Strategy monitoring plan/Outcomes/2014 Q4
Key
| Outcome (from our Strategic Goals) | Outcome Measure |
|---|---|
| Green | Annual target expected to be met; or good outcomes |
| Yellow | Some issues but annual target should still be achieved; or reasonable outcomes |
| Pink | Annual target in danger of being missed; or outcomes require urgent attention |
| Grey | KPI not yet being tracked, or is no longer considered useful |
Notes and definitions
For explanatory notes and definitions (reference numbers in second column) see Strategy monitoring plan#Notes and Definitions.
Report card for this quarter
G1 Develop open knowledge
| Outcome (from our Strategic Goals) | Outcome Measure | 2014 target (to 31 Jan 2015) | Results Q1 2014 (Feb to April) | Results Q2 2014 (May to July) | Results Q3 2014 (August to October) | Results Q4 2014 (November to January) | Current notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1.1 The quantity of open knowledge continues to increase | Number of uploads | Report only | 37,643 images to Commons this quarter | 21,269 images to Commons this quarter | 84,956 images to Commons this quarter | 24,415 images to Commons this quarter Total in 2014-15: 168,283 |
|
| TEXT - Sum of positive edit size [1] | Report only | 4,791,175 bytes this quarter | 1,790,824 bytes this quarter | 5,802,530 bytes this quarter | 4,075,245 bytes this quarter Total in 2014-15: 16,459,774 |
||
| 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) | 13% | 8.0% this quarter[1] | 4.0% this quarter | 2.0% this quarter | 1.0% this quarter Total in 2014-15: 3.6% |
|
| Number of files (e.g. images) that have featured status on a Wikimedia project (including Commons) | 20 | 2 in year to date | 8 in year to date | 32 in year to date | 63 in year to date | ||
| Number of files having quality image status on Commons | 70 | 53 in year to date | 61 in year to date | 328 in year to date | 380 in year to date | ||
| Number of files having valued image status on Commons | 50 | 46 in year to date | 51 in year to date | 56 in year to date | 69 in year to date | ||
| Number of new articles started on a Wikimedia site (eg any of the encyclopedias), excluding Welsh Wicipedia | 200 | 341 in year to date | 437 in year to date | 682 in year to date | 835 in year to date | ||
| TEXT - Number of new articles started on Welsh Wicipedia inspired by WMUK | 10,000 over the course of the project | 2,182 in year to date (3,353 overall) | 3,250 in year to date (4,428 overall) | 6,293 in year to date (8,224 overall) | 8,218 in year to date (10,110 overall - the project's timelines extended slightly over our 2014-15 activity year) | ||
| 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. | Sum of reputation ratings [2] of organisations that we are working in partnership with, or were working with no more than than two years ago | 693 (5% increase) | 497 | 706 | 1008 | 1133 | |
| Awareness score in annual national survey of public opinion [12] | n/a | Not collected | Not collected | Not collected | Not collected |
G2a Develop, involve and engage WMUK volunteers
| Outcome (from our Strategic Goals) | Outcome Measure | 2014 target (to 31 Jan 2015) | Results Q1 2014 (Feb to April) | Results Q2 2014 (May to July) | Results Q3 2014 (August to October) | Results Q4 2014 (November to January) | Current notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G2a.1 We have a thriving community of WMUK volunteers. | Number of friends | 420 | 176 | 833 | 925 | 941 (registered in 2014-15) | |
| Number of volunteers [3] | 250 | 187 | 360 | 719 | 765 (total to date) | ||
| Number of leading volunteers [3a] | 140 (30% increase) | 54 | 104 | 271 | 305 (total to date) | ||
| Number of activity units [4] | 1200 (24% increase) | 663 in year to date | 1,470 in year to date | 2,204 in year to date | 2,539 in year to date | ||
| Number of leading activity units [5] | 145 (5% increase) | 115 in year to date | 418 in year to date | 822 in year to date | 987 in year to date | ||
| Leading volunteer [3a] drop out rate [7] | <10% | No data yet | No data yet | No data yet | No data yet | ||
| G2a.2 WMUK volunteers are highly diverse. | Proportion of activity units [4] attributable to women | 20% | 35% in year to date | 41% in year to date | 55% in year to date | 38% in year to date | |
| Proportion of leading activity units [4] attributable to women | 15% in year to date | 19% in year to date | 25% in year to date | 30% in year to date | 28% in year to date | ||
| Activity units [4] in activities to encourage other diversity or minority engagement[2] | 15 | 5 in year to date | 9 in year to date | 11 in year to date | 65 in year to date | ||
| G2a.3 WMUK volunteers are skilled and capable. | Activity units [4] in training sessions and editathons (total count, including people being trained) | 575 (5% increase) | 297 in this quarter | 433 in this quarter | 137 in this quarter | 150 in this quarter (total in 2014-15: 1,017) | |
