Strategie/Report Strategy Workshop February 2011

WMNL Strategy Workshop 19-20 February 2011, Zeist

Workshop Report by:

• Anna Royon-Weigelt, facilitator
• Siebrand Mazeland
• Lodewijk Gelauff
• Ad Huikeshoven

Context & aim of the workshop

This report documents the first phase of the strategy development process for Wikimedia Nederland. The first phase as executed by an invited group of (previously) active volunteers that have (had) some involvement with the tactical or strategic course of the association. The outcome of the complete strategy process should be a community carried strategic plan for Wikimedia Nederland for the next five to six years.

The aim of the first session was to layout the process and create community ambassadors so that the remainder of process can be carried out without requiring too much outside help. The common work achieved during this intensive workshop dedicated to the discussion and development of strategy development was made possible thanks to the effort and concentration of 14 people with different personalities, backgrounds, sensitivities and experiences, and highly dedicated to the Wikimedia mission. They all were ready to invest long hours of their private time on finding a common strategic ground and did this with a lot of respect, motivation, effort and patience. Their work deserves acknowledgment and attention, and represents a fundamental contribution to the process of strategy development of WMNL.

Program

The strategy weekend program covered a period of a day, from Saturday 14.00 until Sunday 17.00. All but one participants spent the night in the same facility where the workshops were held.

Saturday

• 13:30 - 15:30 Arrival of facilitator and organisers (2). Set up meeting room, check out accomodation.
• 15:30 - 17:30 Arrival of participants. Social engagement, walk in the forest.
• 17:30 - 17:50 Welcome/warm up, clarifications & programme presentation.
• 18:00 - 19:00 Dinner.
• 19:00 - 19:20 Short input regarding the process of strategy development & questions/answers. Mainly flipchart, Metaplan.
• 19:20 - 19:50 Achievements of Wikimedia Nederland. What are we proud of? Where could we have done better?
• Because previous activities took longer than planned, this activity was skipped and placed on the To-do list. Analysis - Resources Assessment Inventory of resources in 4 small groups (1 group work for each field) using the Trigon model of organizations. Questions: what are our resources in the technological, organizational & social field? Answers should be as precise and concrete as possible. Presentation of the results in the plenum.
• 21:00 - 23:00 Analysis - Actual situation of key fields of activity 4 small (randomly composed) groups: using the SWOT analysis done, reflect upon the couples Strengths/Opportunities, Strengths/Risks, Weaknesses/Opportunities and Weaknesses/Risks (up to 45'). Presentation (flipchart or other visible mean) and discussion in the plenairy meeting.

Sunday

• 8:30 – 9:00 Wrap-up and day to come. Integration of participant that missed day 1.
• 9:00 - 9:30 Assumptions for the future. Plenum: What general external social, economical and technical trends do we see in the future for Wikimedia as a whole?
• 9:30 - 9:35 Introduction of vision development by facilitator.
• 9:35 - 10:25 Vision development 5-7 years. Regarding these assumptions, where do we see WMNL in 2020? Work on the vision (3-4 groups, different from the previous ones) answering to the question: what should our main stakeholders say about WMNL in 2020?
• 10:45 - 12:30 Vision development 5-7 years. Presentation of the vision for each field of activity by the groups (max. 10 mins.) & discussion (25 mins. per area).
• 12:30 - 13:30 Lunch.
• 13:30 - 15:30 Strategic goals 5-7 years. Work on strategic goals for one or two fields of activity. We will work at least on the organizational development of the Chapter in order to link it to the next part of the workshop.
• 15:30 - 16:30 Group 1: Consequences for 2011. Regarding the identified strategic goals, what does it mean for our plans for 2011? What should be discussed? What should be done? Group 2: Recruiting paid staff for WMNL. Given the short and mid-long goals and projects, what are the profiles we need in our staff to face the upcoming challenges? Or: How should the roles and relationships between board and paid staff be defined?
• 16:30 - 17.00 To-do list, feedback & closing. To-do list & perspectives on next steps of the process, feedback on cards.

