Grants:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round2/Wikimédia France/Staff proposal assessment
This staff proposal assessment for Wikimédia France's proposal to the FDC for 2012-2013 Round 2 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.
|Date of submission [mm/dd/yy]||03/01/13|
|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)||1.308 EUR on 02/27/2012|
|Total amount proposed to the FDC for the upcoming year annual plan [in $US]||US$ 747,259|
|Total amount proposed to the FDC for the upcoming year annual plan [in currency requested]||571,299 EUR|
|Summary staff assessment [substantial concerns: none/some/many]||some|
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)|
(2012-2013 Round 1 allocation)
To what extent does the plan address the strategic goals and priorities of the movement (one to two paragraphs)?
- Wikimédia France’s proposal to the FDC is well-aligned with the movement’s strategic priorities of “increasing participation” and “increasing reach.” The proposal demonstrates potential for innovative work that may add value to the movement if implemented well, particularly in Territorial Development and Research and Development. While Wikimédia France makes an effort to connect its measures of success with the strategic priorities, the plan as articulated nevertheless lacks strategic focus, which in turn compromises its potential for impact.
- We appreciate Wikimédia France’s commitment to programmatic activities, but the number and complexity of Wikimédia France’s programs may inhibit their effective implementation. The grouping of activities into programs is not always clear or strategic. For instance, the Territorial Development program seems to be an innovative strategy that strengthens Community Support and Outreach, but is projected as a separate program from both. At the same time, we are concerned that increasing the number of staff to match the scale of the proposed programs will not necessarily lead to more impact and may even be a barrier to long-term sustainability and effectiveness.
- Wikimédia France devotes the most significant amount of its funding (after staff and administrative expenses are excluded) to the Afripédia program, but not all outcomes and strategies of this program are clear. While it is important that Wikimedia communities in Africa grow in strength, there is no specific strategy articulated for developing the leadership of Francophone Africa communities. The program measures success by aiming for 250 new contributors, but it is unclear if the strategy is to ensure significant creation of content relevant to these local communities.
- We appreciate Wikimédia France for including indicators of success for its proposed programs. Most programs include specific metrics and tools for measurement. Wikimédia France measures the use of content generated through its programs in Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia, and the WikiScan tool (http://www.wikiscan.org) is a significant addition to the global movement’s analytical toolkit.
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?
- Wikimédia France's activities could have significant local and global impact if its programs are executed well, since many of them target Wikimedia Commons and the French Wikipedia (the third largest Wikipedia). Wikimédia France is currently diversifying its revenues to include non-movement funding and to that end is cultivating a local donor base with the support of its Fundraising and Sponsorships Manager. It has also been building its credibility for several years to pursue partnerships with national-level institutions.
- The Board of Wikimédia France has been highly engaged in complex discussions around its FDC proposal and has responded quickly and courteously to the community and FDC staff, demonstrating its commitment to sharing experiences and learning with the larger movement. Furthermore, the Board has shown considerable energy and commitment by creating a detailed proposal with reasonable metrics.
- While we greatly appreciate the Board’s commitment and efforts, challenges remain. We doubt it will be possible for Wikimédia France to execute this ambitious plan without time to hire and integrate an Executive Director to lead the organization and rationalise its current programmatic structures. This past year, Wikimédia France has not been able to perform its activities or spend its budget as planned because of leadership interruptions.
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?
- Wikimédia France’s financial overview is difficult to understand. Wikimédia France lists a budget of US$ 2.4 million in its proposal, which includes funds to be raised from payment processing. With those funds deducted, the organization’s budget is actually close to US$ 1.2 million. Another challenge in reviewing the entity’s financials is the change to Wikimédia France’s fiscal year in 2012 from a calendar year (January - December) to a split year (July - June). Using the revised figures for the 2012-13 budget and the proposed budget, Wikimédia France is proposing to grow its budget by more than 48% (a significant growth rate for a US$ 1.2 million organization). It also proposes to increase its staff from five to 15 (with five of these 15 at 70% time) and increase the movement resources allocated to its activities by 66%.
