Jump to content

Grants:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/Staff summary/Progress report form/Q3/ta

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This page is a translated version of the page Grants:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/Staff summary/Progress report form/Q3 and the translation is 2% complete.

This report is written by FDC Staff and is intended for the FDC, FDC grantees, and the larger movement.

The purpose and content of this summary report to the FDC

All FDC 2012–2013 Round 1 entities submitted their progress reports for Quarter 3 (Q3) and FDC 2012–2013 Round 2 entities submitted their progress reports for Quarter 1 (Q1). Among Round 1 entities submitting Q3 reports many reports were submitted in an incomplete state, and several entities were still making significant changes to the reports after the reporting deadline had passed.

Two entities receiving funding in 2012-2013 Round 1 were not required to submit a progress report for the third quarter. This is because one entity (Wikimédia France) received bridge funding from the FDC for a six-month term, and another (Wikimedia Foundation) had a grant period from July 2012-July 2013. Therefore, both grant terms have ended and these entities have submitted impact reports which have been reviewed separately.

The purpose of these progress reports is to give the FDC and the larger Wikimedia community an idea of how each entity is progressing toward its programmatic and financial goals throughout the term of the funds allocation. These reports are intended to track progress and document learning for each entity as well as the wider movement. They offer opportunities for entities to reflect and make changes in strategy and programs as needed. The reports also present the FDC staff and the FDC with opportunities to learn more about each entity and its work.

This FDC staff summary will have four sections:

  1. Comments about the reporting process: We will provide some general comments related to the reporting process that apply to all or many of these progress reports. Entities are encouraged to read this section carefully to better understand the reporting process. Since these are among the first progress reports submitted to the FDC, entities and the FDC staff are still working to clarify some aspects of the reporting form and process. We hope to improve the process for future rounds. As always, we welcome your feedback on how to do this.
  2. Themes from this past quarter's progress reports: Our summary will also highlight some common program areas that are visible across the entire portfolio and may present opportunities for learning among FDC entities. We have included learning from both Round 1 2012-2013 Quarter 3 and Round 2 2012-2013 Quarter 1 to give the movement a more in-depth analysis of the portfolio.
  3. Summary table of financial information from this past quarter: We will provide a table summary of our financial analysis from this quarter, including information about spending and revenues for each entity and overall.
  4. Summaries of each entity’s progress report in this past quarter: We will provide a brief summary of each entity’s progress with a link to each detailed report. These summaries will include details about spending patterns this quarter.

We would like to acknowledge and appreciate the time and effort that all entities devote to creating these reports for the FDC each quarter. We enjoy reading them and learning from them.

Comments about the reporting process

  • We recognize and appreciate the great efforts and good work of all R1 entities in submitting their reports for Q3 during a very busy time in which many of them were engaged in the proposal process for the following year. Furthermore, we congratulate all R2 entities on submitting their reports complete and on time.
  • We appreciate entities that have included videos, sounds and images in their reports to illustrate their work, and we encourage all entities to include more of this type of rich content in future reports. We will also revise reporting forms to ensure that it is easier to include this type of content and to provide entities with clear guidance around this.
  • It is important that entities answer each question on the reporting form or provide an explanation in cases when an answer is not available. Entities should provide accurate financial information to help us understand spending progress from quarter to quarter. This quarter, and in previous quarters, there have been mistakes in financial tables. We encourage entities to check their reports for completeness and to review financial details in order to avoid significant revisions to their reports after the reporting deadline.
  • It is important that entities report against their objectives so we may understand how they are progressing against their goals over time. While we appreciate that measures are included, it is often difficult to understand whether these measures indicate the program is performing as expected, less than expected, or more than expected. We also request that entities report against their original proposal or published revised annual plan in these reports. When new programs are listed, it is difficult for us to align them with the work outlined in the proposal.
  • An important learning from our first year of progress reports has been the need for entities to clearly communicate changes to their plans and to clearly lay out expectations about when and how these changes should be communicated. We greatly appreciate it when entities provide detailed explanations for changes to their plans, including revised budget tables. When significant changes occur, such as significant staffing changes to a staffing plan, we would like the rationale for and the implications of these changes to be clearly highlighted in these reports. This information is key to the FDC’s understanding of the execution of each entity’s plan. If a new annual plan has been developed as a result of the FDC allocation, we encourage entities to share it in these reports. 2012-2013 Round 2 entities did a good job of addressing changes in their first progress reports. We would like to emphasize that changes are not considered in a negative light, since we realize that plans need to change over time to adjust to unexpected circumstances, incorporate additional learnings or to take advantage of opportunities. We do want to ensure, however, that changes are documented and understood.
  • Entities are improving in the area of openly sharing learning through these reports, although there is still room for improvement. We encourage entities to continue to use the reports as an opportunity to reflect on their programs, their experiences and to contemplate future changes at a strategic level as well as at a program level.