Methods

• Metaplan facilitation method with flipchart and Pinboards
• Group interaction game (Pipeline, Neuland)
• Beamer Presentation (SWOT Analysis)
• Plenary and small group activities
• 6 thinking hats (E. de Bono), Trigon Assessment Model (F. Glasl)

Assumptions

The issue of confidentiality was addressed by the participants and it was decided to publish the final report and keep the details of the proceedings private. Background for this was that this would allow all participants to be extremely open without worry.

The fact that strategy development is a process and can hardly be achieved in two days was also addressed. The program was prepared in a way that would allow to approach the main steps of the process; it would give the participants the possibility to have a broad exchange on different issues of the Chapter as well as to explore together first steps of a strategy development. Still, the work started should be completed and deepened by the Chapter based on the initial common strategic statements and remarks. Therefore, a To-do list was introduced at the very beginning of the workshop. It allows for an ongoing inventory of points still to be addressed, either because they were important, but did not fit into the program and aims of a strategy workshop, or because these points were addressed and still have to be completed and discussed further.

The workshop developed along the two first steps of a classical strategy development cycle:

• Analysis (look at the past, the present, assumptions for the future)
• Definition of a vision and strategic goals

Further phases (planning, implementation, evaluation/adaptation) will be developed to some extent later in the pilot project.

Participants in strategy weekend

During preparations 19 people we invited; it was expected that five to seven people would be unable to attend. Finally, 5 invitees were unable to attend. 14 Wikimedians attended the strategy weekend.

• Ad Huikeshoven (WMF audit commitee, WMNL audit committee)
• Finne Boonen (WMNL audit committee)
• Hay Kranen (former WMNL board member)
• Jan-Bart de Vreede (WMF board member)
• Lodewijk Gelauff (WMNL board member)
• Maarten Brinkerink (WMNL board member)
• Maarten Dammers (active WMNL volunteer)
• Marco Swart (WMNL board member)
• Marianne Korpershoek (WMNL Secretary)
• Oscar van Dillen (former WMF board member, former WMNL president)
• Paul Becherer (WMNL treasurer)
• Ronald Beelaard (former Treasurer WMNL)
• Siebrand Mazeland (WMNL board member)
• Ziko van Dijk (active WMNL volunteer, WMNL board candidate)
• Anna Royon-Weigelt (facilitator)

Topics

Resource assessment

What are we proud of?

We started the resources assessment by considering WMNL’s achievements so far. The question “What are we proud of” was posed, and brought various answers, regarding successful projects, recognition by partners, effective fundraising, positive identity, dedication, important role in international chapter’s cooperation and effective management.

The main points returning in this analysis were:

• Our position in society and in the movement
• Our successful projects, such as Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves Art and the conferences and meetings.
• We remained authentic, focused and volunteer driven
• We have a good reporting practice

What could we have done better?

"What could we have done better?" brought answers related to knowledge transfer, attractiveness for volunteers to come and stay, openness towards the communities, image of the association, continuity, and a general need for a discussion about governance. The need for clarification that there has been no contact whatsoever between the President of the Chapter and the board for months was also raised and this issue was put on the to-do list.

The main things we could have done better:

• Capacity building and knowledge transfer
• Communication, both internally and externally - frequency and quality
• Involving more volunteers into our projects
• More projects with direct impact on the Wikimedia projects and communities

Resource inventory

The second planned part of the assessment was creating an inventory of the chapters’ resources based on Friedrich Glasl’s “Trigon model”, which allows making an inventory of the resources of an organization, not looking exclusively at its material resources but assessing seven different areas (see below). The detailed inventory of resources with this method allows to gain a clear view of the actual situation of an organization and possibly enlarges the consciousness about a wide range of competencies/resources that would otherwise remain implicit.

Due to the fact that we ran out of time on the first day (reprioritization), we chose to delay this analysis, which should still be done collectively by the chapter during the strategy development process.

