WikiConference UK 2013/Elections/Questions/Geri McLeary

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Answers

Answer 1

I believe that the challenges include:
  • increasing our level of engagement amongst Wikimedia’s target audience and stakeholders;
  • ensuring that Wikimedia is accountable for its increasing spend on project work;
  • encouraging more people to contribute to Wiki content; and
  • assuring Wikimedia's infrastructure (people, staff, finance and systems) so that we are all confident that the enterprise is fit for purpose.
In my view the key to achieving these four things include improving Wiki’s relationships with its stakeholders, marketing of its events and raising the awareness of the Wikimedia brand more effectively. This includes running events in concert with target organizations (e.g. museums, libraries, DCMS, local authorities, etc.) that must add value to Wikimedia and the aims and objects of these stakeholders organisations.

Answer 2

To answer this question, I would like to pose two questions.
  • Do members really do things for others for free?
  • Or, do members do free things for non-financial returns?
If the former question is true, then perhaps Wikimedia has nothing to worry about it just has to continue doing more of the same thing (assuming of course that the volunteers’ work is adding value). If the latter question is true, then Wikimedia must engage more with its current and potential volunteers in order to understand the motivation driving people to contribute to its project work so that it can ensure that its projects continue meet the expectations of its volunteers as well as its other stakeholders. However these actions may not be enough because as Wikimedia increases the number and size of its projects more resources will be needed to orcehestrate this input effectively and efficiently. So, in addition to focusing on the needs of its volunteers and stakeholders Wikimedia must ensure that it has the capability to manage its programmes, projects and business risk which should not only improve its capability to deliver positive results it will also place in it a better to allow it to choose between competing schemes.
It should be noted that the above actions may require greater organizational regimentation/bureaucracy within Wikimedia and this may conflict with its freethinking culture. Consequently, I would counsel toward adopting an evolutionary approach rather than an a revolutionary one. And so, I would not necessarily expect Wikimedia to fundamentally reengineer the manner in which develops, runs and completes its projects. Instead, it may need put in place steps to grow its volunteers, risk management systems and staff capability organically so that it retain the best aspects of the enterprise’s values and culture. My background in business development, risk management and delivering a wide variety of complex projects in large and small organizations means that I’m well placed to assist Wikimedia in improving its programme, project and risk management capabilities.

Answer 3

I'm not convinced that correct response is as clear-cut as the question suggests. In my view it is more important for Wikimedia to comprise a membership that is committed its values and objects and who are willing to contribute to its thinking and project work. This principle applies equally to a Wikimedia comprising a small cadre of active members as it does to a larger Wikimedia. This trick is for Wikimedia to take steps to ensure that membership get something back for their contributions and for this consideration to be meaningful to the majority of members. I believe that challenging Wikimedia’s executive to show how its projects and other activities will take it a step closer to meeting its strategic objects - this includes increasing its membership and member participation rates.

Answer 4

Yes, I have perused the report and found it interesting and unsurprising. It held no surprises with regard to its findings and recommendations given that in my experience the robustness governance arrangements in many other organisations are not too dissimilar. While the hue of the RAG rating of the report is largely red/amber this needs to be viewed within Wikimedia’s context of it being relatively new and fast growing organisation, which is why I do not view the recommendations too negatively. Nevertheless, there is much work to be done to improve governance within Wikimedia if a subsequent governance review is going to be largely green in hue. For me the key to delivering positive results in the governance arena is getting the board to:
  • focus more on getting involved exclusively in strategic decision making,
  • get more intimately involved overseeing Wikimedia’s risk management arrangements and those known risks impacting on the delivery of its key business objectives,
  • allow the Wikimedia executive to manage the enterprise on a 'day to day' basis once it assured that it has the capability and capacity to do so.
I have not formed any views on just how successful the implementation of the Report’s recommendations has been to date because its too soon be certain that the changes suggested in the reported have been fully embedded within Wikimedia. I would need to be more familiar with the executive and board to understand the dynamics between them to allow me to formulate my own conclusions about the key lessons learned.

Answer 5

In my experience the adage ‘what gets measured gets done' is apt and true. Consequently, I believe that metrics have an important role in helping enterprises to manage and control their work and project outcomes. For Wikimedia its performance management metrics should include the value-add of training to those partaking in it and the contribution this training makes to helping it meet its business objectives. Having robust and relevant metrics in place would make reviewing the effectiveness of training much more straightforward. This is why I believe all training should have training objectives that are clearly stated with a clear line of sight to Wikimedia’s strategic objectives; and of course, the metrics must also be ‘SMART’.