Grants talk:APG/Proposal form v2

2 cents

I believe it would be really useful if it was clear from the very proposal form, that EACH goal, that is to be funded, has to be SMART, and in particular the entity should propose the measures of evaluating success (also, preferably on a non 1-0 scale, so with a possible partial fulfillment as well). One of the problems of previous proposals (most, if not all of them) was that the goals were defined in a vague way, on a general and ideal level, without hard measures to evaluate them. Also, I believe that each goal should have milestones - the entities should be at liberty to propose them, as well as to propose methods of communicating achieving (or missing) those milestones, but they should be communicated to the general public somehow, especially when the goals are large and take up a significant chunk of the budget. Finally, I believe it would make everybody's life so much easier, if the budget numbers were provided in some spreadsheet that allows to make additional calculations by whoever wants to make them - this increases the transparency and allows for a more fair evaluation. Wikis are great for many things, but they are not spreadsheets - let's use them, when sensible :) Pundit (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pundit, could you clarify what you mean when you say that "the budget numbers were provided in some spreadsheet that allows to make additional calculations by whoever wants to make them"? I can't envision what you mean. :-) Where is the spreadsheeet to be hosted so that it is transparent if not on wiki? (Sydney Poore)FloNight (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for being unclear. I'm just suggesting uploading e.g. an xls file (or any other format, really) instead of typing the numbers into a wiki-coded table, as in a spreadsheet file you can do additional calculations very easily (and also check if sums are fine, etc.). Pundit (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. Thanks! --(Sydney Poore) FloNight (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pundit and FloNight, thanks for your comments and review. I too agree that we can help propose stronger language around SMART criteria (and I will include a link to explain what that refers to), but if you propose some suggested language, that may help to more strongly articulate what we are after. I think that the whole table around measuring activities needs to be more heavily edited, so I am reluctant to make major changes to that now. This Round will help us further refine those changes needed. Finally, I have also added the change about a spreadsheet file for the budget, rather than a wikicoded table. KLove (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Some proposed changes in the form

Since the plan is not to have any major/substantial change in the form (and in the FDC process as a whole), I feel following minor changes might ease up the use & understanding of the form:

1. Contact person: In the first round of FDC, the feedback from the entities often took long time to come; which broke the tempo of the discussion quite often. There is one contact person in the form which is common for a process like this. However, though there is no mention or restriction that no other member of the EE may reply the questions/queries posed, most of the times only the contact person gave the replies (there were exceptions though). I think, since one contact person is mentioned on the form, so other members of the EEs might have thought that all the replies would have to come from the contact person only (though applying for the FDC funding is ought to be a collective effort by the EEs). And since mostly volunteer members are involved in this process, that might have created the inertia in between the discussions. So, I feel the need for having a pool of members from the EEs (to be mentioned on the form) who would reply the questions/queries along with the contact person.
2. More specific year-to-date progress: In round-1, the responses we got in the year-to-date section were not comparable since different EEs perceived differently. It is mentioned on the form to give the year-to-date progress as close to the submission date as possible which EEs perceived differently. That made the figures for different entities incomparable. Again the variance percentage column doesn't clearly say anything. So, I propose the time frame be mentioned along with the year-to-date progress figure (i.e. from this date to that date). We then get a percentage figure as variance from actual budget. We should also include anther item as projected total final expenditure amount for the current year & a variance of that amount from the total budget (along with explanation of that variance as well).
3. The summery of staff expenses can be elaborated a little more for better understanding and interpretation. We assume that most of the EEs applying for FDC funding already have staffs and are expected to have increase in staff positions. So, it is obvious that most of them would have increase in staff expenses in two forms - 1. increase in staff expenses for current staff positions (as pay increases) and 2. increase in staff expenses for employment in newly created posts. So, proposed increase in staff expanse can be broken down into two parts - increase of expense in current staff positions (along with % increase) and increase of expense in newly created posts (along with % increase).

Cheers

- Ali Haidar Khan (Tonmoy) (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Tonmoy, for sharing some good ideas! You'll see I have taken all of them into the new form in one way or another.

1. I understand why you'd like to have a larger number of people to contact on the form, so I have added an additional contact person and designated 'primary' versus 'secondary.' While I can see why a pool of 3-10 contacts may be helpful in some circumstances, I think it also has the potential to create confusion in the entity staff and volunteers itself as to who is communicating with who, when, and what has been the conversation to date. Ultimately, the primary contact person should be the official and designated person to speak for the entity and to be able to represent the proposal, including responding to all questions. The issue of response time may be a challenge regardless of how many people are on the list. I hope we can create expectations for an acceptable period of turnaround time. Let's see how it goes this round with two contacts and then revisit if needed.
2. This field has been added and I hope I have better explained about what 'year-to-date' means.
3. This field has also been added. I hope it results in some better data for the FDC.

Once again, thanks for all your suggestions and thoughts. I do hope these edits will make the proposal form more user-friendly for all involved! KLove (WMF) (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Staff

Just to have this feedback documented: might help to clarify each time that we say "staff" we are also taking about long-term contractors. Jwild (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have added this language in several places--please feel free to let me know if it is overkill. KLove (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This may be a change for next time, but it would be good to add a column to the staff tables that indicates whether the staff referred to come under the FDC application, and which are being funded from elsewhere (e.g. grants/other donation stream/core activities). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mike; we'll definitely tackle this in the next round of revisions. KLove (WMF) (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

