This page is currently a draft.
Why did we go for a strategy model that is based on a commercial model. How did this model work for WMF as a nonprofit?
We are aware of the differences between the commercial model and our own case. Lack of profit, competitiveness and different shareholder models are factors that we knew were different and we acted accordingly. The specific methodology referred to here, doesn't directly fit our scope, it helps achieving success over other non-profits that compete in the same domain. Which proposed an interesting question, do we have non-profit competitors?
So what happened so far, did you finish the WMF's strategy for our readers in 2 days in a closed room?
Nope. What happened so far is that we walked ourselves through the methodology of playing to win. This helped us identify how do we approach every problem, by creating choices for each problem, and possibilities of solutions for each choices and then defining concerns for each possibilities and use testing to see how our concerns could be overcome. With a clear process, that we all share a common understanding of, it will be easy to incorporate ideas, define priorities and choose tests together, because we will be speaking the same language.
Sounds systematic. Does it mean that WMF didn't have a process before?
It means that the new reading team is working on making it clear for ourselves, as a movement, how we can proceed with clear reasoning and process. Making it easy to incorporate and evaluate ideas, that follow the same pattern, as we move forward.
Where does this process intersect with the process of the other department?
In defining choices and generating possibilities, we always consider the broad vision of the movement as a whole. At the end of the day, every editor is a reader, and reading, is an entry point to editing.
Where does this process fit in the scope of a broader movement input?
By clearly sharing our learnings and our current status, we are empowering everyone to participate and become part of the process, by following the same methodology. i.e: For example, instead of saying “the overall reading numbers are declining and that is a problem that we need to solve” by sharing our process, the suggested statement is questioned to whether this is a problem in itself or it is a result of something else? What other things that might have caused this problem? If we picked one reason, what are our choices to solve the selected problem, and what are our possibilities that we can test in each choice. Sounds complicated? Not really. The key is to ask the right questions and always remain focused on the initial problem.