Grants talk:Project/MSIG/WMB/Capacity Exchange 2023-2025

Overall Positive Feedback

This proposal addresses a genuine and long-standing need and demonstrates evidence of careful thought and planning.

The application is well-structured and provides a clear objective and scope. The focus is clear about Capacity Exchange on serving as an information and connecting tool to make capacity building more systemic and efficient, rather than a comprehensive knowledge management system or a solution to all capacity building needs. Additionally, the proposal is aligned with the Movement Strategy initiative that it seeks to advance, and builds upon previously funded work.

The potential impact is evident, and it is also clear that ensuring adoption of the tool as the primary information and connecting system will require collaboration with various stakeholders, including the future Council, hubs, affiliates, and the leadership within the movement. This will ensure that the tool is a public good in the Movement.

Additionally, it is clear that the proposal's success is measurable as the tool is used and tested, and the scaled approach outlined in the proposal is likely to be effective. The proposal provides a clear and valuable solution to fill gaps in the capacity building process while avoiding duplication of efforts. Kudos to the team working on this. YPam (WMF) (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@YPam (WMF): We appreciate this positive feedback and the support you have provided us over these last months. One of the strengths of this proposal is its incredible capacity to engage people. This includes the members of the current committee who have been working on the platform voluntarily for two years! We like the expression you have used, as we truly think this proposal is building "a public good in the Movement". We have provided answers to the feedback for improvement below. Thank you! –Joalpe (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback For Improvement

This feedback contains critical questions for the project team to strengthen this project plan.

Key considerations

• The working team should review the reception, concerns, and engagement of similar platforms to think ahead about potential community pushback or hindrances to engagement. We saw some pushback from using MS Forum as it was a separate platform, so a major question for the team to ponder is - "what will be the uptake for this?"

We have taken into consideration the reception, concerns, and engagement of non-wiki tools and platforms in the design of our Risk Management Matrix, where we have considered potential scenarios of community (dis)engagement.

• In terms of reception, the uptake is to rely on established networks of the Wikimedia Movement to present the Capacity Exchange and gather feedback from different local communities. We have experimented with this during our pilot (testing with the Let's Connect program and a test during the Berlin summit).
• Regarding the concerns, the uptake is to be supported by protocols for effective feedback reception, in which community suggestions, questions, and critiques are channeled through constant communication to the project team and used for continuous quality improvement and/or be properly answered.
• As to engagement, we are aware of potential pushback or hindrances are considering potential consequences and impacts of community disengagement, from localized to generalized scale. In the light of this, we have preemptively pointed to a variety of prevention and mitigation measures.

The base formula assuring uptake regarding reception, concerns, and engagement of a separate platform is the development and implementation of an agile and participatory methodology, through which we will establish a permanent outreach action and continuous reassessment routine for the engagement and feedback protocols. In this process, Wikimedian communities and key stakeholders will be able to supervise the platform development from the bottom up. The expected alignment between Capacity Exchange and key stakeholders is described in our Roles & Responsibilities document. Furthermore, we are eager to study possibilities of on-wiki incorporation of discussion and feedback around Capacity Exchange, as well as its future linkage, especially to meta.wikimedia.org.

• It will be wise for the working team to review the reception, concerns, and engagement of similar platforms (MS Forum, WikiLearn) to learn about potential community pushback or hindrances to engagement. Has this been considered, and if so what are plans are in place to ensure success?

