Strategy/Archive/Strategy monitoring plan

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wiki.png Strategy


Measures and targets table[edit | edit source]

In this operational table, each of the measures listed defines a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for the charity, and will be tracked and reported on - biannually to match the FDC's requirements, but possibly more often if needed. All KPIs that can realistically have numerical targets should have them. Some KPIs can be measured numerically but not realistically targeted, while yet others are amenable only to a best-judgement evaluation (that we call an 'eval score') or are qualitatively assessed using a narrative. Narratives are useful in addition to hard numbers as they enable us to 'tell the story' of our impact.

The various KPIs for each Outcome, when taken together, can give us a qualitative indication of what the charity's impact is against each Outcome.

See below for referenced definitions [n].

See Strategy monitoring plan/Outcomes for links to the published KPI reports.

As of Q1 2015-16, we have now been working with our strategy in place for a year (see Strategy monitoring plan 2014-15 for last year's KPIs system). Over the last few months, we have been reflecting on: The activities we are engaged in, the most useful indicators regarding our performance, and the administrative burden our reporting places on staff. Alongside this, we have been restructuring, and thinking about how we can be more project focussed, and joined up in our activities. The Wikimedia Foundation has also made it clear that they would like to see a set of 'Global Metrics' reported to them where appropriate. While we can and will report on the performance indicators required for Wikimedia UK, in some cases the Foundations metrics are closely aligned with our own and can be readily incorporated.

In order to operate effectively, we have made the decision to scale back our KPIs, acknowledge that in places we can more effectively 'tell the story' through narrative than with a numeric indicator, and remove duplication and KPIs that proved too challenging to assess at this time. We have also added a couple of new KPIs where we saw gaps in what we were measuring. We have decided to keep both G1.1 goals without targets at this time (as we explained a year ago), however we will encourage partners to “think big”, to aim for large scale contributions alongside high quality, and may reassess this position again in the future.

The key changes are:

  1. Some definitions are being assessed (e.g. to alter 'bytes added' to 'bytes added and/or removed' per WMF Global Metric 6)
  2. A number of metrics, some of which it is not possible for us to properly assess at this time, (e.g. awareness of Wikimedia UK) have been dropped
  3. For clarity, a number of metrics where either a numeric indicator was given, but makes little sense alone, or that were reported as narratives, are being separated out to be reported in a narrative accompanying text. While we believe these goals to be key to our mission, reporting narratives in a KPI table makes the table harder to read, harder to use to understand our progress, and harder to understand the narratives themselves and their relationship to our activities.
Outcome Measure
outcome 2014-15, where relevant
KPI target for 2015-16
G1.1 The quantity of open knowledge continues to increase Number of uploads
TEXT - Sum of contribution edit size [1]
WMF Global Metric 6
G1.2 The quality of open knowledge continues to improve Percentage of WMUK-related files (e.g. images) in mainspace use on a Wikimedia project (excluding Commons)
G1.2 The quality of open knowledge continues to improve WMF Global Metric 4 - absolute # of images used (to be calculated from the captured image numbers)
Number of files (e.g. images) that have featured status on a Wikimedia project (including Commons) 63 - c. 20 from WLM
Number of new articles started on a Wikimedia site (eg any of the encyclopedias, incl Wicipedia) 835 + c8000 from Welsh Wikipedia 800 - will run fewer editathons and classroom assignments. Wales activities may focus less on creating articles.
WMF Global Metric 5 - articles created and improved n/a Track
G1.3 We are perceived as the go-to organisation by UK GLAM, educational, and other organisations who need support or advice for the development of open knowledge. Not a KPI. Performance will be reflected in a narrative, rather than giving a numeric indicator of reputation rankings. 1133 This is not a KPI. Narrative on our achievements will be captured though.
G2a.1 We have a thriving community of WMUK volunteers. Number of volunteers (people involved in WMUK activities) [3] 765 - about 180 of those around Wikimania 2014
WMF Global Metric 3 (But note, we exclude those who attend [are 'involved'] but do not give us contact details)  
Number of leading volunteers [3a] 305 - about 180 of those around Wikimania 2014
Number of activity units [4] 2539 - about 600 around Wikimania 1800 (if we count attendees at any events)
Number of leading activity units [5] 987 - about 500 around Wikimania 400 (-Wikimania and the less active period in Q1)
G2a.2 WMUK volunteers are highly diverse. Proportion of activity units [4] attributable to women
Proportion of leading activity units [4] attributable to women
G2a.3 WMUK volunteers are skilled and capable. Annual survey capability score [6] (self-identified) Survey circulated and results published [1] Repeat survey - overall score of 4/5. Follow up on 2014 identified actions
G2b.1 We have effective and high quality governance and resource management processes, and are recognised for such within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charity sector. Not a KPI deemed as high through the narrative in 2014-15 Performance can be captured as a narrative, continued work on governance processes are at this time not a key priority.
G2b.2 We have a high level of openness and transparency, and are recognised for such within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charity sector. Transparency compliance [10] as determined by Govcom against published transparency commitments 3.5/5 4 out of 5
G2b.3 We have high quality systems to measure our impact as an organisation. Not a KPI 65-70% achieved Performance can be reported as a narrative.
G2b.4 We ensure a stable, sustainable and diverse funding stream. Return On Investment (with and without staff time) i.e. spend per £1 raised n/a To be set by the CEO with fundraising duties.
G3.1 Access to Wikimedia projects is increasingly available to all, irrespective of personal characteristics, background or situation. Not a KPI 3 projects delivered (as set) This aspect needs to be considered at project planning stage, but is not a KPI.
G3.2 There is increased awareness of the benefits of open knowledge. Not a KPI Survey was not conducted, however, other successful initiatives were delivered Not tracked in 2015-16
G3.3 Legislative and institutional changes favour the release of open knowledge. Involvement in EU and UK advocacy activities; Involvement in advocating legislative change within GLAM, Education, and other organisations - narrative Narrative - several successful consultations and organisational changes via WIRs narrative - 3 cases of change / our evidence being considered
G4.1 There are robust and efficient tools readily available to enable the creation, curation and dissemination of open knowledge. Not a KPI Static position in 2014-15 Capturing activities as a narrative, but without an organisational goal towards it
G4.2 There are robust and efficient tools readily available to allow WMUK - and related organisations - to support our own programmes and to enable us to effectively record impact measures. Not a KPI Progress achieved in comparison to 2013-14, but scope for further improvement Capturing activities as a narrative, but without an organisational goal towards it
G5.1 A thriving set of other Wikimedia communities Activities held for or jointly with other chapters and Wikimedia groups 17 - incl about 10 around Wikimania 5 (due to internal focus in 2015-16)
Number of UK based Wikimedia events other than WMUK events
G5.2 An increased diversity of Wikimedia contributors Not a KPI 4 initiatives in 2014-15, assessed as matching our goal Capturing activities as a narrative, but without an organisational goal towards it
G5.3 Wikimedia communities are skilled and capable. Activities specifically directed to help train or to share knowledge with other chapters and Wikimedia groups 3 - incl 2 around Wikimania
G5.4 Open Knowledge communities with missions similar to our own are thriving. Number of shared activities [14] hosted with groups or organisations having similar goals to WMUK
(via the Open Coalition project)