| Leading activity units [5] in training sessions and editathons (ie trainers only) | 95 (6% increase) | 104 in year to date | 136 in year to date | 156 in year to date | 166 in year to date | ||
| Annual survey capability score [6] (self-identified) | To be decided | Not collected | Not collected | Not collected | Survey conducted, actions being prepared |
G2b Use effective and high quality governance and resource management processes
| Outcome (from our Strategic Goals) | Outcome Measure | 2014 target (to 31 Jan 2015) | Results Q1 2014 (Feb to April) | Results Q2 2014 (May to July) | Results Q3 2014 (August to October) | Results Q4 2014 (November to January) | Current notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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. | Progress on targets in the Hudson and Chapman governance reviews | All targets that we agree with have been completed and independently reviewed. | See narrative | See narrative | See narrative | See narrative (overall 2014-15: achieved) |
In Q4 we released the final governance report. This document marks the conclusion of a process that began almost two years ago. In summary, it found: “The charity has very largely addressed the 50 recommendations found within the original review. WMUK has developed very quickly, and the charity has clearly put a lot of effort into ensuring that its governance now meets best practice expectations. It has a cohesive, skilled and experienced board in place. They have a clear understanding of the charity’s vision and mission. For the stage that Wikimedia is in its life cycle it compares well with similar UK charities. Its transparency about its procedures is a beacon of best practice, and its conflicts of interest procedures are robust and well-tested”. As the report notes, “Inevitably, a lot of the Board’s efforts have to-date been internally focussed; putting in place robust governance arrangements and agreeing the new strategy that was published in March this year. [...] There is a chance for WMUK’s Board to become more outward focussed in its time and efforts.” This point was discussed at the board meeting in December 2014, to mark our continuous improvement as a charity. We hope the review serves as a useful learning resource for other organisations, and that chapters continue to benefit from our resources (throughout 2014-15, we have shared our learning on governance, through e.g. governance workshop, repeated in the year). Also, towards the end of 2014-15, we took part in the "Organizational effectiveness survey". Four people linked closely with WMUK responded, and as much as that is a small sample, it gives us a basis of internal reflection on our performance. One strong theme that respondents agreed on was that Wikimedia UK’s strength lays in delivering projects with partner organisations, and helping these organisations achieve impact. At the same time, there was also agreement that we don’t have enough resources to deliver to full potential. We are planning to address this in the 2015-16 programme.
Throughout the year, the organisation was working on improving its governance, and progressing consistently through the recommendations of the review. It has strengthened the board and the organisation as a whole, and we are extremely proud of this achievement. We learnt that improving governance can be a very resource intensive process. It can make the organisation put undue focus on it, making it very internally focused. It's our strategic ambition to aim for more external opportunities focus in 2015-16, to balance out the focus. |
| Progress towards PQASSO 2 | Complete all internal preparations for PQASSO 2 ready for external accreditation | See narrative | See narrative | See narrative | See narrative (overall in 2014-15 - not achieved, although progress in the background work had been made in Q2 and 3) | In Q4 our involvement with the PQASSO programme was put on hold due to focus on internal organisational changes. This external accreditation scheme is very time intensive in the preparatory stage, and the capacity was not available to take it forward.
Despite gaining some ground in initial preparations for the PQASSO process (e.g. staff training to build capacity, and internal scoping in Q3), we were not able to progress sufficiently. It remains to be decided whether we will be able to commit the resources to it in 2015-16. Experience shows that an organisation needs about a year of preparations before a formal accreditation application, and so this work area will need to be assessed. | |
| Level of external recognition | Narrative + eval score [16] | Eval: 1.8 / 3 | Eval: 1.8 / 3 | Eval: 1.8 / 3 | Not collected (overall in 2014-15: on good course to achieve our ambition of suitable level of external recognition, although the plans needed for the goal put on hold) |
We linked this evaluation score to our PQASSO progress (which has 1-3 levels of accreditation). Since this process was put on hold in Q4, we are unable to comment on our achievements in the area.
