Hi Katherine, thanks for the email.

Regarding the external expert for inclusive process you are looking for,
maybe this article is of help:

I'm posting here for everyone to see because I think is interesting for
everybody to understand
how other (similar?) communities do innovation and shape their strategy.



On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 3:42 AM, Katherine Maher <kma...@wikimedia.org>

> *(Apologies for cross posting)*
> Hi all,
> Since joining the Wikimedia Foundation and movement in 2014, I have often
> heard community members, movement organizations, and staff members speak of
> a need for a clear, unifying, and inspirational strategic direction for our
> movement. These conversations tend to follow a pattern: they start by
> recognizing the incredible work of our movement over the past 15 years,
> while seeking clarity on what we do next. What do we want to achieve over
> the next 15 years? What role do we want to play in the world? How will we
> prioritize our work and resources?
> At the June 2016 Board of Trustees meeting, the Board identified[1] the
> development of a long-term movement strategy as one of our top priorities
> for the coming year. Coming to consensus on a long-term strategic direction
> will help us know where we are headed, which path we will take, and how we
> will ensure our work is supported.
> At the Foundation’s December metrics meeting this morning, Anna Stillwell
> and Lisa Gruwell shared a presentation on the work the Foundation has done
> since June to prepare for a movement strategy consultation in the coming
> year.[2] We have been working to understand past Wikimedia strategy
> efforts, estimate future budgets and timelines, and secure resources for
> the year to come. In this email, I want to present some additional detail
> on this progress, and next steps we can take together.
> (*Fair warning: this is a very long email.* The critical information is as
> follows: The Wikimedia Foundation Board has approved a spending resolution
> and timeline for the upcoming strategy work. We anticipate beginning broad
> community conversations on the process, goals, and themes in early 2017.
> The Foundation is looking for an external expert to work with us (community
> and staff) to support an effective, inclusive process. I’ve been remiss in
> regular updates, but we will share them going forward. And of course,
> please share your thoughts and feedback on this list and on Meta [3].)
> *Strategic direction*
> We are expecting that we will begin a movement-wide strategy discussion in
> early 2017, with a process that runs throughout the year. The goal is to
> close 2017 with clarity and consensus on a strategic direction for our
> movement, and begin planning for how we will make progress in that
> direction.
> We are currently doing good work across our movement, but lack a unifying
> sense of how that work coheres into something greater than its individual
> parts. Wikipedia and the sister projects are remarkable, and our community
> is responsible for their success. Our movement has done an incredible job
> spreading our values and principles around the world—but we often look
> backwards to improve on our past, rather than looking fully at both our
> past and future. There’s an opportunity for us to consider how our vision
> and mission will remain current amidst changing media, demographics, and
> technology, and how we can better coalesce our efforts (ecosystem of
> affiliates, users, experts, new users, cultural and educational
> institutions, and the Wikimedia Foundation).
> Additionally, we (community, affiliates, Board, and staff) are increasingly
> aware of the challenges which arise without a unified movement strategy. We
> have heard from members of the FDC, grant applicants, community leaders,
> and a growing number of affiliates that they at times struggle with
> understanding how our separate efforts tie together and where we are going
> as an overall movement. The absence of a movement strategy, in other words,
> is hampering our ability to work toward our mission. Given the importance
> of that mission, and the need to hold ourselves to the highest account on
> responsible stewardship of donor resources, this is an expensive
> opportunity cost.
> *Budget*
> At the June Board meeting, I committed to develop a proposed process and
> budget in time for the Board’s annual November Board retreat. This process
> would reflect the type of approach we might take, and be accompanied by an
> estimated budget for the associated work.
> To prepare, we wanted to understand past efforts at developing strategies
> for our movement. We audited these past processes (2010, 2012/Narrowing
> Focus, 2014, and some other efforts) and interviewed past participants to
> learn what worked and what did not,[4] and took stock of what was
> missing—from external expertise to audience research—to clear ownership of
> outcomes.
> We recognized that, for example, while the 2010 process was highly
> collaborative, it had some notable challenges. For example, it was unable
> to turn collaborative goal setting into shared ownership of the work needed
> to reach those goals. It also did not have strong participation from
> emerging communities, particularly those in countries outside of Europe and
> North America. For movement planning to succeed in the future, we will need
> both broad and deep participation, from various perspectives and languages.