We have considered the potential community pushback or hindrances to engagement, as mentioned in the previous point. The plans in place to decrease perceived risk are: preemptive consideration of potential scenarios of community (dis)engagement; and effective implementation of an agile and participatory methodology. Likewise decreasing perceived risk, establishing trust is a fundamental part of ensuring the Capacity Exchange success. The first process is guided by our Risk Management Matrix, intended to be periodically updated. The latter builds upon the Wikimedia Movement spirit and strategy, transparent in our Roles & Responsibilities document. Wikimedian communities rely daily on several external platforms (such as social media integrated chats, Google Workspace apps, etc.) for many purposes, capacity building included. These instances’ values, protocols, and licenses lack compatibility with our movement, but pragmatically respond to communication and documentation needs. A main characteristic of Capacity Exchange is to be ideated, built, and run by Wikimedians, being not only compatible with the Movement in terms of open licensing, standards and values, but ultimately aligned to the Strategy. We aim to co-develop a user-friendly platform that effectively supports and benefits ongoing capacity-building initiatives, emerging communities, and new people joining the movement. Proposed to respond to an existing and urgent global need, the platform intends to serve as an informational and connection tool that is complementary to other capacity -building initiatives, as well as to meta.wikimedia.org. We are convinced that Capacity Exchange will be adopted because it will ensure the participatory governance and collaborative design of the platform through the wiki way.

• It is uncertain whether a decentralized model of peer learning could work, and questions arise about whether a peer learning model has proven effective, especially for one-off sessions or superficial engagements.

A global decentralized model of peer learning and support has not been implemented in our movement so far, thus the uncertainty. Yet, this model is the most suitable for the Wikimedia Movement, whose communities are diverse and permeated by inequalities.

We have a socio-technical challenge regarding skill development, and the Capacity Exchange aims to partially solve the technical problem. Capacity Exchange will be part of a larger capacity building infrastructure that has already been envisioned in the recommendations (32. Global approach for local skill development - gathering data, matching peers, mentorship, recognition) and is currently being developed by a number of initiatives focused on capacity building. In our vision, we believe “Capacity Sharing” comes before “Capacity Building” and peer-learning is the ideal approach to capacity exchange. Decentralized peer-learning is the opposite of centralized knowledge transfer. Decentralization means a horizontal, rhizomatic, bottom-up connection between multiple centers and people. The centralization of capacity-building could lead to cultural singularization and suppression of sharing, both consequences highly unfruitful to the nature and values of our Movement. Generally speaking, peer-learning is one of the most effective and proven practices to exchange skills and knowledge. Aside from being rooted in decades of educational theory and practice, the peer-learning approach aligns with Wikimedian collaborative values. Particularly in the Wikimedia Movement, accumulated experience with volunteer training shows that latent learning occurs in highly interactive spaces. Human interaction and co-creation flourish in less centralized and/or formal instances. By being a reciprocal process in which two or more participants learn together and from each other, peer-learning builds collaborative and leadership skills. Furthermore, we have some evidence of success with the excellent work of other capacity-building initiatives, such as the Let’s Connect program. In our view, Capacity Exchange is the needed instrument for the optimization of these sister initiatives, providing a platform to match Wikimedians across the world; support and deepen peer connections; and pave the way for the documentation, management, and linkage of all the accumulated experience.

• A recommendation for improving peer learning experiences is to focus on the depth and detail of the sessions. While peer learning offers valuable opportunities for connections, conversation, and informal mentorship, there may be room for improvement in terms of ensuring robust knowledge and skill acquisition. For example, if someone is seeking to learn a specific skill like conflict transformation, it may be helpful to structure peer learning engagements in a way that allows for more detailed and in-depth exploration of the topic. This could include providing resources or activities that help participants practice the skill in real-world situations, or encouraging group members to share their own experiences and strategies for navigating similar challenges. By prioritizing the quality and depth of peer learning sessions, we can create more meaningful and impactful learning experiences for all participants

We agree. On the one hand, we intend to develop with the support of key stakeholders resources and eventually training on how to run successful peer-learning sessions, so that sessions are meaningful for participants. On the other hand, we expect the Capacity Exchange peer-learning experience to be complementary to other means of capacity-building: resources, hands-on activities and structured programs. As we have noted in our Roles and Responsibilities, the CapX platform is one part of a broader set of initiatives for capacity building in our movement, and robust knowledge and complex skill acquisition are possibly best acquired when participants combine experiences in diverse capacity-building settings that need to be coordinated, as you have noticed. We commend WMF’s Let’s Connect Program which has begun to build evidence of successful session formats for peer support, and hope that this program will continue and be closely linked with the Capacity Exchange.