Themes from this past quarter's progress reports

  • We are excited by the level of program activity this quarter and enjoyed reading these detailed reports with a strong focus on programmatic activity.
  • Furthermore, the FDC staff greatly appreciate that entities continue to improve their reports each quarter based on the feedback and lessons learned and appreciate that many entities are willing to be honest about results and challenges, even when they may be difficult to share.
  • We encourage all entities to work toward demonstrating the outcomes of their programs rather than describing their activities. While we appreciate the level of detail provided about each entity’s activities, we found that few entities consistently use metrics to show the potential impact of their activities on the projects and communities they are targeting. Specifically:
    • Entities are reporting large amounts of content contributed as a result of their programs and activities. We hope entities are moving toward ways to measure this content beyond numbers of files uploaded or bytes uploaded. We hope to see entities exploring ways to track the quality of content produced through their activities and its use on the projects.
    • When entities are organizing events, especially events targeting editor recruitment and retention, we would like to know more about how entities are planning to follow up with participants after events in order to track things like editing activity over regular time periods and results tracked through a survey or series of surveys. This will provide the movement with more useful information about what strategies are effectively addressing this key challenge for the movement.
  • Some entities are beginning to observe the early impact of Visual Editor on programs that target new editors. We look forward to continued reflections and observations on this important change.
  • Many entities have been engaging the communities they serve through their annual planning processes and are developing strategies to match and balance community decision-making with strategic and organizational priorities and resources.
  • Most entities observed lower-than-expected participation in Wiki Loves Monuments this year. They have included their reflections on reasons why participation may have been lower, from ineffective program execution to a changed understanding of the nature or purpose of the program itself, to addition to changes in the participant pools over time.
  • In the area of GLAM programs, entities are experimenting with partnerships with libraries, with mixed successes. For example, WMIL has established a successful help desk at the National Library in Israel. In other cases, partnerships with libraries seem high-potential but have been difficult to get off the ground.
  • For many entities, Wikimania participation from both staff and volunteers was a highlight of this quarter. We encourage entities to reflect more in future quarters on the outcomes of this participation, which is a large expensive for each entity as well as for the movement as a whole. For example, we encourage entities to collect reports from volunteers in order to record the positive outcomes of this investment and to track the contributions they make following (and perhaps because of participation at) Wikimania.
  • Many entities are working hard to produce and distribute offline printed outreach materials for different uses, but there has been little work done to assess the impact of these activities. As entities move forward with investing in these outreach materials, we would like to see more attempts to measure the outcomes or results of this work.
  • Microgrants continue to be a theme throughout these reports. As entities are experimenting with ways to support editing communities through these funding streams, which include microgrants, travel grants and bookgrants, we look forward to learning more about how community members actually use this funding and how effectively entities are able to reach their communities through these programs. We hope entities continue to share strategies, insights, and numbers that show how these programs are working.

Summary of spending for 2012-2013 Round 1 Quarter 3

This table includes estimates in US dollars based on the exchange rates used by entities in their own reports. The percentages displayed in table are also calculated based on the estimates in US dollars, and so may differ slightly from percentages listed in each report. Details on spending in the actual currency of each grant may be found in each entity’s progress report, in Table 3.

