Hi Katherine, thanks for the email. Regarding the external expert for inclusive process you are looking for, maybe this article is of help: https://hbr.org/2016/12/how-employees-shaped-strategy-at-the-new-york-public-library
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. Regards Aubrey On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 3:42 AM, Katherine Maher <kma...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > *(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: 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>