Governance and sustainability:

• How does the team intend to respond to and inculcate the need for global alignment on this project. There is a potential need for social, political, and governance engagements (even lobbying?) for full adoption by all stakeholders. Has the team considered ways of doing this in parallel to ensure success, and if so, please consider sharing a brief plan for that.

In our Roles & Responsibilities we have established some critical activities regarding the needs for global alignment and social, political, and governance engagement, for adoption by key stakeholders:

• Development of a global engagement plan, built upon existing local and regional networks of both affiliate and informal groups;
• Periodical reassessment and update of the Risk Management Matrix, especially community engagement and governance;
• Deepening or establishment of collaborative connections with key-stakeholders, i.e., initiatives oriented towards capacity-building and skills development: Let’s Connect, Leadership Development, Volunteer Supporters Network, Community Capacity Development, etc; and local/regional initiatives such as Calibra; as well as projects, working groups, training courses, and hubs that might emerge along the way;
• Community consultations targeting local communities, affiliates, and key stakeholders (such as surveys, focus groups, and listening gatherings); designed and run by the Capacity Exchange Program Manager.

Community Outreach facilitation will be designed to localize and contexualize community engagement. The Community Outreach also includes online and on-site participation in key events of the Wikimedia Movement. Additionally, global, regional, and local activities will be conducted to promote the initiative. Our main strategy is to articulate engagement from the bottom up, establishing global interconnection from local and regional instances and conversing with on-going actions and initiatives. The early phase of this strategy will prioritize the engagement of all stakeholders directly involved in capacity-building in our movement. Later, these parties will eventually help us connect with other groups and individuals.

• In addition to the need for alignment, it is essential to work with all capacity-building stakeholders to have a systemic view of how this will operate and complement each other, ensuring that it is not a siloed design. The proposal demonstrates that the team recognizes this challenge, it will be good to have clarity on how this will happen.

We agree it is essential to work with capacity building stakeholders in the Wikimedia Movement, so that the Capacity Exchange platform is informed by and designed also with inputs and feedback from these stakeholders. In the document on Roles and Responsibilities, we have listed project stakeholders. Once the project starts, we plan to engage with capacity building initiatives to work together on developing the necessary governance for the Capacity Exchange platform. The integration between the initiatives depends on the shared construction of communication channels and a governance infrastructure among the capacity building stakeholders. Our team will work on this construction along with partner stakeholders. Specifically for the platform governance, we intend to expand the Advisory Committee, including members of movement capacity building initiatives, engaging these stakeholders more directly to the platform's consultative and deliberative processes, so that their needs and visions are taken into consideration in the development of the platform. Once the governance is established and as soon as we have a functioning beta version, we hope to count on the stakeholders’ involvement for our outreach plan. We understand that their involvement in outreach is key to the success of the Capacity Exchange platform, as each initiative works with specific community networks and that outreach is more effective when activated in these networks.

• How is this project team planning to ensure sustainability? The OER host must be sustainable, but it is not currently active, so unforeseen future costs may arise that are not being considered in the software's sustainability and future customization. More clarity is needed regarding this.

We plan to ensure the Capacity Exchange’s socio-technical sustainability by fomenting the evolution and persistence of community contribution and engagement, so that the investment is not limited to a one-round product. After the two years of development and implementation, the initiative will require sustained financial investment from Wikimedia Movement funds. It is expected that the technical housing of the platform will be decided in the second year of funding, depending on factors that are currently unknown. The OER platform was a prototype for our pilot test, then maintained by a developer whose time was donated by WMDE. In this phase, we achieved many changes with minimal effort and resources. The base code allows growth, and its branch on Github is available to be built upon. The platform is up and running on the Wikimedia Cloud service. The transition to the new Github repositories and administrative rights will involve both WMDE and WMB resources and will hopefully also include training and mentorship.s. Experienced on the different aspects of the project, the Advisory Committee will assist the new project team and help the success of the next stage. In the future, the Capacity Exchange code might be housed at WMB or another suitable regional or thematic hub. Once we have the resources and a fully engaged team, we’ll be able to plan more effectively and properly build the foundations for the software's technical sustainability and future customization.