> To consider how we could realize this level of meaningful consultation, we
> spoke to people in the Foundation’s Community Engagement team and
> elsewhere, taking recommendations on everything from community toolkits and
> convenings to multilingual translation.
> Past processes have also often focused on qualitative perspectives, usually
> of our existing communities of editors and readers. We have had limited
> ways of understanding how broadly representative these experiences, needs,
> and challenges were, even for our existing communities. We have tens of
> thousands of editors, but even in our most collaborative effort in 2010,
> only 2,000 people contributed to the strategic discussions. Similarly, we
> have limited research about why and how people around the world use and
> engage with the Wikimedia projects as non-editors—and our understanding
> about what keeps people from using the projects, as editors or non-editors,
> is highly qualitative.
> As we engage in the consultation going forward, we see an opportunity to
> bring substantive audience-based research into our discussion, to inform
> our possibilities and challenges with good data. We worked with the Global
> Reach team, and staff from the New Readers and Audience Research projects
> to scope out qualitative and quantitative audience research in new,
> emerging, and existing editor and reader communities, and estimate
> associated budgets. And while we see this as an exciting opportunity to
> incorporate new data into our conversations, we also expect it to have
> lasting value beyond the coming year. Good audience research and data will
> help inform not just strategy discussions, but also should be helpful for
> Foundation and other product and programming decisions now and in the
> future.
> And of course, we are not alone in the world! We exist in an ecosystem of
> people who use, reuse, and remix the knowledge on the Wikimedia projects in
> all sorts of ways. We have a strong and growing community of institutions
> and partners in education, government, culture, and the sciences. We also
> have many technical partners and re-users who have a vested interest in our
> health. These stakeholders offer valuable insight into how our work extends
> into the world, well beyond the sites we run. We want to talk to them,
> understand the opportunities they see in the future, and the challenges
> they face today. We want to speak to people working at the edge of
> innovation in technology, to better understand how these trends affect our
> future, and to engage them in our mission.
> And last, but certainly not least, these discussions, collaborations, and
> conclusions need to be open and consultative. We want to work together to
> design a process of consultation, with opportunities for on-wiki
> conversation, face to face meetings, working groups, and more. In some
> cases, this may mean new conversations, and in others, we may want to bring
> additional capacity and participation to already scheduled community
> events. We will need additional resources for multilingual facilitation, or
> documentation. We will also need additional capacity to support these
> discussions, so that community and staff alike can retain their focus on
> the programs, grants, and product work to which they have committed.
> We want to bring this to life. But before we could commit to this approach,
> we needed to be sure we could assemble the appropriate resources to make it
> happen. Based on our research into past processes, best practices, and
> conversations with community and staff—we built a high-level estimated
> budget with resources for the following: inclusive, multilingual community
> consultation on-wiki and in-person; research into our users, new users, and
> consultation with external experts and stakeholders; and additional
> external capacity for management and production of the process. All in, we
> estimate that the full scope of work over 1.5 years will cost somewhere
> around US$2.5 million. This is divided out roughly as 35% support for
> direct community participation, 35% support for audience research and
> understanding external ecosystems, and 30% support for facilitation and
> external support.
> I know this sounds like a lot! As we break it down into budget lines, it
> starts to become more tangible. This estimated budget was developed in
> close consultation with the Community Engagement, Global Reach, and Finance
> teams. We worked with the Community Engagement team to use their models for
> community events and facilitation to budget for additional support and
> participation in community events. We worked with the Global Reach team to
> estimate the costs of qualitative and quantitative research around the
> world. And we worked with the Finance teams to understand hourly rates for
> non-profit strategic consultancies (finding that, even with non-profit
> organizations our commitment to meaningful consultation quickly added many
> hours to our planning).
> An overview of this budget estimate was presented to the Board at the 13
> November Board meeting. There the Board approved a spending resolution of
> up to $2.5 million over Fiscal Year 2016-17 (July 2016 - June 2017) and
> Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - June 2018). We are currently working to
> migrate this proposed budget into a format similar to the one we use for
> Annual Planning, for the purpose of consistency and clarity of review. This
> detailed budget, tied to specific events, contracts, and research areas,
> will be shared with to the Foundation Board’s Audit Committee[5], and with
> the greater communities for feedback.