	Relationships within the Chapter (internal system)	Relationship with the environment (external systems)
Identity	Mission of the Chapter in the society, meaning & aims, principal values, Philosophy, vision, historical self-understanding of the organization.	Image target groups, social groups, politics, media, competitors, other organizations & groups have of the Chapter; position on a market or a field of activity. Autonomy or dependency towards other groups or organizations
Policy	Long term programs and plans, policy of the Chapter, guidelines, principles regarding the fields of activity (also the administrative ones)	Guidelines for the handling of users, community, contractors, furnishers; rules of the sector or the market, market strategies
Structure	By Laws, contracts, structure of the Chapter, hierarchy, formal design of the organization	Structural relationships with external groups, memberships, strategic alliances, agreements
People	Knowledge and know-how of the collaborators, team members. Attitudes, relationships, management style, (informal) roles & relationships, power, conflicts, working atmosphere	Informal relationships with external groups, persons and organizations, relationships in the branch/sector, power relations/management style in the environment
Functions	Tasks, competencies, responsibilities in the different formal functions, groups, committees, board, specialists, project groups, coordination	Interface functions with external organizations/institutions/stakeholders
Processes	Working processes, internal support, internal information processes, decision making processes, Logistics, planning process, steering processes, etc.	E.g. buying processes, processes to get external information / external resources or to broadcast and dispatch information/ resources
Physical means	Instruments, tools, machines, furniture, rooms, financial means	Environment (land/city), importance of transport infrastructure, external funds

(Translated & adapted & from F. Glasl, “Professionelle Prozessberatung, Haupt Verlag, Stuttgart,2008)

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and theats

In this phase of the work, we were able to integrate the important work already prepared by the participants and actualized in the days before the workshop. A large matrix of SWOT items was created (about 25 items per quadrant, see annex 1), and each participant was asked to divide 10 points between the items they found most important or pressing. The highest scoring items were analysed in this process step. Participants were split up into smaller, randomly composed groups in order to work on “interesting couples” (the top items of two quadrants of the SWOT matrix), that is:

Strengths and opportunities

The highest scoring Strengths and Opportunities were matched, and it was considered which strengths could be used most effectively at which opportunities. This was summarized in a table:

	Closely related to Wikipedia	relations with (existing) Cultural Heritage Institutions	Mission	Funds
Cooperations with Cultural Heritage Institutions	Wikipedia is our way in	"Zwaan kleef aan"	Community has to see relevance to the mission
Involve volunteers in Real Life activities		Fun projects		Facilitating infrastructure
Involvement in HBO/WO	Way in: public image
Awareness of Free Licenses	Examplary	Example function & projects
Internationalize free projects				X
Recruit more editors		X		Infrastructure

Strengths and risks/threats

The strengths and risks/threats subgroup matched the top 4 identified strengths with the top 5 identified risks/strength in the SWOT matrix by pairing.

Top strengths from SWOT analysis:

1. Closely related to the world's most consulted encyclopedic-collection Wikipedia
2. Relationships with cultural heritage institutions
3. Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.
4. Financial resources/position of the association

Top risks/threats from SWOT analysis:

1. Wikipedia brand will lose its good name/be damaged
2. Bad communication between the board/staff and the members/volunteers
3. Bad communication between the board and the staff
4. Negative press attention
5. Unclear / too little communication with WMF

The striking pairs are A, B, C and D in the table below:

A	Closely related to the world's most consulted encyclopedic collection Wikipedia	Wikipedia brand will lose it's good name/be damaged
B	Relationships with cultural heritage institutions
C	Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.	Bad communication between the board/staff and the members/volunteers Bad communication between the board and the staff Unclear / too little communication with WMF
D	Financial resources/position of the association	Negative press attention

On the flip over in a modern way the items were indicated with iconic images.

The most striking pair was A. On the flip over we have drawn the Wikipedia globe on the left under strengths as the iconic image for our (VWN as local chapter of WMF) close relationship with the world’s most consulted encyclopaedic collection Wikipedia. On the right we have drawn a broken globe to depict the threat/risk that the Wikipedia brand will lose it’s good name. (Not identified is what actions by whom might cause a degradation of the Wikipedia brands good name.) This is a pair because both are centered around the Wikipedia brand. This pair clearly directs action for the local chapter: protect the good name of the Wikipedia brand.

A second striking pair was D, financial resources as strength versus negative press attention as threat. The argument for this to be a pair is as follows. The source of financial resources are voluntarily small amount donations by the public at large during the once a year global fundraiser. Negative press attention could degrade Wikipedia brands good name and might degrade motivation in the public at large to donate small amounts during a fund raiser. (Other negative consequences of negative press attention might be diminished reach and participation)

A third pair was the WMF mission statement as strength with the three communication threats. So far Wikipedia and the Wikimedia is an enormous success partly because the appeal of the mission statement “ Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.” We have been enormously successful in directing the energy and actions of millions of people to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive way. We do fear – see as threat – bad communication between board / staff, members / volunteers, and between chapter / WMF office or board.

