Grants:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/Wikimedia Israel/Staff proposal assessment
Wikimedia Israel received a funds allocation in the amount of 141,172 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 Wikimedia Israel'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 Israel | [Responses] |
| Date of submission [mm/dd/yy] | 10/01/12 |
| 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) | NIS |
| Exchange rate used (currency requested to $US) and date accessed (mm/dd/yy) | 1 USD = 3.892 |
| Total amount proposed to the FDC for the upcoming year annual plan [in $US] | 145,026 |
| Total amount proposed to the FDC for the upcoming year annual plan [in currency requested] | 564,440 |
| Summary staff assessment [substantial concerns: none/some/many] | some |
Annual plan
Table I: Financial summary
| FDC funds allocated last year ($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)?
-
- WMIL’s plan is aligned with the strategic priority areas Improve quality, Increase participation, Stabilize infrastructure. WMIL’s plan focuses on increasing reach and participation through activities such as GLAM projects and editor meetings.
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?
- WMIL has a mixed history with reporting, but appears to be improving, which is likely a positive sign of organizational growth. WMIL hosted a very successful and well-planned Wikimania in 2011, which increased the visibility and credibility of the organization within the broader community and showed WMIL’s capacity to execute and plan an event of that scope. Broader support and visibility of other open-source / free content projects provide momentum for organizations like WMIL to thrive.
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?
- While WMIL is proposing a feasible set of activities, WMIL does not have adequate metrics or activities outlined in its proposal (see “Establishing governance...” or “Releasing content under free licenses”) for its key initiatives. The metrics that do exist are based primarily upon measuring numbers of participants and tagging content.
- WMIL has built up a “reserve” from Wikimania and past fundraisers and plans to draw down its reserve by about USD 20,000 by the start of 2013. There is an open question about how WMIL manages its reserves. In addition, proposed spending for WMIL increased significantly between the current year and the proposed fiscal year: this is due primarily to the hiring of one full-time staff person to manage day-to-day operations.
- WMIL is seeking to grow from an almost entirely volunteer-based chapter with one half-time staff member to a chapter with more professional staff. WMIL’s proposed plan relies entirely on funding from the FDC and in the future WMIL will likely need to diversify its funding sources in order to achieve greater organizational stability, and has demonstrated the ability to do this in years past (for example, securing sponsorships for Wikimania 2011). WMIL is a small chapter with an increasingly ambitious plan. WMIL will need to rely on volunteers to plan, organize, and manage its activities. Hiring of additional staff may help WMIL leverage its volunteers by increasing participation and more effectively organizing volunteer activities.
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
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 addresses a few global targets |
|---|---|---|---|
| (B) The initiatives in the plan have the potential to lead to the global targets, if executed well | 3 | Not enough detail is provided about these initiatives in order to understand how well-aligned they are with the global targets they seek to achieve | |
| (C) The initiatives in the plan have the potential to lead to significant impact, given context and amount of funds proposed | 3 | The initiatives will have impact, but it will not be extremely significant. | |
| Ability to execute | (D) The entity has the resources, skills, and capacity (staff, volunteer, non-staff) for the plan to succeed | 3 | WMIL has expressed concerns about its own ability to measure and execute the plan, but they have a strong volunteer base. |
| (E) The entity has a record of success in similar initiatives | 4 | WMIL demonstrated strength in execution of Wikimania in 2011 | |
| (F) The entity's leadership is effective, committed, and relatively stable | 4 | The current board chair is about to leave, but rest of board is committed and effective. | |
| Efficient use of funds | (G) The funding requested is reasonable given the proposed initiatives | 4 | The funding request is a significant increase but a big jump due to new staff, but may be necessary given this point in WMIL's maturity, and the amounts are justified given the activities proposed. |
| (H) The entity has a record of using funds efficiently and staying on budget | 3 | They have a mixed record. There was a reserve built up after Wikimania (although this is not a typical case), and there are some concerns about ability to execute and report on past grants. | |
| Quality of proposed measures of success | (I) Clear indicators of success are outlined in the plan | 2 | Not clear about indicators of success; expressed inability to outline these metrics without capacity. |
| (J) A plan is in place to track the proposed metrics | 2 | Some measures will likely be easy to track, but there is no clear plan in place. | |
| (K) The entity has a feasible plan in place to track the proposed metrics | 2 | There does not appear to be much staff / volunteer capacity to track metrics (as evidenced by barebones proposal). However, the proposal includes request for staff capacity, so this staff member might be able to track metrics in the future | |
| 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 | Many of these activities are relevant to other organizations, but are not likely to be replicated since they are not yet particularly innovative. |
| (M) The entity is ready to share with the movement the lessons learned from the initiatives | 4 | WMIL has a good reputation within the movement, and many active members / board members are involved with other aspects of the movement. |
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: Meerachary TBG (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)