Grants:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round2/Wikimedia Hong Kong/Staff proposal assessment
Wikimedia Hong Kong received a funds allocation in the amount of 0 in 2012-2013 Round 2.
This funds allocation was recommended by the Funds Dissemination Committee on 28 April 2013 and approved by the WMF Board of Trustees on 31 May 2013.
This staff proposal assessment for Wikimedia Hong Kong's proposal to the FDC for 2012-2013 Round 2 may be viewed in tab view or standard view. To discuss this aspect of the proposal to the FDC, please visit the discussion page.
Applicants should read this document to familiarise themselves with the assessment criteria; however, it should be edited only by FDC-related staff. The staff will use the document to set out their objective assessment of each funding request from eligible entities – specifically, to determine the extent to which plans align with the mission goals of the Wikimedia movement, and the extent to which the entity is well-placed to execute those plans effectively. The staff will base this report on proposals from entities and input from the community and other stakeholders (including, where required, deeper due-diligence on the entity's previous track record within the Wikimedia movement). The staff will provide completed reports to the FDC, which will then make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees on funding allocations.
Proposal overview
| Wikimedia Hong Kong | [Responses] |
| Date of submission [mm/dd/yy] | 03/01/13 |
| Adherence to proposal process [yes/no] | yes |
| Adherence to legal, regulatory, and policy regulations [yes/no] | yes |
| Adherence to US anti-terrorism laws [yes/no] | yes |
| Currency requested (e.g., EUR, GBP, INR) | HKD |
| Exchange rate used (currency requested to $US) and date accessed (mm/dd/yy) | 7.8 HKD on 02/28/13 |
| Total amount proposed to the FDC for the upcoming year annual plan [in $US] | US$ 211,660.26 |
| Total amount proposed to the FDC for the upcoming year annual plan [in currency requested] | 1,650,950 HKD |
| Summary staff assessment [substantial concerns: none/some/many] | many |
Annual plan
Table I: Financial summary
| FDC funds allocated last year ($US) | FDC funds proposed this year ($US) | Change from what was allocated last year (as a +/− %) | Proposed change in staff costs (USD and % increase or decrease) |
| US$ 0 | US$ 211,660.26 | NA | NA |
Strategic alignment
To what extent does the plan address the strategic goals and priorities of the movement (one to two paragraphs)?
- We appreciate that Wikimedia Hong Kong has submitted this proposal while planning Wikimania Hong Kong 2013. Wikimedia Hong Kong intends to leverage the publicity, momentum and opportunities that may arise after a successful Wikimania and would like to prevent volunteer burnout.
- Despite these good intentions, the proposal submitted to the FDC does not demonstrate clear alignment with the movement’s strategic priorities. The proposal as articulated does not establish a strong link with any Wikimedia project. The programs in the proposal lack detail, and are too expensive considering their low potential for impact.
Context of the entity and community
- To what extent does the context of the entity (e.g., community participation, fundraising context, sociopolitical environment) enable or inhibit the entity's potential for impact?
- To what extent does the entity's experience or maturity enable or inhibit the entity's potential for impact?
- While Wikimedia Hong Kong has been an approved chapter since 2008, it has not grown its programs significantly since then. Wikimedia Hong Kong does not yet share much learning or information about its activities with the larger movement, perhaps because of its limited volunteer capacity and limited activity. Wikimedia Hong Kong has a sparse track record of sustained and impactful programs, but we hope its recent work on Wikimania marks the beginning of a more active phase.
- Wikimania is an important opportunity for Wikimedia Hong Kong, but it might be better leveraged with a thoughtful community outreach process supported by a reasonable project grant after Wikimania rather than with the activities articulated in this unrealistic proposal to the FDC.
Feasibility and risks for the annual plan
How feasible is the annual plan (one to four paragraphs)? Specifically:
- To what extent are the budget, staffing, availability of volunteers, and other resources realistic for achieving the anticipated outcomes?
- Are the timelines realistic for the proposed initiatives and associated activities?
- Are there acknowledged and/or unacknowledged risks in the proposal?
- Wikimedia Hong Kong proposes to grow its budget by nearly 40,000% (from a budget of about US$ 533 to its current proposed budget of about US$ 211,660). This tremendous increase would be unreasonable for any organization to manage in one year. At about US$ 104,064, staffing costs represent 49% of Wikimedia Hong Kong’s total budget. Overall administration costs of US$ 27,949 are about 13% of the total budget. US $38,462, which is 35% of the budget excluding staff expenses (or 18% of the total budget), is devoted to microgrants, an area in which the chapter lacks experience. About US $21,795 are devoted to Wikimania Scholarships at 20% of the budget excluding staff (or 10% of the total budget). Remaining funds are allocated across programs like Wiki Loves Monuments, the annual conference, outreach and GLAM partnerships.
