Theoratically every penny spent should be measured wheter it was spent
well, or was wasted, including salaries. Ideally you could find out all the
direct and indirect investment in a given program. Since the latter is
extremely hard (or impossible) to measure, it is always an estimated extra
cost.
The emphasis here is not on the programs a meetup may trigger, but the
meetup itself; its effectiveness. (it is a program itself)
Regarding evalulation of programs through a meetup's perspective (if I
understood your words correctly), there is no point going any deeper than
the name of it, the type of it, and a note that it was"done", "in
progress"
, "failed" or "postponed" as of the date of publishing. Details should
be
carefully adjusted for all questions you wish to answer.
90% of evaluating an event is actually done through surveys collected from
participants on site (!) and after a given period (somewhere between three
to six month), by evaluating the answers and feedbacks you collect
_proactively_ (a.k.a. "by asking") The rest 10% is an evaluation summary of
the catering, the venue and the executing staff. Six month later a summary
was published and an evaluation meetup was held before we started
organizing the next similar event (what's content was heavily influenced by
that that report).
Cheers,
Balázs
2013/5/14 Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
I totally understand (or rather, I think I do).
However, just like with any
project, also such calculations would be subject to cost/benefit ratios.
What information do you expect to win, and how much overhead does it
create? It sounds great to be able to put a number on things, but up to a
certain size, things will be mostly intangible anyway (enthusiasm,
inspiration etc.) so you will have little valuable output of such
measurements, while the costs are relatively high (they need to learn speak
your measure language, they need to understand concepts, document
thoroughly, measure etc.) and for small events that seems unreasonable to
me to expect it from them - such as with the article writing contests in
'new' countries.
However, this is of course different for large international events with
many participants. Anyway, I am glad to hear you're not trying to compare
different categories of events with each other.
Lodewijk
2013/5/14 Balázs Viczián <balazs.viczian(a)wikimedia.hu>
I see a few misunderstanding here: I do not wish
to compare them to each
other, but to the previous one(s). At least I hope this is what I've
written because this is what I was ment. So compare GLAM 2013 to GLAM
2012,
and GLAM 2011, ..., compare Brussels meetup with
previous similar
thematic
meetups and so forth. Create a breakdown about
the costs and the
benefits.
Aimed at GLAM? then the main thing to measue how
did it boost GLAM
cooperations. Is there any initiative that had been picked up or created
upon the inspiration they got there? If yes, how much? What types? What
are
their outcomes? Any other side goals (like
international cooperations -
like a new WLM participant who decided to join after discussions there)?
Any other unexpected benefits? (like an out of the blue content donation
from a participating G,L,A or M representative) etc. Easy to identify a
dozen questions, plus if you start thinking it over, you'll find a dozen
more that are as well pretty important, just not that much visible or in
front. Count them and divide the total number with the total costs, and
you'll get how much was invested in a single initiative there.
If an idea was brought home by a chapter from that event (or the local
ideas have been influenced by it), note even if locally it would cost
almost nothing, on an absolute level, there is this cost/benefit ratio,
both the chapter's and the event's, what you have to further divide it
locally amongst the number of projects. If an example helps you, lets say
you brought home 2 article writing contest ideas, both of them conducted
and did cost nothing, except a few merchandise (total of 200USD) your
travel and stay there should be added to the total costs, since without
it,
these would likely never been conducted at you.
Hence the absolute
numbers
would include your flight and stay in London,
divided equally in between
the projects that meeting inspired. Got me?
Balázs
2013/5/14 Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
I think this is very true, and we could perhaps
improve our procedures
and
documentation in many ways. However, I do think
it is important to
realize
that you're comparing apples with oranges
here. The meeting in Brussels
for
example was on the topic of influencing
legislative processes - a topic
by
> definition long term and hard to measure. The goals there would be
better
(copyright) legislation than without these initiatives - and rather
strategic. The bootcamp in DC was intended as a boost for volunteers,
where
they would get a lot of information and
experience in a short time:
capacity building. This is also long term, but much better to measure.
And
> finally there's the hackathon, which is much more short-term focused
(at
> least partially), and will have very
concrete results (but probably
zero
> measured in new articles created).
>
> What I think is most important, is that for every meeting we have, we
> identify desired outcomes. These outcomes can be very tangible, or
> intangible - but they should always be defined, and the agenda should
be
> built around it.
> Based on these desired outcomes, you can estimate up front if the
meeting
is likely
to be 'worth it'. If not, you can reduce the costs, increase
the
> outcomes (different setup) or cancel all together.
> Finally, after the meeting a report (private or public - there should
> always be a report or documentation) should be produced and if possible
> published. In that report you should always return to these desired
> outcomes, and see if they were met - and how/why not.
>
> But even then on the strategy side of things meetings are always hard
to
estimate.
Of course you're totally right that there are expectations towards
participants of meetings. Not only because of the money invested, but
also
because of the attention of the other
participants. I definitely have
been
> in meetings where people literally fell asleep or played games during
the
meeting -
and that is simply insulting to the other people in the room.
So
> yeah, if that is your mindset, perhaps it is better not to go at all.
But
> then I am assuming good faith, and think
that everyone will be going to
> meetings with the best of intentions, and not simply to play tourist.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2013/5/14 Balázs Viczián <balazs.viczian(a)wikimedia.hu>
>
> > 40k for a single meetup can be justified if the results worth that
much
> > money. (I've already argued about
this regarding Milan chapters
meetup
>
btw). Providing a "more than basic" travel and accomodation can be a
way
> of
> > appreciation as well for their work, what they do as volunteers, that
> > should be calculated into the costs.