While presenting the results of the subgroup to the whole group the discussion centered around this third pair and generally the connection between mission statement and communication was questioned. “How could you solve (communication) problems with (re)hammering in the mission statement?”, was remarked. This raised the question what has been perceived as bad communication. The most striking example provided of bad communication was non-existent communication, the sheer absence of communication.

Finally, the relationship with cultural heritage institutions (GLAM) has been identified as strength. The subgroup couldn’t find a risk/threat on the list of identified (top) risks/threats in the SWOT matrix to pair GLAM with. As a subgroup we did envision GLAM wedged between the Wikipedia brand and the mission statement. We do belief most GLAM have themselves a mission to educate the public at large, just as we do. The GLAM do have a contemporary problem to reaching the public, Wikipedia doesn’t have now. Wikipedia provides a platform to GLAM. Public association of GLAM to Wikipedia might do help the GLAM reaching their goals. GLAM are willing partners to collaborate. Hosting the chapter new year meeting at Amsterdam Museum might even be more a success for Amsterdam Museum as for VWN.

On the to do list ended the question: What is the public image of Wikipedia? What is our image with the public? We know we are highly valued, and we know we can raise a lot of money. But what does the public expect we should do or not do? What do they belief we do or should do spend our money on? A tension was noted. The brand name value is associated with the intrinsic value of the encyclopaedic collection. That collection was created by many volunteer editors, that has not been created by the organization of the local chapter. Neither does the local chapter really represent the community of editors. Actually there is a separation between chapter and project, formally, legally. For press and public however, WMNL is the organizational/institutional representative of Wikipedia. We are Wikipedia, in the eyes of the public, has been stated by some. The problem is ‘internal’: the project community doesn’t recognize the chapter as representative, or might not like the chapter claiming publicly claiming any credit for creating the encyclopaedia. It is impossible to explain to a journalist the difference between Wikimedia and Wikipedia.

Weaknesses & opportunities

Another interesting pair are weaknesses and opportunities. The subgroup identified a virtuous cycle of:

1. Improve continuity of programmes helps to convert online community members to active volunteer

2. Increase active volunteers improves online wiki-in-culture

3. Improving online wiki-in-culture increases number of new community members

Weaknesses & risks/threats

Looking at weaknesses and threats may allow for interesting information if the combination of weaknesses and threats increases certain risks and may exacerbate problems. Following points were identified where threats and weaknesses meet at WMNL:

Regarding the brand:

• We should focus on the mission
• We should deliver a clear message
• Stressfield between voluntaries/professionals
• Gap between community and Board

Regarding our communication:

• We have/offer? an extremely unfriendly environment
• We have analogical activities?
• We should de-dramatize errors
• We should develop a positive feedback culture

Regarding relationship with the media (press):

• We should deliver a clear message
• No personal interest (positive, should be kept)
• Dedication to the mission (positive,should be kept)

The group's reflection was very fruitful and offered a wide range of impulses. Obviously, each of the couples deserves a longer and deeper discussion in order to explore the relationship between identified strengths, opportunities, weaknesses and threats in more detail, especially regarding the fact that different interpretations may arise and need to be debated. This point was put on the to-do list.

Vision Development

On the second day of the workshop, we left the past oriented analysis and came to the second phase of strategy development.

Assumptions regarding the future

We turned towards the future, first sharing general assumptions regarding global trends that could be relevant for WMNL in the future. The discussion around these topics was rather consensual.

List of trends:

• Social media
• Open culture (F)
• Elder generation
• Funding
• Generation born internet
• Technical
• Content/quality
• Geopolitics
• Institutionalization

Strategy development

Add a proper freely licensed ilustration here.

For the development of strategies, a clear mission, an overview of stakeholders and needed. The mission gives the organisation a general direction, motivates positively, is plausible and feasible, as well as concise. Strategic goals are contributing to the mission. Based on the strategic goals, goals for the short and mid-long term can be defined that are in turn contributing to reaching the strategic objectives.

