Talk:Reports 9Feb13

2013 programme

I don't understand how [1] relates to the 2013 Activity Plan. Please could this document be set out and explained on-wiki? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This is something I will explain in more detail at the board meeting but basically this is a broad view over the programme to inform our quarterly reporting to the FDC and board. For the FDC they expect to see financial spreadsheets and a narrative. This document, populated with date put in directly by myself and staff will fulfil that narrative purpose. It IS a draft at the moment as we are filling it in as we determine what will be happening in delivering the programme between February 2013 and January 31st 2014.

The first column relates to items in the 2013 plan.

This is a management document that will inform our progress during the year.

As to its format; would it be a productive use of volunteer or staff time to convert it into wikitext? Richard Nevell, no slouch at wikitext, spent over three hours putting the risk register document onto the UK wiki and being honest it is much less easy to understand than it is on the gdoc.

This is also a document that is changed almost daily. Would it be a good use of staff time editing in wikitext with all the tables and data involved? Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, and I look forward to hearing a more detailed explanation at the board meeting. Unfortunately, the version on google docs is rather useless as a) it's not even possible to comment on the document, and b) the columns are so thin that far too much scrolling is needed. A direct translation to a wiki page probably isn't the best approach to take, as wiki pages are best formatted rather differently from how you'd format a word document, as I've tried to demonstrate with the risk register. With the way you've set out the formatting of this document, though, it would probably be far better set out as a spreadsheet than a word doc. Mike Peel (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify the question? It's the first I've seen of that document (it's still being written, by the look of it, so presumably it will be better publicised once finished - would be good to include the community during the drafting stage, though), but at first glance it looks pretty self explanatory. It's taking the agreed plan and expanding on it with KPIs and a quarterly breakdown of when things are going to happen (which is great - quite a lot of this should have been in there before the plan was approved, but better late than never). There are also some columns showing how it links in with the FDC proposal, although I don't completely understand what is happening there. --Tango (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tango for the comments. This is quite a challenge to create a document that is accessible by staff, understandable to a wider audience and applicable to the needs of the FDC and our board. If I could go into 3D I would. I believe this is a good step forward, links in well to the risk register, works with a variety of audiences, is flexible and with a traffic light system will identify how the programme is going. What makes me very happy is that when the three new staff start in March they will be able to see what they are meant to be doing from day one rather than having to invent their own programmes as we have all had to do so far. I can also approach some CBA which I know will please you. It will be linked to the plan page when we have reached the point, within a month I hope, that it is fully bedded in.

As to the timing - our plan was very much determined by the FDC grant timetable and driven off course by other events. I am already talking to the FDC about their timetable for next year with a view to getting ahead of the game in a way we did not achieve this year. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)