Wikipedia:Education Program/Structure proposals/U.S. Canada Education Program – Approach to Strategy

Wikipedia User Name: Mike Cline, Campus Ambassador, Montana State University, WP Administrator


 * What idea(s) do you have for what the new structure for the U.S. and Canada Wikipedia Education Programs could look like?
 * Defer on any specific structure recommendation at this time. See next section.


 * How would you ensure this new structure involves all key stakeholders, including academics and the Wikipedia community?

This proposal is not so much a proposal as to a new structure for the U.S./Canada Education Program, but a proposal to adopt a specific strategic planning approach to design and ultimately implement a new program structure. I propose that the WM Foundation adopt elements of the Prometheus Process strategic planning methodology for the functioning of this working group. If selected as a member of the Working Group, I am in a position to teach, provide reference materials and facilitate this process and tools for the group to help achieve Working Group objectives.

First and foremost, strategy is all about aligning individuals around clear, concise, measurable and desirable enterprise goals. In this case, the WM foundation goal is to design and implement a viable structure for the U.S./Canada Education Program via a working group of diverse stakeholders. Adopting this strategy process will expedite achievement of that goal and provide stakeholders a simple structure and set of planning/execution tools that will facilitate implementation. If this process is adopted as the planning process for the working group, I envision the following deliverables out of planning sessions.

This is a proven process in all types of enterprises. If selected as a member of the Working Group, I will do my part in ensuring the process supports the Strategic goals of the WM foundation and the Working group.
 * A Future Picture for the U.S./Canada Education Program that describes in clear, concise, measurable and desirable terms the future state (~ 2015) of a functioning structure/program.
 * Strategic measurements that indicate progress toward and achievement of that Future Picture
 * A set of Guiding Precepts that will guide the behavior of the Working Group and other stakeholders as the plan is developed and implemented.
 * A set of Phase I (~Q4 2012 – 2013) objectives that are clear, concise and measurable that if achieved will lead to achievement of the future picture
 * A set of internal/external centers of gravity that must be affected to achieve phase objectives. Typically these Centers of gravity translate into specific projects or tactical activity that must be completed to achieve objectives and are assigned to individuals or teams to complete.
 * All stakeholders involved in and with the Working Group would be operating with a common set of strategy tools and processes allowing for complete alignment as the plan move forward.

Adopting a specific strategic planning/execution approach does require some upfront education. (Much of this can be accomplished before the group actually meets and I can provide as much education as required to achieve group goals)
 * What are potential pitfalls of this approach?


 * Any other comments about your proposal?

Let's adopts a process that ensures we have a good strategy that aligns all stakeholders and let's avoid piecing together a string of tactics, hoping they will lead us somewhere. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)