• overall, is it clear to the team that the governance of the tool must be discussed to ensure its sustainability and that the information/data provided respects privacy while facilitating decision-making within the program and evaluating the tool's use and results, in terms of opening opportunities for peer connections and skills development.

The CapX platform is to be developed with the communities, as community engagement is the sole means of ensuring uptake, sustainability and success. As we have noted in our Roles and Responsibilities, we intend to actively connect with sister initiatives focusing on capacity-building to coordinate with them and other stakeholders on how to establish governing protocols (ie, safety, privacy), set up decision making processes and assess the tool's use and results.

• It will be good to provide some more clarity regarding the existing capacities on the team and the advisory board to be able to delegate or steer the project. Because the proposal relies heavily on securing others to carry out the work, it raises concerns about whether the hired team has the capability and know-how to do this work and whether the advisory board team has the ability to delegate/steer well.

We have provided detailed descriptions of team positions in our Roles and Responsibilities document. Wiki Movimento Brasil is responsible for selecting the team in consultation with the Advisory Committee. The team will be integrated into the Wiki Movimento Brasil’s management routine for coordination, interlocution and reporting. Andi Inácio has agreed to join the team as the program officer. We have already received an expression of interest from a developer that has worked with Wiki Movimento Brasil on other projects. Current Advisory Committee members have led the project since its inception – going back to the period in which the Strategy was being written – and are movement leaders from diverse contexts. As soon as the proposal is approved, we expect to expand the committee and invite key stakeholders to join it.

Effectiveness and budget:

• The budget should be flexible enough to increase the team or make changes if necessary. They may need more full-time developers and less budget for travel. The proposal plans to hire a program manager (60%), developer (50%), and outreach facilitators (30%), and while this team can build a platform in two years, it may be too stretched out capacity wise.

We have made changes in the budget based on this feedback. We have added a second developer to the team, and we have reduced outreach expenses, including travel.

• The team should be more agile and iterative, and a team with more than one part-time developer fully dedicated to this project should be brought together to launch something sooner.

We have made changes in the project based on this feedback. We have added a second developer to the team.

Platform technology and development:

• It is essential to figure out the mechanics of the experience simultaneously to the platform being built, and the focus should not be solely technical.

We intend to employ an agile methodology for software development. Such an approach allows better acceptance and response to ongoing changes, especially regarding requirements volatility and unpredictable challenges. When predictive and planned approaches fail, an agile methodology enables the identification, analysis, and uptake of different experience mechanics simultaneously and intrinsically to the product development. While envisioning and planning the Capacity Exchange, our focus is socio-technical, rather than solely technical. Ahead of the project management, Wiki Movimento Brasil aims to re-imagine the socio-technical infrastructure of the Wikimedia Movement, guided by an utopian-realist style. In this regard, technical problems and/or solutions are interlinked to the failure or success of collaborative and interactive practices. The consolidation of such socio-infrastructure takes into account the knowledge equity strategic direction and community health guidelines.

• How does the team intend to mitigate potential risks like feature creep. It would be great to see a more detailed plan of what is intended to be achieved feature-wise when in these two years. Please consider providing a clear definition of the minimum result of this followup grant, which tasks are priorities, which are nice to have and what might be out of scope? YPam (WMF) (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

For reference, we have produced a Risk Management Matrix we expect to update periodically. Feature creep might indeed be an issue at some point but current projections include a lot of flexibility with optional inputs, so that it is neither a short nor foreseeable mid term situation. Moreover, features will be built based on the existing prototype and with inputs from a broader Advisory Committee. Most of complexity is actually in translations, cross-cultural interpretation and communication of basics, but this is likely to be initially addressed with triangular approach and facilitators doing region-focused research, outreach, promotion and support, before they are effectively proposing updates and even later new features in technical setup. --Joalpe (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)