Several entities had discrepancies in their Q3 reports that have not yet been resolved. These clarification questions will be asked in weeks to come, and it is possible that this document will change based on answers. This document was created assuming the exchange rate provided was correct, and that all the quarterly spends are correct.

Note that this table does not include Wikimédia France (WMFR) or Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), as they have submitted end of grant impact reports. These reports will be summarized separately.[1]

Entity Exchange rate (to USD) Budget type Budget (~USD) Q1 (~USD) Q2 (~USD) Q3 (~USD) Cumulative (~USD) Q1 (%) Q2 (%) Q3 (%) Cumulative (%) Cumulative as % of ORIGINAL budget (%)[2]
WMAR[3] 0.17465 Total (staff and non-staff) $107,280.43 $14,241.08 $43,006.60 $33,450.37 $90,698.04 13.27% 40.09% 31.18% 84.54% 76.09%
Staff only $45,669.68 $11,159.64 $15,024.24 $13,612.00 $39,795.87 24.44% 32.90% 29.81% 87.14%
Non-staff only $61,610.75 $3,081.43 $27,982.36 $19,838.37 $50,902.17 5.00% 45.42% 32.20% 82.62%
WMCH 1.00000 Total (staff and non-staff) $658,710.00 $66,685.40 $84,967.61 $164,167.41 $315,820.42 10.12% 12.90% 24.92% 47.95% 47.95%
Staff only $191,160.00 $26,098.65 $39,988.00 $43,738.60 $109,825.25 13.65% 20.92% 22.88% 57.45%
Non-staff only $467,550.00 $40,586.75 $44,979.61 $120,428.81 $205,995.17 8.68% 9.62% 25.76% 44.06%
WMDE 1.30000 Total (staff and non-staff) $5,486,834.41 $1,076,173.28 $1,252,788.72 $1,242,062.24 $3,571,024.24 19.61% 22.83% 22.64% 65.08% 45.55%
Staff only $2,906,296.85 $721,926.73 $674,552.05 $760,635.63 $2,157,114.40 24.84% 23.21% 26.17% 74.22%
Non-staff only $2,580,537.56 $354,246.56 $578,236.67 $481,426.61 $1,413,909.84 13.73% 22.41% 18.66% 54.79%
WMIL 0.28409 Total (staff and non-staff) $146,715.91 $28,531.99 $29,587.72 $67,653.98 $125,773.69 19.45% 20.17% 46.11% 85.73% 78.44%
Staff only $53,181.82 $10,194.60 $7,236.36 $13,552.56 $30,983.52 19.17% 13.61% 25.48% 58.26%
Non-staff only $93,534.09 $18,337.39 $22,351.35 $54,101.42 $94,790.16 19.61% 23.90% 57.84% 101.34%
WMNL 1.30000 Total (staff and non-staff) $376,776.40 $61,061.00 $144,176.50 $81,629.60 $286,867.10 16.21% 38.27% 21.67% 76.14% 61.07%
Staff only $187,200.00 $36,800.40 $48,090.90 $48,647.30 $133,538.60 19.66% 25.69% 25.99% 71.33%
Non-staff only $189,576.40 $24,260.60 $96,085.60 $32,982.30 $153,328.50 12.80% 50.68% 17.40% 80.88%
WMSE 0.14535 Total (staff and non-staff) $705,523.26 $122,177.62 $140,878.92 $94,200.73 $357,257.27 17.32% 19.97% 13.35% 50.64% 52.30%
Staff only $454,941.86 $88,535.76 $103,756.98 $67,620.64 $259,913.37 19.46% 22.81% 14.86% 57.13%
Non-staff only $250,581.40 $33,641.86 $37,121.95 $26,580.09 $97,343.90 13.43% 14.81% 10.61% 38.85%
WMAT 1.30000 Total (staff and non-staff) $278,187.00 $38,828.43 $98,834.91 $41,885.05 $179,548.38 13.96% 35.53% 15.06% 64.54% 64.54%
Staff only $96,200.00 $12,276.36 $38,450.24 $20,242.00 $70,968.60 12.76% 39.97% 21.04% 73.77%
Non-staff only $181,987.00 $26,552.07 $60,384.66 $21,643.05 $108,579.78 14.59% 33.18% 11.89% 59.66%
WMHU 0.00452 Total (staff and non-staff) $60,972.85 $7,986.43 $8,265.38 $6,866.05 $23,117.85 13.10% 13.56% 11.26% 37.91% 37.91%
Staff only $22,624.43 $0.00 $4,391.21 $2,956.38 $7,347.59 0.00% 19.41% 13.07% 32.48%
Non-staff only $38,348.42 $7,986.43 $3,874.16 $3,909.67 $15,770.25 20.83% 10.10% 10.20% 41.12%
WMUK 1.60000 Total (staff and non-staff) $1,189,780.80 $246,814.00 $247,810.35 $248,056.40 $742,680.75 20.74% 20.83% 20.85% 62.42% 60.41%
Staff only $378,924.80 $95,077.89 $111,056.10 $85,679.76 $291,813.74 25.09% 29.31% 22.61% 77.01%
Non-staff only $810,856.00 $151,736.11 $136,754.26 $162,376.64 $450,867.01 18.71% 16.87% 20.03% 55.60%
  1. See WMF's Impact Report and WMFR's Impact Report
  2. Several entities changed their budgets over the course of 2013. This column takes the original budget (as stated in the original annual plan for 2013) converted to USD from the most recent exchange rate, and finds what the percentage spend for the current year is based on the originally proposed budget.
  3. Given the large fluctuations of the peso, the numbers here appear much lower than in past quarters.