Once know what the short term and mid-long term goals for Wikimedia Nederland are, resource allocation would be the next step.

Stakeholder analysis

We then worked on the formulation of mission statements for WMNL starting from following question:

What should our main stakeholders say about WMNL in 2020?

We first had to define the main stakeholders of WMNL. As there was no precise analysis of the chapters’ stakeholders done so far, we grouped nine identified stakeholders in order to work in small groups:

• Dutch readers of WM projects + Donors (group 1)
• Editors/community + Members of the association (group 2)
• WMF + Fellow Chapters (group 3)
• CH-Partners (Cultural Heritage) + Open-movement + Educational institutions (group 4)

Further work on the mission and strategy development will require developing a complete stakeholder analysis, which will be helpful not only with respect to the development of a strategy but also regarding the efficient planning of (PR) activities. This task was put on the to-do list as well.

The group work gave following results, which will have to be discussed and completed:

In 2020, Wikimedia project readers will think that Wikimedia Nederland is:

• The driving force behind Wikipedia
• A reliable organisation
• Enables content integration (in the Dutch media landscape)
• Lowers barriers to participate in Wikimedia projects
• An innovative entity in the Wikimedia movement

In 2020, donors to Wikimedia Nederland think that Wikimedia Nederland is:

• Spending their donation effectively
• Certainly getting a donation the following year
• Improving Wikimedia content availability (open issue: in The Netherlands or world-wide)
• An organisation that donating to makes you feel good

In 2020, community members of Wikimedia in The Netherlands think that Wikimedia Nederland is:

• Community members will say: “I would recommend others to join!”
• Wikipedia is a professional refererence protocol, Wikimedia is a reliable brand for free information. There will be both professional acceptance and wide and diverse appreciation.
• Wikimedia Nederland assists community to articulate common interests and actions, and serve as a media channel.
• Community members will say: “It motivates me to contribute more.” Wikimedia Nederland provides tools, meetings and activities.
• Community members will say: “It is easy to participate in Wikimedia Nederland.” The membership benefits are clear, institutional membership will have been established. Wikimedia Nederland will provide calendar, books and publications.

In 2020, the Wikimedia Foundation thinks Wikimedia Nederland:

• Is a mature and full partner

In 2020, Wikimedia Chapters think that Wikimedia Nederland:

• Is a role model in innovation among chapters
• Is leading in organising grass-root support

In 2020, Cultural Heritage Partners think that Wikimedia Nederland:

• Has a good relationship with WM communities
• Is a bridge for different kinds of partners
• Has clear responsibilities of people within WMNL
• Is mentioned in communications that rely to WM projects activities
• Has a face
• Is able to execute/implement
• Is giving feedback to partners (statistics, reports, results)
• Participates in fora of partners
• Gives lectures about projects

In 2020, non-readers of Wikimedia content, think that Wikimedia Nederland:

• Provides support for eliminating barriers for use

The difficulty of the formulation of mission statements strategic goals is to stay on a general "visionary" level that embraces a whole range of activities without being too specific and operational at this stage. This is why work on mission statements requires an important investment in time and joint effort in order to find the right formulation for each level.

Strategic Goals

In the afternoon of the second day, we worked with the formulated mission statements to “extract” possible strategic goals. The same challenge as for the mission statements is encountered here regarding strategic goals; they should be one level more concrete than the mission statement, but still general enough to stay on a strategic an non operational level.

Strategic goals (some examples):

• Investing in good relationships with the WM community
• We can explain why we are a good bridge for different kinds of partners
• We are a mature/established/stable organization.
• We are a professional & successful fundraiser
• Active participation in international strategic movement discussion
• We assist proactively the strategy development of other chapters
• We connect directly to readers
• We spread our financial basis
• …

Other points mentioned belonged rather to an operational level (lectures about projects, coaching, participating in fora of partners…).

This harvest will have to be completed for each mission statement after these have been formulated clearly and discussed till consensus is reached.

Groups went to work on two topics.

Consequences of strategic planning process outcomes so far for 2011 planning

This work focused also on the recruitment topic in the end, but also issues regarding recognition of volunteers work as well as the need for a support regarding project management (knowledge acquisition and knowledge management) were raised.