> >
> > Ain't these intrenational events' (not just this meetup's, but all
> events')
> > "success ratio" being measured by some way already?
> >
> > The cost/benefit ratio [1] is a pretty basic (and extreme important)
> thing
> > we like to calculate with here in Hungary about all of our
activities.
> For
> > example the number of articles created divided with the total costs
of
the
> article writing contest they've been created within gives a number we
can
> > work a lot with to improve cost-effectiveness. Seemingly very few
> chapters
> > doing anything similar (or not in a visible way)
> >
> > AffCom already measures itself in some ways in their reports, but
> regarding
> > other meetups, I've barely seen at least a basic followup or
aftercare
> and
> > especially not a detailed overall (measurement) report what is
usually
/at
least in those commercial events I was involved
with/ being published
after
about six month of the last day of the event, and
gives a detailed
summary
> of its pros and cons, dos and don'ts, successes and fails, overall
impact
> > (upon proactively collected feedbacks), etc.
> >
> > There were plenty of international events already this year (Brussels
> > meeting about EU policies, Milan, London glam, Amsterdam hackathon
that
are
> coming in my mind right now from 2013, and this is just the first 4
month
> (only 1/3rd of the year) and not the full
list!) most of them with no
or
> > very low visible results yet (ok they need some time to evolve, but
> > regarding events in 2012, I barely read anything to remember nor any
> > followups or summares, reports). Compared to the "GLAM camp" in the
US
> > recently, it seems definitely true. The
latter looks like a very good
> > example of a beneficial meetup, having a lot of potential and it
seems
> > there is a chance that it will be
followed up by WMDC and other
> > participating parties well after the event. Why to have a long term
> > followup? To give a definite answer wheter those potentials actually
> > resulted in anything at all (was there any "real benefit") or it was
> just a
> > very good mooded, fun and positive, but totally fruitless event
(wasted
> > money from the movement's POV)
> >
> > I see compared to 2012 costs going up without any visible rise in
> > effectiveness or more worse, a decline in it. This is solely based
upon
> > what I can (or can not) read about them
on meta and other places,
like
> the
> > comments here. Wikimania 2014 was the first event ever where this
thing
was
> taken seriously, but rather on the cost cutting side, than on the
> effectiveness improving side
>
> It would be great to see detailed measurements of these events, like
how
> > many new projects or international cooperations (or whatever it aims)
> were
> > boosted/inspired by the given thematic meetup up until the next
similar
> > meetup. If that number is X, while the
costs were Y, and X/Y does not
> look
> > good, than you can start thinking how can you improve X without
> expanding
> > Y (or even lowering it) to get a much friendly ratio, thus creating
an
> even
> > more fruitful (better quality) event next time. The best would be a
> > detailed breakdown, like main goals, side goals, unexpected or
"extra"
>
things that that meeting had inspired/boosted/hosted/etc.
>
> Note, there ain't no such thing as free lunch [2]
>
> Cheers,
> Balázs
>
> PS: WMHU has 68k budget for 2013.
>
> [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit%E2%80%93cost_ratio
> [2]
>
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/5/14 Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
> >
> > > I don't think it is trivial either, and having a discussion is
fine.
> However, the bigger discussion is perhaps more
relevant - because
AffCom
> is
> > simply following WMF policy here, which is in place for many
employees,
> > board members (and others? not sure).
> >
> > So I think there are two relevant discussions to be had: First of
all,
> > > whether there should be an AffCom meeting at all. Fair question of
> > course.
> > > (analogous you could wonder if certain chapters should really send
a
> > > representative to Wikimania from
their budget, whether certain
> employees
> > > really should be there and whether all chapters should be present
at
the
> > Chapters meeting - all fair discussions to be had in their time,
too).
> > The
> > > second relevant question is, in my opinion, whether the WMF travel
> policy
> > > is good, proportional etc. This policy has mostly received
criticism
> from
> > > two sides - some think it is too elaborate, and WMF should get
'less
> > > luxury' (again fair
discussion, but we should then focus on the
whole
> > > question) - another criticism is
that it should be equalized for
all
> Wikimedia-sponsored trips, including individual
engagement grants,
trips
> to
> > the chapters meeting etc. When this question was brought up last
time,
I
> > believe it was Sue who mentioned that this would simply result in
much
> > less
> > > travel and participation. Again, a fair question.
> > >
> > > Personally, I feel that WMF Committee (and board) members should
not
be
> > treated to a lower standard than staff
members, simply because they
are
> > not
> > > being paid for their work. But maybe I'm the only one in thát
opinion
> > > though...
> > >
> > > Lodewijk
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/5/14 Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:30 AM, David Gerard <
dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't really think this is a triviality.
> > > > Cents and single dollars of chapters are weighted and analyzed,
> > > > FDC and GACs nitpicks and their goal is to assure that donor
moneys
> is
> > > not
> > > > wasted.
> > > > We all know that there are issues on that and a lot of chapters
had
to
> > work
> > > hard to be able to draw their budget, and receive their money.
> > >
> > > 40'000 $ for Wikimania travels are a lot, especially compared to
the
> > > travel
> > > > budget of chapters. Period.
> > > > I would assume that WMF and the Board budgets should be
reasonably
> > proportional to chapters ones.
> > Maybe I'm the only one, though.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l