Thanks for your reply. Can you say more about which kind of SMART you
prefer? According to
definitions have drifted since original publication of the term,
including by authors who seem to have eclipsed the original's
popularity. The T = Timely vs. Time-constrained seems like a pretty
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 11:02 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Let me start with something positive to say before I discuss problems.
I think that there were some good intentions with this plan. Also, I think that some good
things will happen this year, such as with Structured Data on Commons and with the
Audience Department's Growth Team, regardless of the shortcomings with the WMF AP.
Unfortunately, good intentions don't fully compensate for poor design or
A good place to start to see problems is here:
I am looking for project-based budgets, SMART goals, and detailed financial projections. I
sampled three departmental APs: Communications, Audiences, and Talent and Culture.
I want to distinguish plans from promises. I don't expect that every SMART goal will
be met, and I understand that plans and goals can change over time due to changes in
available resources, new information, projects failing or succeeding beyond expectations,
or other factors. An Annual Plan is not an Annual Promise. I also want to keep in mind
that flexibility is valuable to take advantage of emergent opportunities, and that
excessively detailed planning can be unnecessarily costly.
But proceeding without SMART goals for T&C (is there a single SMART goal for them?),
and with such limited financial detail for all three of the departments that I sampled, is
disappointing. I am also disappointed by the lack of project-based budgeting.
Realistically, unless the WMF Board decides to get serious about making and publishing
good annual plans, we are stuck.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org