Overall, we have been making promising progress throughout the year in this area. Basing on the internal audits and scoping exercises, it could be suggested that we are on good course to achieve Level 2 of the external PQASSO accreditation ([1]). As discussed above, the process was put on hold in Q4 though. It is certainly now clear to us that such initiatives need guaranteed commitment from the organisation to succeed. In a broader context, our success in becoming a member of the Fundraising Standards Board should still be noted ([2]). This achievement gives us a local, UK based recognition for our standards of work, and so we see it as a success. | |
| 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 score [9] as measured by annual survey | n/a | Not collected | Not collected | Not collected | Not collected (overall in 2014-15, initiative not successful) |
2014-15 summary We were not able to complete a transparency survey in 2014-15. A drive to involve volunteers in the initiative in Q2 was unsuccessful due to the key people being focused on Wikimania London, and for the remainder of the year we were not able to find capacity to deliver this activity. |
| Transparency compliance [10] as determined by Govcom against published transparency commitments | Narrative | Eval: 2/5 this quarter | Eval: 4/5 this quarter | Eval: 3/5 this quarter | Eval: 4/5 this quarter (overall in 2014-15: 3.5/5 |
The following main factors were considered relevant to this quarter's score:
GovCom considered Q4's transparency score to be 4/5 2014-15 summary Our transparency ambition would be to aim for 'good' (4/5) or above level. The results for the year show a steady progress towards this aim, and as much as a yearly average falls short of this goal, we think progress can be shown and so are pleased with the final achievement. | |
| G2b.3 We have high quality systems to measure our impact as an organisation. | Progress towards full implementation of automated and manual tracking/measuring systems [8] | Narrative + eval score [16] | Eval: 55-60% achieved | Eval: 60-65% achieved | Eval: 65-70% achieved | Eval: 65-70% achieved | While CiviCRM continues to be our main platform for managing events – used much in the same way as in previous quarters – the continued development of the courses extension has led to some experimentation. Both have distinct advantages and disadvantages. Using CiviCRM allows us to follow up directly with event attendees, and encourage them to get involved with the charity through mailings. However, there is no direct integration between Wikimetrics and CiviCRM meaning that user names need to be exported from the database and imported into Wikimetrics to run reports. The course extension on the other hand has a dashboard. CiviCRM also requires updating after events to ensure appropriate post-event email are issued, which means a higher administrative workload compared to the courses extension. Training staff to use CiviCRM has been an ongoing process, but a worthwhile one as it allows us to build a detailed database. We have learnt that using CiviCRM to log partnership interactions and volunteering as well as manage events has meant that we have been able to establish not only that the number of lead volunteers who support the charity is much higher than initially estimated. Similarly we worked with more cultural institutions than we had estimated at the start of the year. As was noted in the Q3 report, Catscan was temporarily unavailable as it underwent an overhaul, but has since come back online, meaning we are again available to track how images supported by Wikimedia UK are used.
Looking back over 2014-15, it can't be underestimated how much change has taken place in terms of our systems for measuring impact. A strategy plan was created early in the activity year. This set out our mission, but also showed the way in which we were aiming to achieve that in practice. Having this clear set of high level strategic goals has been very useful in terms of being able to assess what we do and whether it fits into our aims and objectives, and we were working to gradually implement it into various areas of our work. After Q1 reporting, we received feedback from the FDC and our board, commenting that it is not easy to track our progress. We adopted a clearer reporting format from Q2 onwards, which included a traffic light system as well, that our board found useful. We committed to monitoring our performance, and were able to synchronise internal systems with those needed for the FDC. We continue work on the metrics systems as described in the Q4 summary above - the general reflection is that we have put a lot of work into Stabilising our Infrastructure. |
| G2b.4 We ensure a stable, sustainable and diverse funding stream. | Number of separate donors | 6000 (9% increase) | 5266 in this quarter | 5110 in this quarter | 5022 in this quarter | 4912 in this quarter | |
| Funds received from sources other than WMF fundraiser or FDC | £295000 (7% increase) | £63,846 this quarter | £58,991 this quarter | £102,318.49 in this quarter | £155,846 in this quarter | ||
| Proportion of funds from sources other than WMF fundraiser or FDC | 47% | 56% in this quarter | 33% in this quarter | 54% in this quarter | 64% in this quarter | ||
| Proportion of funds from direct debits | 45% | 28% in this quarter | 94% in this quarter | 28% in this quarter | 60% in this quarter |
G3 Reduce barriers to accessing open knowledge
| Outcome (from our Strategic Goals) | Outcome Measure | 2014 target (to 31 Jan 2015) | Results Q1 2014 (Feb to April) | Results Q2 2014 (May to July) | Results Q3 2014 (August to October) | Results Q4 2014 (November to January) | Current notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G3.1 Access to Wikimedia projects is increasingly available to all, irrespective of personal characteristics, background or situation. | Total number of scans of QRpedia codes [11] | 14000 monthly | 17503/month this quarter | 15446/month this quarter | 13281/month this quarter | 11392/month this quarter In 2014-15, average 15,373 visits per month |