Recruitment profile for 3 upcoming hires at WMNL

Details of this session have been omitted and have been used as input for the recruitment process. The board has thanked the participants for their useful comments.

To-do list

The to-do list includes different types of tasks.

Tasks that are important but not directly related to the process of strategic development

• Discuss and put in place a process for clear task and knowledge transfer for when board members are absent
• Address open wounds because of board change in 2009.

Tasks belonging to the assessment phase that will have to be completed before the strategic development process continues

• Inventory of resources (Trigon model)
• Continue the analysis and the discussion about the interesting couples (SWOT)
• Make a complete stakeholder analysis for WMNL (including politicians/legislators)
• Define what is meant by termini like readers/non-readers/users/…

Tasks belonging to the strategic development process related to the formulation of mission statements and strategic goals

• Positioning WMNL / world
• What types of members do we want to have at WMNL?
• What kind of membership do we want at WMNL (how many and whom?)
• Formulating a series of mission statements that cover all strategic aspects of WMNL
• Defining which strategic goals can be derived from these missions statements

Outcomes

• Experience of an intensive common work process as a group. Different issues regarding the Chapter’s activities were addressed, as well as issues on the communicational, organizational and relational level in a constructive way.
• Implementation of SWOT-Analysis regarding the interaction of the SWOT-elements for further observation and discussion as a basis for future strategy development (as well as risk management on a more operational level).
• Identifying the importance of clear common definitions for common work: clarifying if everybody means the same when talking about users, readers/non-readers, communities, partners etc. ).
• First common formulation of Mission Statements for the Chapter, first step towards the future structure of the Chapter’s strategy.
• Formulation of a helpful profile definition for the actual recruitment task of the Board.

Conclusion & further steps

The work on the to-do list should now be dispatched and allocated (who does what till when). The completion of the assessment should involve also interviews/gathering of information from others than “insiders” (partners, readers, critics, etc.) in order to get a view of the Chapter that is as complete as possible (360°). This is part of the Chapter Strategy Development Project and will have to be discussed and organized in March.

This will have to happen in parallel with the recruitment process and start of the new office team and will mean a considerable work load in the coming months. A challenging situation where delegation, commitment and positive feedback will be central for those involved. The facilitator will have to take this situation into account.

Another aspect of the further strategy process is to decide how it is going to continue and especially which level of participation should be chosen for the next phase (widening the process? Who should be involved?). This political decision also requires finding a consensus and will need to be communicated.

Anna Royon-Weigelt RESPEA

Questions to answer here:

• Who takes the lead (facilitator?)
• Who keeps track of the timeframe
• What is the timeframe or how to determine that
• What should be discussed at the AGM on April 2.

Annex 1: Scored SWOT analysis

This annex contains an overview of the items raised for the SWOT analysis. After creating the matrix, the participants of the strategy weekend scored the items beforehand by awarding a maximum of 10 points to the items in each quadrant. Items were then sorted by having the most points.

Strengths

1. Closely related to the world's most consulted encyclopedic-collection Wikipedia 11
2. Relationships with cultural heritage institutions 8
3. Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. 6
4. Financial resources/position of the association 8
5. National and European goodwill 6
6. Public image because of association with Wikimedia/Wikipedia 7
7. Small physical distances within The Netherlands 6
8. Able to collaborate ad-hoc with partners and have those partners carry the out of pocket expenses 5
9. Activating community when sufficient momentum is already present 5
10. Shared values amongst association members 5
11. Long lasting active association members 5
12. Most of the current board members are well connected to a range of different communities 5
13. One of the few organisations in The Netherlands that knows what "Wikipedia" is and what it can be used for 5
14. De facto face of Wikimedia community in The Netherlands 3
15. Low threshold activities like tertulia (stamtafel) 3
16. Part of an international network 3
17. Image with international Wikimedia structures (chapters, WMF, communities) 2
18. Success of outreach initiatives 2
19. Financial support of (small) projects to increase accessibility of free information 1