Summary of spending for 2012-2013 Round 2 Quarter 1

Entity Exchange rate (to USD) Budget type Budget (~USD) Q1 (~USD) Cumulative (~USD) Q1 (%) Cumulative as % of ORIGINAL budget (%)
WMFR 1.36703 Total (staff and non-staff) 697,008 141,112 141,112 20.25% 15.48%
1.36703 Staff only 376321 62265 62265 16.55% 16.55%
1.36703 Non-Staff only 320687 78847 78847 24.59% 14.23%
WMNO 0.1628 Total (staff and non-staff) 183333 3077 3077 1.68% 1.68%
0.1628 Staff only 80000 0 0 -- --
0.1628 Non-Staff only 103333 3077 3077 2.98% 2.98%

Summaries of each entity’s progress report this past quarter

Round 1 2012-2013 Quarter 3 progress report highlights

Wikimedia Argentina (WMAR)

For a more detailed discussion about WMAR’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

  • Congratulations to WMAR on producing a high-quality report with a good level of detail and reflection. WMAR is applying lessons it has learned in the past to its current work.
  • Highlights of WMAR’s activities this quarter include its work with both the Space for Memory and Human Rights and the Mujeres Iberoamericanas contest, as well as Wiki Loves Monuments Argentina.
  • We encourage WMAR to move toward setting and reporting on stronger targets for its programs that are related to the outcomes or results of its programs

Wikimedia CH (WMCH)

For a more detailed discussion about WMCH’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

  • Highlights of WMCH’s work this quarter include its projects with the Neuchatel Herbarium and Botanical Gardens and its community-driven work on its annual plan.
  • In terms of capturing reflections and learning, this report is a great improvement over reports in previous quarters, although WMCH has needed to revise many of its reported expenses from this and from previous quarters.
  • WMCH is developing systems to coordinate work across its different language communities, and is reporting in-depth on its work with each community.

Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE)

For a more detailed discussion about WMDE’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

  • Highlights of WMDE’s work this quarter include the integration of WikiVoyage and Commons with WikiData, WMDE’s diversity work that included a diversity conference and successes with Women Edit and Silberwissen programs.
  • WMDE has introduced new change models this quarter as part of its program evaluation efforts.
  • We encourage WMDE to move toward specific and measurable targets for its programs as it continues its work.

Wikimedia Israel (WMIL)

For a more detailed discussion about WMIL’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

  • Highlights of WMIL’s work this quarter include its successful partnership with the National Library and a 10th anniversary celebration for Hebrew Wikipedia.
  • WMIL has successfully hired a new Executive Director and secured office space.
  • We encourage WMIL to begin to report on outcomes for its activities and to report against its objectives and in a format that helps us understand its progress from quarter to quarter and against its plans.