- It is important to note that Wikimania is implemented in partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation Conference Coordinator (a contractor hired by the Wikimedia Foundation to support Wikimania) and fiscal review of Wikimania is done by both the Wikimedia Foundation Conference Coordinator and the Chief of Finance of the Wikimedia Foundation rather than by the chapter. In this context, Wikimedia Foundation has had an opportunity to work closely with Wikimedia Hong Kong and does not believe this entity is ready to recruit and manage three full-time staff, nor does the Wikimedia Foundation believe Wikimedia Hong Kong is prepared to oversee a budget of several hundred thousand US dollars.
- Furthermore, the division of tasks between staff does not appear to be strategic. For example, the proposal includes an Accounting and Outreach Executive (that is, one full-time staff person to do both accounting and outreach work), even though the duties and the qualifications necessary to do this work are not closely related.
- Wikimedia Hong Kong has a problematic record of executing projects and managing funds. The entity has had difficulties with both spending and reporting on funds in a timely manner. The chapter has been running a deficit the past several years and has been covering the deficit with funds from an under-utilized grant. Current progress on Wikimedia Hong Kong’s Wikimania grant has been uneven and resources for a successful planning and pre-implementation process have been limited. For example, the Wikimedia Foundation has still not received a report on how the chapter has spent the funds sent to them for Wikimania.
Summary of expert opinions and/or community commentary
- Summary of the opinions of subject-matter experts on the plan
- Summary of community commentary on the plan
- For detailed comments from the community, the FDC and FDC staff, please visit the proposal form discussion page. The summary is not an endorsement of the views expressed on the proposal form discussion page.
- Commenters express some concerns about Wikimedia Hong Kong’s proposal. Two raise concerns about the plan to hire three full-time staff, questioning the need for two outreach executives and whether or not the accountant should be a full-time position. Others challenge the rates of budget growth proposed and question the impact of Wikimedia Hong Kong’s past programs.
- On the other hand, some commenters express support for this proposal, noting the chapter’s potential role in keeping a neutral point of view in Chinese Wikipedia.
Table II: Scores, comments and feedback
Scores provide only a preliminary assessment for consideration by the FDC. The rubric for scoring is in table III.
| Dimensions | Criteria | Score (1–5) | Comments and feedback |
| Potential for impact against strategic priorities | (A) The plan addresses the Wikimedia movement global targets | 2 | Some strategic priorities are mentioned, but there is no clear connection between these priorities and the proposal. |
|---|---|---|---|
| (B) The initiatives in the plan have the potential to lead to the global targets, if executed well | 1.5 | The programs have no clear connection to global targets, although the targets are mentioned. | |
| (C) The initiatives in the plan have the potential to lead to significant impact, given context and amount of funds proposed | 1 | The initiatives will have marginal impact in the local community and the broader Wikimedia community, given context and amount of funds proposed. | |
| Ability to execute | (D) The entity has the resources, skills, and capacity (staff, volunteer, non-staff) for the plan to succeed | 2 | The board is enthusiastic, but has not shown capacity to execute successful projects in the past; the depth of volunteer commitment is unclear. |
| (E) The entity has a record of success in similar initiatives | 1 | The entity has had trouble succeeding in similar initiatives. | |
| (F) The entity's leadership is effective, committed, and relatively stable | 3 | Current leadership is has demonstrated enthusiasm around hosting Wikimania; concerns exist around stability or effectiveness of leadership. | |
| Efficient use of funds | (G) The funding requested is reasonable given the proposed initiatives | 1 | Budgeting is not appropriate: this proposal is expensive and programs are unlikely to have significant impact. |
| (H) The entity has a record of using funds efficiently and staying on budget | 1 | This entity has a poor track record using funds efficiently. | |
| Quality of proposed measures of success | (I) Clear indicators of success are outlined in the plan | 2 | There are some very basic indicators for process, but they do not clearly indicate impact or success. |
| (J) A plan is in place to track the proposed metrics | 1 | The proposal does not include a plan to track methods or indicators of success. | |
| (K) The entity has a feasible plan in place to track the proposed metrics | 1 | No systems are in place to track metrics. | |
| Potential to add knowledge and/or other benefits to the movement | (L) The initiatives in the plan, if successful, could be helpful and/or productively replicated elsewhere in the movement | 1 | The initiatives would not be relevant to other movement groups. |
| (M) The entity is ready to share with the movement the lessons learned from the initiatives | 3 | The entity has historically been somewhat isolated, but are confident that Wikimania will present new opportunities for sharing with the movement. |
Table III: Scoring rubric
| Dimensions | Evaluation criteria | 1 = Weak or no alignment with criterion | 3 = Moderate alignment with criterion | 5 = Strong alignment with criterion |