Weaknesses

1. Wikimedia universe is extreme and all too often unfriendly, conservative and guarded online environment for editors 11
2. Availability of board members is sometimes too low, so that delays occur 9
3. Continuity of programmes (like moderator workshops, annual conferences) 8
4. The absense/unclarity of goals for mid and long term 6
5. Availability of volunteers is sometimes too low, so that delays occur or projects/activities cannot be executed 6
6. Disunity because of conflicts within the community 5
7. Activating community on new projects 5
8. Communication to donors has been below par. No donation follow-up and no reporting of activities 4
9. Focus on goals (contrary to opportunistic management) 5
10. Size of membership base of Wikimedia Nederland 5
11. (Professional) Management of projects (with regards to subsidised projects) 3
12. Fun factor for the volunteers involved (too little of it) 4
13. Shared values and opinions could lead to just “thinking inside the box” 4
14. The level and quality of communication within the association 4
15. Up to date and for thirds parties attractive website 4
16. Lack of financial controls 2
17. Motivation and coordination of volunteer in larger projects 3
18. Involvement of association members 1
19. Lots of talk, little action or results of effectiveness 2
20. No successful software development 2
21. The level of professionalism of fundraising 2
22. Collaboration with like-minded organisations 1
23. Continuity of collaboration with other Wikimedia chapters 1
24. Continuity of the association board because of 1 year terms 1
25. Engagement to non-Dutch speaking Wikimedia communities from The Netherlands 0
26. Financial support to the Wikimedia Foundation (actually making donations) 0

Opportunities

1. Collaborations with cultural heritage institutions / GLAM 9
2. Convert active online community members to real life volunteer 9
3. Engagement of higher education (HBO/WO) 6
4. Increase awareness of free licenses with internet users that create content 7
5. Internationalisation of successful projects (WikiPortrait, Wiki Loves Monuments) 8
6. Recruiting new online volunteers for Wikimedia projects to increase participation 6
7. Increase number of association members 6
8. Reaching specific target groups like seniors, wonen, lower education 4
9. Engagement of middle school education (VMBO/HAVO/VWO, age 12-18) 4
10. Exploit media interest 5
11. Exploit political goodwill in political lobby 5
12. Adaptations rather than more new initiatives are necessary to keep the edge which is still in the bag, more emphasis on perfecting and streamlining what is, and which is the essence. 3
13. Familiarity with "Free content" 4
14. More structuring of the social process within the Wikimedia projects by Foundation and chapters 3
15. Cooperation with other chapters in (for example European) projects 3
16. Engagement of libraries 3
17. Increase engagement of association members 3
18. Participate in existing events around cultural heritage institutions 3
19. Professional fundraising to increase yield and be more credible to all stakeholders 3
20. Financially support WMF activities 2
21. Founding a European chapter (and charity) 2
22. Improve fundraiser structure 2
23. Run subsidised projects to increase visibility of the movement 2
24. Utilisation of Dutch language Wikimedia projects for goals of WMNL 2
25. Increase participation between different Wikimedia communities 1
26. Worldwide most scientists and respected knowledgeable people live on a middle to low income, one must find better ways to tap into this enormous potential, the lever being challenging their self-esteem and providing a suitable oneline environment. 1
27. Business development 0
28. Communication with other chapters 0
29. Communication with Wikimedia Foundation 0
30. Utilisation of press exposure opportunities 0

Threats

1. Wikipedia brand will lose it's good name/be damaged 9
2. Bad communication between the board/staff and the members/volunteers 8
3. Bad communication between the board and the staff 7
4. Negative press attention 6
5. Unclear / too little communication with WMF 4
6. Decreasing activity of core members and board members during a project or term 6
7. Structured knowledge transfer when a person leaves a function in the organization 8
8. Damage to community structures when projects are executed in a wrong way 7
9. Hiring the wrong people 6
10. Competition of organisations with overlapping goals or strategies 4
11. Decisiveness of board in professionalisation 5
12. Image with active community because of personal beefs 4
13. Legal conflicts with external parties 3
14. Support with association members for far reaching professionalisation 2
15. Willingness to donate of small donors 3
16. Sceptical attitude of community for larger expenses 2
17. To any student above high-school Wikipedia's information represents rather a portal to knowledge than knowledge 2
18. Auditing of association staff and contractors 1
19. Image with (active) Wikimedia project community by exploring uncharted territory 1
20. The large amounts of money involved could lead to more friction or misappropriation 1
21. Lack / low level of communication with other chapters 0