of proposed metrics, and additional initiatives (e.g., surveys, research) to track indicators | |
| (K) The entity has a feasible system to track the proposed metrics | No systems are in place to track metrics, or staff or volunteer capacity to manage metrics tracking | There is some overall capacity (e.g., staff, volunteers) to track and monitor metrics, but the entity does not clearly have the relevant skills to do this | High-quality systems, and the necessary skills and capacity to manage these systems, are in place | |
| Potential to add knowledge and/or other benefits to the movement | (L) The initiatives, if successful, could be helpful and/or productively replicated elsewhere in the movement | The initiatives would not be relevant to other movement groups | Some initiatives may be relevant to other movement groups | Many initiatives proposed are new or have seldom been tried elsewhere in the movement; if successful, other movement entities would benefit from doing similar initiatives |
| (M) The entity is ready to share with the movement the lessons learned from the initiatives | The entity is isolated from other movement groups and rarely shares information; the entity's leaders and members seldom participate in movement-wide functions | The entity is somewhat active within the movement, and is developing more relationships with other movement entities with which it could share lessons learned | The entity has regular communication with other movement entities, is a regular participant in Wikimedia events, and has a track record of sharing with others |
This form was created by: --ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)