A support facilitator studying psychology, our first team member based in NSW and a brand new participant recruitment coordinator... meet the newest additions to the MosaicLab team: Polo, Polly and Gus! Learn more about this trio of terrific team members and gain some insights into who they REALLY are through their answers to our fast five questions!
How should we plan for the new energy future while providing affordable services that meet changing customer and community needs? Two representative ‘Voice of the Customer’ panels in Queensland answered this question. Randomly selected, everyday customers deliberated and agreed on recommendations that electricity distributors Ergon Energy Network and Energex used to prepare Regulatory Proposals for the Australian Energy Regulator (AER). Delve into a tale of two deliberative customer panels, and gain ideas and insights you can draw on for your next project.
We believe in supporting emerging and underserved people and communities to have deeper conversations that lead to stronger democracies. ML Giving is the new name of the not-for-profit part of MosaicLab - a banner for the work we do that gives back. We’re focussing on furthering community inclusion and action beyond just getting input and instead moving into enabling local decision-making. Explore the principles ML Giving will operate under, and the kind of projects and conversations we’re supporting.
Jemena Electricity Network has been implementing a comprehensive engagement program for the organisation's 2026-2031 Regulatory Proposal, employing a multi-dimensional approach to allow customers direct influence over proposed future pricing and services. MosaicLab codesigned and lead the facilitation of the process, that included a deliberative panel and brings diverse customer, stakeholder, and industry perspectives into the decision-making process.
As part of the development of Ausgrid's 2024-2029 regulatory submission, two randomly selected customer panels deliberated over a collective 10 full days. The panels, facilitated by MosaicLab and Gauge Consulting, considered how Ausgrid should look to the future while remaining fair to customers today. Ausgrid's three-year engagement process allowed customers to influence what Ausgrid spends customers money on, giving them a rare insight and influence over the cost of electricity, an issue that directly impacts the lives of everyday people.
Deliberative engagement requires time, money and resources and that means you want high returns. Trusted, public decision-making is one (excellent) outcome. However, the benefits can go much further. Here are six ways to generate bigger benefits, longer-term impacts and higher returns on your deliberative engagement investment.
You want the best engagement supplier for the job, so it pays to have a critical eye when assessing that pile of proposals. The easy choice that appears to ‘tick every box’ isn’t always the right one. Here’s our guide to picking the best proposal, including red flags to look out for in the procurement process.
Development of a high-level engagement framework, policy or strategy is an important step in building an engaging organisation. Having this document finalised, however, does not indicate that the hard work is over.
To truly embed engagement across an organisation, overarching strategies must be brought to life through implementation. Today, we're addressing this myth by providing 10 ways to start embedding engagement across the organisation and see your engagement strategy put into practice.
When you’re preparing information inputs for a community engagement process, organisations can spend a lot of time producing glossy brochures and simplified, summarised content. It’s easy to get lost in all the posters and paragraphs and lose sight of what’s important - what you’re really saying about the issue or decision at hand.
Getting the balance right can be challenging. So, in this post we’ll not only address this months myth, we’ll also give you 6 simple tips for providing the right information at the right level of detail.
Many organisations try to minimise risk by 'holding the reins tight' when it comes to communicating with their communities and stakeholders around engagement processes and major projects/decisions.
This so-called 'risk averse' approach tends to include carefully constructing tightly worded (yet often very uninformative) key messages and strictly withholding any information deemed potentially inflammatory or uncomfortable - even when inextricably relevant to the issue at hand.
There's also approval processes applied to the release of any information, which can slow down communication activities - sometimes to a considerable extent - depending on how rigid or intricate these processes are.
While organisations tend to feel comfortable with this well-worn approach, the promise of 'safety' through control is generally just an illusion.
Welcome to our February #MonthlyMyth post! Today, we're exploring a commonly held belief that prevents many organisations from engaging in a meaningful way with citizens around complex, technical or information-rich issues.
This one misconception can reduce an engagement process to a surface exercise without any real outcomes, create unintended and less than desirable consequences down the track and even prevent a potentially valuable engagement process from happening altogether.
So let's get into it - what can everyday citizens REALLY handle and should we ask them to handle it?
Welcome to MosaicLab's first ever #MonthlyMyth post. There are a number of myths and misconceptions that often surface in relation to facilitation, deliberative democracy, outrage management, conflict management and community engagement more broadly.
As part of our work to promote quality engagement practice and share information and learning we are addressing some of the most commonly expressed myths and misconceptions each month on our blog. We hope you find this series interesting, informative, and perhaps a little surprising!