|
| Projects addressed at new readers [16] being enabled to access Wikimedia websites | 3 activities | 1 in year to date | 1 in year to date | 1 in year to date | 3 in year to date (numerical target met, although see narrative for assessment of successfulness) | ||
| G3.2 There is increased awareness of the benefits of open knowledge. | Awareness score [12] in annual national survey of public opinion | n/a | Not collected | Not collected | Not collected | Not collected. Overall in 2014-15: survey not delivered, but other initiatives gave useful insight in the area |
|
| G3.3 Legislative and institutional changes favour the release of open knowledge. | Responses to EU and UK government policy consultations. | Narrative | See narrative | See narrative | See narrative | See narrative. Overall 2014-15: met our expectations |
In Q4 we worked on progress of the Speaker's Commission consultation - details below. 2014-15 summary Over the year, Wikimedia UK has submitted evidence to at least two key public consultations: UK Parliament's Speaker's Commission on Digital Democracy [3] and the House of Lords Select Committee on Digital Skills [4]. These were important pieces of work and have ensured that free and open knowledge has a place in these debates. Our evidence was used in the House of Lords paper, and we subsequently blogged about it [5]. Preparing the evidence was a substantial task, and we drew on the experience of other chapters to shape our response ([6]). We feel that we reached our ambitions in this area, as we were active in key national consultations relevant to Wikimedia in the UK. |
| Involvement in EU and UK advocacy activities; Involvement in advocating legislative change within GLAM, Education, and other organisations | Narrative + eval score [16] | Eval: 4/5 | Eval: 5/5 | Eval 5/5 | Eval 5/5 Overall 2014-15: met our expectations |
In Q4 WMUK continued to contact MEPs and policy makers and began planning an event about UK digital democracy to take place in 15-16 Q2 (if funding available). Legislative improvement was achieved when changes to the use of orphan works were enacted at a national level due to a European Parliament decision. See https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/11/response-to-the-new-ipo-orphan-works-licensing-scheme/ for more details. This is one of the cornerstone areas of work set out by the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU that we are active in. Additionally, we had strong successes in policy change within the WIR programme.
2014-15 was a year of good progress for Wikimedia UK's advocacy which, in part, fits in to the overall advocacy of the European chapters. We think that we meet our aspirations in this area by being involved in consultations and in case of the WIR work, introducing tangible changes that will carry on delivering positive impact (e.g. opening up content and so Increasing Reach of the content). Following the collective signing by many European chapters of the statement of intent of the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU work began in earnest to pursue the aims of the group: EU harmonisation of Freedom of Panorama, the right to use orphan works and public domain licensing of publicly funded works. We played an active role in the Brussels policy meeting in March. We took a lead in MEP outreach by writing to all 73 UK members of the European Parliament and developed good relationships with key statutory bodies such as the Intellectual Property Office. This approach is now being replicated by other European chapters. In November, along with the Wikimedian in Brussels our head of external relations met with a Chair of the European Parliament's committee on civil liberties and with key political advisors to discuss copyright reform and the potential for a "digital bill of rights". As a general note, our advocacy work was undertaken using voluntary income rather than funds from the Wikimedia Foundation. However, we include it here because we believe it is of great value to the Wikimedia movement and to free and open knowledge generally. As for the WIR work in changing the policies of their host institutions, many residents were able to introduce very positive changes into their organisations. To show the breadth of their work, we would like to present a non-exhaustive list of highlights
One thing we learnt in this area is that often an internal policy change can be met with unexpected resistance, and introducing changes is difficult. At National Library of Scotland, after a very positive start and a pilot image release, the process was put on hold. After some members of staff at the NLS raised concerns regarding the release of content onto a CC-0 licence on a mass scale, uploads were stopped to allow for internal conversations regarding the releasing of digital content onto open licences. Internal events - workshops, seminars, and surveys - were organised to encourage discussion and reach a consensus. This process will continue onto 2015-16. |
G4 Encourage and support technological innovation
| Outcome (from our Strategic Goals) | Outcome Measure | 2014 target (to 31 Jan 2015) | Results Q1 2014 (Feb to April) | Results Q2 2014 (May to July) | Results Q3 2014 (August to October) | Results Q4 2014 (November to January) | Current notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G4.1 There are robust and efficient tools readily available to enable the creation, curation and dissemination of open knowledge. | Number and availability of the project tools we host or support | Narrative | See narrative | See narrative | See narrative | See narrative | Wikimedia UK hosts QRpedia and the Virtual Learning Environment. QRpedia remains available, and is in the same state it was at the start of the year. The Virtual Learning Environment remains in beta test, as efforts have been directed to the Wikisoba project.