| Potential for impact against strategic priorities | (A) The plan addresses the Wikimedia movement global targets | The plan will not directly address any global targets | The plan will partially address global targets or other goals that are closely related to the global targets | The plan will directly address several global targets |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (B) The initiatives have the potential to lead to the targets, if executed well | The initiatives have no clear connection to global targets | Some or all of the initiatives have an unclear relationship to global targets | The initiatives have been shown (by the entity or the movement) to lead to global targets | |
| (C) The initiatives have the potential to lead to significant impact, given context and amount of funds proposed | The initiatives will have marginal impact in the local community and the broader Wikimedia community, given context and amount of funds proposed | The initiatives proposed may have a significant impact in the local community, given context and amount of funds proposed | The initiatives could have significant impact at scale, both in the entity's local community and in the broader movement, given context and amount of funds proposed | |
| Ability to execute | (D) The entity has the resources, skills, and capacity (staff, volunteer, non-staff) for the plan to succeed | The entity has neither the number nor the amount of resources, skills, and capacity needed for success. | The entity has some relevant staff and volunteer capacity, but may be under-resourced for some initiatives | The entity is well-resourced with the relevant skills and capacity for success |
| (E) The entity has a record of success in similar initiatives | The entity has had trouble succeeding in similar initiatives | The entity has not engaged in similar initiatives in the past | The entity has conducted similar initiatives in the past and has been successful in achieving desired results | |
| (F) The entity's leadership is effective, committed, and relatively stable | Leadership has been unstable (e.g., changing on an annual basis) | Current leadership is committed to the entity; some concerns exist around stability or effectiveness of leadership | Current and past leaders have demonstrated the ability to develop and execute on strategic plans; leadership team has been stable and transitions have been smooth | |
| Efficient use of funds | (G) The funding requested is reasonable given the proposed initiatives | Based on FDC experience and relative to other proposals, the plan contains significant over- or under-budgeting, and/or has not thoroughly accounted for costs | Based on FDC experience and relative to other proposals, the budget is generally consistent with the initiatives; some initiatives are likely to be over- or under-budgeted | Based on FDC experience and relative to other proposals, the budget is reasonable, and rigorous cost projections have been presented |
| (H) The entity has a record of using funds efficiently and staying on budget | The entity has a poor record of budgetary management: e.g., consistently and significantly below budget (such as 50% underspending), and drawing on organizational reserves due to overspending | The entity has a middling record of budgetary management; e.g., generally on-budget for its biggest initiatives and cost items, properly recording any over- and under-spending, and with plans in place for improvements | The entity has consistently strong record of financial management; e.g., consistently staying on or below budget (within ~5% of budget), and putting surplus funds towards the entity's and/or movement's goals | |
| Quality of proposed measures of success | (I) Clear indicators of success are outlined in the plan | Initiatives have no associated indicators of success, or the proposed indicators are unrealistic and/or unmeasurable | Each initiative has indicators of success, but at least some indicators are unrealistic or are not clearly connected to the initiative | Each initiative has a realistic and carefully framed set of indicators of success associated with them, which are rigorous and time-bound |
| (J) A system is in place to track the proposed metrics | The plan does not include methodology or timing for tracking and collecting metrics to measure progress against proposed indicators of success | A proposal to track progress against indicators exists, but has flawed methodology or unrealistic timelines and initiatives | The plan includes timing and tracking of proposed metrics, and additional initiatives (e.g., surveys, research) to track indicators | |
| (K) The entity has a feasible system to track the proposed metrics | No systems are in place to track metrics, or staff or volunteer capacity to manage metrics tracking | There is some overall capacity (e.g., staff, volunteers) to track and monitor metrics, but the entity does not clearly have the relevant skills to do this | High-quality systems, and the necessary skills and capacity to manage these systems, are in place | |
| Potential to add knowledge and/or other benefits to the movement | (L) The initiatives, if successful, could be helpful and/or productively replicated elsewhere in the movement | The initiatives would not be relevant to other movement groups | Some initiatives may be relevant to other movement groups | Many initiatives proposed are new or have seldom been tried elsewhere in the movement; if successful, other movement entities would benefit from doing similar initiatives |
| (M) The entity is ready to share with the movement the lessons learned from the initiatives | The entity is isolated from other movement groups and rarely shares information; the entity's leaders and members seldom participate in movement-wide functions | The entity is somewhat active within the movement, and is developing more relationships with other movement entities with which it could share lessons learned | The entity has regular communication with other movement entities, is a regular participant in Wikimedia events, and has a track record of sharing with others |
This form was created by: Winifred Olliff (Grants Administrator) talk 19:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)