SWOT

For some of the examples, could we add some more concrete capacity examples? Like, "Education program expertise; institutional knowledge on outreach" or something like that? I think it's important to strive for building capacity in concrete functions and areas, though I know it's hard to get to with this question. For example, when thinking of our own internal team at WMF, while it is important that we have a good governance structure, the more critical strength our team now has is in grantmaking expertise, while the weakness may be something like limited language skills. Then, if we find that at the end of next year that weakness was a lot bigger than we had anticipated, we would extend our team around that criteria. Does that make sense? Jwild (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we're trying to get something beyond organizational structure, this can help us understand entity program capacity and expertise. I have added the two that you suggested. If you have other good, tangible examples, we can add those as well.KLove (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Volunteers and Members

I wonder if it might be helpful to expand the questions about how many volunteers and members to include a definition of these things. For example, is a member just someone who pays dues, or do they have to participate in at least 2 events per year? What form do volunteers take: individuals who comment on program plans, who participate in on the ground programs, or who edit Wikipedia? I think it would help us understand our partner entities better if we knew how they thought about these indicators of community participation. Jwild (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Very good point, and I am sure there are widely differing interpretations of membership and volunteer. I have expanded the question for them to define what they mean by volunteer and member themselves. It would be great to be able to track various chapters mean by these broad categories. KLove (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Budget link

This might not be a necessary comment, but should the "Please link to your detailed budget" request mandate a link to a spreadsheet, rather than a wiki? I'm not sure if this is already the default, but I am thinking on the back-end of processing this information, it would be helpful to have in that form. Feel free to disregard this comment :) Jwild (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point, this is exactly what I had in mind in my obfuscated comment above. Pundit (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. I am making that change. KLove (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That might increase the chapter's workload, though, if e.g. they've put their budget together on a wiki rather than in a spreadsheet. It's also not possible to upload spreadsheets on-wiki, which might mean that they're less publicly accessible (e.g. if they're in google docs) and more susceptible to vanishing at some point in the future. I'd prefer that we continue giving the chapters the choice, rather than mandating. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike--you've brought up a good point. I'll make sure that we do log these permanently, but you're right that these budgets stick around--publicly--indefinitely. However we've identified that there are methods to uploading hosted spreadsheets that are available to the public. The way it is written allows the chapters to choose, as I believe was done last time. This is something we really will need to think about more for the future. KLove (WMF) (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Expenses by program

I agree that staff should be excluded form these program expenses sections, but it could make sense to add a column for "# of staff / contractors involved" (that is not a clear descriptor, but hopefully my point is coming across. This would help us understand the force being put behind certain programs. Alternatively (and actually I like this idea better now that I am thinking about it), you could ask for "Program Coordinator Contact," which could be the username of either a staff or volunteer. This would be helpful for us to know who to contact for the Program Evaluation pieces, as well as the Program Learning pieces. (I would add that "TBD" would be a fine answer.) Jwild (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have discussed this with Hwalls who is supporting with design, and she is helping to add a column for this. Thanks for the suggestion--it will be great to get a sense of staff (and long-term contractor!) balance. KLove (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Basic format

One quick observation tables 4 and 9 need breaking into sub tables if that can possibly be done. i.e. like a spreadsheet so that the rows match going across when describing the activities.

Now this may be heresy (and I will go into hiding for a while) but wikipages are brilliant for establishing an internationally acclaimed encyclopedia but for documents of this complexity and spreasdsheets they just don't function effectively.

For our bid in round one I was writing the bid on a spreadsheet and then having a volunteer turn it into wiki pages. This just about worked but not very well and actually wasted hours of otherwise productive volunteer time.

I would like to see people being given the chance to have the document in open office or gdoc format. After all it is the content that matters. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jon, we've been talking a lot in the FDC team about usability and format. We have stuck with the current format, but we are going to be considering different forms and formats for the next round. You are certainly right that what matters most is the content. Thanks for chiming in! KLove (WMF) (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Key initiatives and format

When we were completing our from, we found it difficult to define what a key initiative actually was. Is it a project, a programme, a programme area? This might require some more clarification. Also I would like to join Jon Davies in his heresy: a Wiki is not the ideal format to develop complex tables and budgets. A lot of time went into struggling with the forms - even with the help of some experienced wikipedians. Sandra Rientjes WMNL. SRientjes (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point, SRientjes, we have done some revision of this and are switching to language of 'programs.' However to avoid confusion this round, we'll list program / initiative so that those following from round 1 will understand the connection. We'll also be defining it. This section will benefit much from lots of thinking for the next revision. And thank you, too, for your input about the challenges of the proposal form. We've put some serious effort into making the format easier, but we will revisit this again more seriously to consider a major overhaul at the end of round 2. Thanks! KLove (WMF) (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Substituting template rather than transcluding - or transcluding subtemplates

Last year's form was transcluded onto the application form, meaning that each section couldn't be edited individually. It would be good to either substitute the template this time around, or else use subtemplates for each section, to make it easier to fill in. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the plan! :) heather walls (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Timeframe of funds currently requested

Could we make it clearer in this form that the timeframe should be 12 months, and should (ideally) be for a period that starts after the end of the FDC process? Maybe by adding a footnote to the last entry in table 1? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, Mike. It's been added. KLove (WMF) (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Other suggested edits

Based on the suggestions that came in from FDC staff, the following changes were also made:

• Financials were broken into two sections: one is about the year-to-date, and the next consolidated all the financial tables and information in the Financials: upcoming year's annual plan section
• question on 'cash balance' was added
• A request for a proposal overview was added to the top of the proposal form, for ease of community review.
• references to movement "strategic goals" was changed to "Strategic priority" - from the strategic plan.
• reference to microgranting program was added in examples of programs

KLove (WMF) (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you so much to everyone who contributed to this review effort! We will undertake a more intensive proposal review process after round 2 is complete. Many thanks to all for chiming in! We look forward to testing this new proposal form and seeing how it goes. KLove (WMF) (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)