Notes and Definitions[edit | edit source]

Ref Term Definition
To do
(1) Positive edit size Sum of edit sizes in characters where text content has been added overall to the mainspace of a Wikimedia wiki. We are here measuring quantity not quality of educational text content. We ignore all edits where content has been deleted overall, on the basis that deletions cannot generally be equated with the negative addition of content by that editor. We are aware that such an approach is relatively broad-brush, and will actively seek improved tools/measures in this area.
(2) Institution reputation rating Our estimate of the external reputation of each GLAM, education organisation or learned society that we work with. This information is solely to enable us to track our own charitable impact consistently, and we will not be publishing the values we use for individual organisations
(3) WMUK volunteer WMUK activities and volunteers#WMUK volunteers
(3a) Leading volunteer WMUK activities and volunteers#WMUK leading volunteers
(4) Activity unit WMUK activities and volunteers#Activity units
(5) Leading activity unit WMUK activities and volunteers#Leading activity units
(6) Annual survey capability score To be defined Questions to be written Proposed survey to be repeated annually by WMUK
(7) Leading volunteer drop out rate The proportion of our leading volunteers volunteers that drop out (no longer remain actively engaged with us) annually Determined for each volunteer one year after first activity, two years and so on.
(8) Tracking/measuring systems The manual and automated systems by which WMUK tracks outputs/outcomes in accordance with the strategic plan
(9) Transparency score To be defined Questions to be written Proposed survey to be repeated annually by WMUK
(10) Transparency compliance As measured by Govcom against published transparency commitments Commitments to be defined
(11) Scans of QRpedia codes The number of times QRpedia codes are used to direct to a Wikipedia article This a is a subset of (15)
(12) Awareness score To be defined Questions to be written Proposed survey to be repeated annually by WMUK
(13) Shared activity units A count of the number of units contributed by volunteers (not necessarily WMUK volunteers) on shared activities (14) With technology-based groups or organisations having similar goals to WMUK
(14) Shared activities Activities that WMUK jointly lead with some other group Does not include activities run by other groups that WMUK volunteers or staff simply attend or engage with. Depending on context, the other group could be Wikimedia-related (eg a chapter) or could be external to the Wikimedia movement (eg OpenStreetMaps)
(15) Uses of tools The number of times in aggregate a WMUK tool is used.
(16) Eval measure A best-judgement evaluation on a scale of 1 to 5 (5=best) Used in lieu of a objective metric where such a metric is impossible or currently impracticable to obtain
(18) WMUK activity WMUK activities and volunteers#WMUK activity