The Technology Committee meets regularly, with volunteers discussing various projects and developers and staff available as possible to update and join discussions. Earlier in the year a scoping exercise was carried out which highlighted failures of project management which hindered development. Amongst the recommendations was that a contractor, tech liaison, or Chief Technical Officer should be recruited to address the lack of project management, which in part stops our development in the area. However, the cost implications meant that alternatives were sought. Out-sourcing was looked into, but again the cost was higher than hoped. Currently, the charity's tech projects still lack formal project management. To mitigate this, the developers have emphasised the importance of using Wikimedia UK's installation of Bugzilla as a project management tool, and to help prioritise tasks. Overall, we feel that we are in a static position with regards to this goal, which warrants the 'yellow' assessment. |
| 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. | Uses [15] of the internal or supporting tools we host or support | Narrative | See narrative | See narrative | See narrative | See narrative | As in Q1 and Q2, the main tools are CiviCRM, piwik, and the Virtual Learning Environment. We use CiviCRM as often as possible when organising events to make reporting easier. Further work on Civi CRM was undertaken, but a decision was made to cease the contract with the external support company as it was not delivering against spend or impact criteria. An alternative maintained system will be considered as a result.
Of the three tools, CiviCRM has been given most developer time this year. Piwik has been maintained throughout the year, but we haven't reached our ambitions to modify its interface to make finding statistics for particular pages (germane for GLAMs interested in QRcodes). Over the course of the year, the Virtual Learning Environment has encountered issues with project management, resource allocation, and the interface between Moodle and the wiki software. While it remains in beta testing an introductory video is available below. Volunteer effort has been invested in Wikisoba, effectively a Moodle lite, with key volunteers working on both the front- and back-end development. CiviCRM has undergone software upgrade in 2014–15, and the inclusion of the volunteer module has been useful for tracking the charity's interaction with volunteers. Automated emailing was set up in Q2, however further modifications which would allow Gift Aid processing through CiviCRM was not completed. Overall we feel we made progress comparing to 2013-14, with some tool development and progress on CiviCRM (our key database system). We would have liked CiviCRM to be more functional though, some of its set up is still not available to the standard needed for us - hence the 'in progress' assessment of this aim. In the context of our organisation and its development, we are ready for a sophisticated database system, and so our current software falls short of that. |
G5 Develop, support, and engage with other Wikimedia and open knowledge communities
| Outcome (from our Strategic Goals) | Outcome Measure | 2014 target (to 31 Jan 2015) | Results Q1 2014 (Feb to April) | Results Q2 2014 (May to July) | Results Q3 2014 (August to October) | Results Q4 2014 (November to January) | Current notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G5.1 A thriving set of other Wikimedia communities | Funding to support other chapters and Wikimedia groups | £10000 | £10,149 in year to date | £10,443 in year to date | £12,043 in year to date | £12,043 in year to date | |
| Activities held for or jointly with other chapters and Wikimedia groups | 7 (including G5.2 and G5.3 events) | 4 in year to date | 6 in year to date | 15 in year to date | 17 in year to date | ||
| Total shared activity units [13] in shared activities [14] with other chapters and Wikimedia groups | 150 (including G5.2 and G5.3 events) | 103 in year to date | 125 in year to date | 374 to date | 389 to date (total in 2014-15) | ||
| Number of UK based Wikimedia events other than WMUK events | Report only | 15 this quarter | 17 in this quarter | 14 in this quarter | 7 in this quarter (total 53 in 2014-15) | ||
| G5.2 An increased diversity of Wikimedia contributors | Activities specifically directed to supporting the diversity of other chapters and Wikimedia groups | 1 | 1 in year to date | 1 in year to date | 4 in year to date | 4 in year to date | |
| G5.3 Wikimedia communities are skilled and capable | Activities specifically directed to help train or to share knowledge with other chapters and Wikimedia groups | 1 | 1 in year to date | 1 in year to date | 3 in year to date | 3 in year to date | |
| 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 | 5 | 0 in year to date | 5 in year to date | 7 in year to date | 10 in year to date (total in 2014-15) | |
| Total shared activity units [13] in shared activities [14] hosted with groups or organisations having similar goals to WMUK | 40 | 0 in year to date | 96 in year to date | 164 in year to date | 183 in year to date (total in 2014-15) |