- The equivalent of US$ $694,980, or about 50% of Wikimédia France’s total budget, is devoted to staffing expenses. Of the remaining US$ $690,857 representing programs and administration, the equivalent of US$ 328,477, or 24% of Wikimédia France’s total budget, is devoted to administration (including communications, operating expenses and fundraising). About the equivalent of US$120,990, or the bulk of Wikimédia France’s program costs, are allocated to Francophonie and Afripédia, which is 18% of the budget excluding staff (or 9% of the total budget). GLAM and Europeana also represent significant spending at about US$ 50,619, which is 7% of the budget excluding staff (or 4% of the total budget). Remaining funds are allocated across programs like outreach, research and technical programs. This budget reveals an emphasis on Francophonie and Afripédia and indicates high administrative costs with respect to the total budget, especially considering that administrative costs included in these two programs already exclude any staffing costs.
- We are particularly concerned that Wikimédia France proposes to expand significantly at a time when an Executive Director has not yet been hired and had the opportunity to review the feasibility of its overall plan and strategies.
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
- For detailed comments from the community, the FDC and FDC staff, please visit the proposal form discussion page. The summary is not an endorsement of the views expressed on the proposal form discussion page.
- Community members are perplexed by the numbers presented in Wikimédia France’s proposal and ask for clarification on the proposal form discussion page. One commenter inquires about Wikimédia France’s strategies for measuring results of its Francophonie and Afripedia projects and expresses interest in its learning from GLAM partnerships.
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||This plan directly addresses several strategic priorities, including "Increasing reach," "Improving quality," and "Increasing participation."|
|(B) The initiatives in the plan have the potential to lead to the global targets, if executed well||3.5||The initiatives are clearly related to the global targets, but connections between activities and the strategic priorities could be strengthened; some programs with potential to impact could be designed more strategically.|
|(C) The initiatives in the plan have the potential to lead to significant impact, given context and amount of funds proposed||2.5||The initiatives could have some significant impact in the local community and the broader Wikimedia community, but the context of the entity and the scope of this plan inhibits its potential for impact.|
|Ability to execute||(D) The entity has the resources, skills, and capacity (staff, volunteer, non-staff) for the plan to succeed||2||The entity has few of the resources, skills, and capacity needed to execute this plan successfully.|
|(E) The entity has a record of success in similar initiatives||3.5||The entity has conducted similar initiatives in the past successfully, especially GLAM, but does not yet have a strong track record with some initiatives.|
|(F) The entity's leadership is effective, committed, and relatively stable||3||The Board is committed and effective and has demonstrated this during the FDC proposal review process, but this organization is facing significant challenges without an Executive Director in place.|
|Efficient use of funds||(G) The funding requested is reasonable given the proposed initiatives||2||Budgeting is not appropriate: this plan is expensive, and not feasible.|
|(H) The entity has a record of using funds efficiently and staying on budget||3||The entity's budgeting appears too complex. The entity changed its fiscal year and could not fully implement last fiscal year's plan because of leadership transitions.|
|Quality of proposed measures of success||(I) Clear indicators of success are outlined in the plan||4||This entity has well-designed indicators of success for most initiatives.|
|(J) A plan is in place to track the proposed metrics||4||This entity has a good plan in place to track metrics. The plan includes timing and tracking of proposed metrics, and uses tools to track indicators.|
|(K) The entity has a feasible plan in place to track the proposed metrics||3||While there is a plan to track and monitor metrics, it is not clear if the necessary capacities exist to sustain it or if it is integrated across all programs and staff.|
|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||4||Some initiatives proposed are new or have seldom been tried elsewhere in the movement (such as Territorial Development); if successful, other movement entities might benefit from doing similar initiatives.|
|(M) The entity is ready to share with the movement the lessons learned from the initiatives||4||The entity has regular communication with other movement entities, is a regular participant in Wikimedia events, and has a fair track record of sharing with others.|
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: KLove (WMF) (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)