> *Assembling a team*
> To increase our likelihood of success, we want to bring additional capacity
> and expertise to the table. No single Wikimedia Foundation department or
> Wikimedia movement affiliate currently has the complete skillset or
> available capacity to independently manage a strategy process of this size
> and scale. Our goal is to find an external entity with experience in
> organizational or movement strategies to help move us all (affiliates,
> current users, new users, experts, cultural and educational institutions,
> community committees, and Wikimedia Foundation) toward collaborative
> development of a movement strategy, and assembling a team to support this
> process.
> Practically, this means finding an entity capable of recommending a
> strategic approach, identifying necessary inputs (e.g., user research or
> sector mapping) to inform meaningful consultation and decision making,
> making timely process against deadlines, and helping ensure the delivery of
> the final work. We’re referring to this role as the “lead architect,”
> although it is likely to be a team, rather than an individual.
> We recognize that several individuals in our community already possess
> significant expertise in strategic planning, and we hope you will
> contribute your talents to the shape and content of the discussion. We also
> recognize it can be difficult to both facilitate a conversation and
> contribute to it at the same time. To help alleviate procedural and
> operational pressures on community contributors, and enable people to
> participate in primarily strategic and generative roles, we expect the lead
> architect and team will work closely with existing community and staff
> liaisons and advocates to support discussions as facilitators. They will be
> expected to support any community and Wikimedia Foundation bodies involved
> in the development of strategy.
> Last month, I asked Lisa Gruwell, Anna Stillwell, and Guillaume Paumier to
> begin a search for this external capacity. They spoke with a number of
> smaller organizations—a deliberate choice, to find someone who could be
> flexible and open to our needs—and put together a request for proposal
> (RFP) for interested firms. The minimal criteria for the lead architect is
> someone who:
>    - Has created successful strategies before (organizational or movement
>    strategies, rather than just a strategy for a department, a program, or
> a
>    product)
>    - Has proposed a coherent outcome and understands the need to build an
>    incredibly inclusive process
>    - Is willing to be paired with a full-time partner/advisor who knows the
>    movement well
>    - Has significant nonprofit experience
>    - Has significant international experience
>    - Understands that Wikimedia communities are passionate! There will be
>    an occasional raucous[6] debate. They must be willing and able to have
>    difficult conversations (difficult in substance, but not in tone).
> Although we spoke to many firms that were interested, some were unable to
> mobilize resources on our timeline. Others we didn’t feel were the right
> fit. In the end, we received two viable responses. We are hoping to make a
> decision by the end of this or next week.
> We recognize that our movement, mission, and culture are wonderfully
> idiosyncratic. While we know we need external skills in the area of
> movement strategies, we also know that any external organization will need
> extensive support understanding our movement values, culture, history, and
> projects.
> We are proposing pairing any external consultants with community and staff
> members who have deep community experience as guides, translators, and
> mentors. We don’t know exactly how we will work yet, or who will be
> interested in playing these roles. This is one question of many we will
> need to answer together.
> *Next steps*
> All the resource and planning progress in the world doesn’t get us far
> without community conversation. Beyond the budget, the decision to bring in
> additional expertise, and the timeline of the coming year,  we don’t have
> many more concrete details at this point. That’s intentional. We are
> committed to developing the specifics in partnership with you as we move
> forward.
> We also recognize we are embarking on something new. We’re proposing a
> model that, while based on research, past experience, extensive
> conversations, and a detailed budget—may not be perfect. We welcome the
> ideas you bring to make it stronger. We anticipate we will work in the
> open, communicate among ourselves regularly, pause along the way to assess
> our progress, and course-correct as necessary. This will be part of
> building together.
> Additionally, we’ll be providing regular documentation via email, and
> adding it to Meta-Wiki.[7] If you would like to receive updates via your
> user talk page, you can do so by signing up on Meta-Wiki.[8]
> If you’ve made it this far, thank you for reading. I imagine this is the
> start of many conversations. I look forward to them.
> Thank you!
> Katherine
> PS. An on-wiki version of this message is available for translation:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Updates/15_December_2016_-_Update_1_on_
> Wikimedia_movement_strategy_process
> [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-
> June/084627.html
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> metrics_and_activities_meetings/2016-12
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017
> [4]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Audit_of_past_strategy_processes
> [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Audit_Committee
> [6] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/raucous
> [7] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017
> [8]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Updates/Signup
> --
> Katherine Maher
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 149 New Montgomery Street
> San Francisco, CA 94105
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> +1 (415) 712 4873
> kma...@wikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to