Wikimedia Nederland (WMNL)

For a more detailed discussion about WMNL’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

  • Highlights of WMNL’s work this quarter include Wiki Loves Monuments, a community-driven annual planning process and learning about partnerships.
  • We congratulate WMNL on their willingness to report on and measure numbers that show editing activity over time. Even if these results are not immediately encouraging, this is a positive step for the movement.
  • We encourage WMNL to continue to set stronger targets for its programs that are related to the outcomes or results of its programs, and to track its metrics over time in order to measure editor retention and use of content in the projects.

Wikimedia Sverige (WMSE)

For a more detailed discussion about WMSE’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

  • Highlights of WMSE’s work this quarter include its participation in the Gothenburg Book fair, its mention in the Swedish bill to parliament and the distribution of its Free public information brochure to members of parliament.
  • We appreciate that this report was rich in detail and included many images to illustrate WMSE’s work. We encourage WMSE to work on showing how its many activities are united by shared objectives which are part of a coherent organizational strategy.
  • We look forward to the results of WMSE’s new system to manage its technology pool.

Wikimedia UK (WMUK)

For a more detailed discussion about WMUK’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

  • Congratulations to WMUK on its increase in program activity as well as WMUK’s progress on governance.
  • Highlights of WMUK’s work this quarter include the Train the Trainers programs, Wiki Loves Monuments and Wikipedian-in-Residence programs.
  • WMUK’s work to support Welsh Wikipedia has been quite active this quarter, with many trainings, videos and materials created. We hope to learn more about this project’s outcomes in future reports.

Wikimedia Österreich (WMAT)

For a more detailed discussion about WMAT’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

  • WMAT is reflecting on its current and past activities and adjusting its strategies appropriately.
  • Highlights of WMAT’s work this quarter include Wiki Loves Monuments, a partnership with the Botanical Garden in Graz and securing a grant from Netidee.
  • WMAT recognizes challenges with goal-setting and we encourage WMAT moves toward including clear targets in future plans and reports.

Wikimédia Magyarország (WMHU)

For a more detailed discussion about WMHU’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

  • We are concerned about the low level of spending and program activity at the third quarter. WMHU’s spending is at approximately 38% of WMHU’s budget of 13,475,000 HUF.
  • Highlights of WMHU’s work this quarter include an overall increase in program activity as well as its WikiCamp, the party for the tenth anniversary of Hungarian Wikipedia and Wiki Loves Monuments. We see that WMHU is increasing its program activity, and we look forward to that continued trajectory.
  • Unfortunately, this report was not submitted complete, and questions from last quarter’s report still remain unanswered. We appreciate the work WMHU has put into sharing learning this quarter, and hope that questions asked this quarter and last quarter will be answered by WMHU.

Round 2 2012-2013 Quarter 1 progress report highlights

விக்கிமீடியா பிரான்ஸ் (WMFR)

For a more detailed discussion about WMFR’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

  • WMFR has hired a new Executive Director, Nathalie Martin, and program activity is increasing.
  • Highlights of WMFR’s work this quarter include aerial photography of Versailles, a partnership with Centre Pompidou and Wiki Loves Monuments.
  • We strongly encourage WMFR to move toward outcomes-focused reporting and setting clear targets related to the objectives of each of its programs so that we can better understand how WMFR’s programs are affectings related projects and editing communities. WMFR has shared information about quality ratings for rated images contributed as a result of its Community support program, which is a good step in this direction.

விக்கிமீடியா நூர்ஜெ (WMNO)

For a more detailed discussion about WMNO’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

  • WMNO shared a detailed explanation of the changes to its plan, which was adjusted following the FDC recommendation. WMNO has also shared detailed numbers in the Growth section of the report, which offer good insight into their work.
  • Highlights of WMNO’s work this quarter include its successes with establishing more Wikipedian-in-Residencies in Norway.
  • Program activity and spending was very low this quarter, although WMNO expects program activity and spending to pick up in future quarters after it is able to onboard staff.