As 2024 wraps up, our facilitation team is sharing their standout moments. From mysteriously missing catering and questionable gong skills to a surprise bush trek under the stars, 2024 had its fair share of laughs, twists, and unforgettable memories.
The City of Melbourne views affordable housing as crucial infrastructure for maintaining a liveable, inclusive, and prosperous city. With a projected shortfall of 23,200 affordable homes by 2036, immediate action is needed to address this long-standing issue. While there is broad community support for affordable housing, acceptance often wanes at the neighbourhood level. To tackle this, a People’s Panel of 39 diverse community members was established to represent local perspectives.
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.
To help local councils in Victoria navigate the deliberative engagement requirements in the new Local Government Act, MosaicLab has launched a free, short guide.
This e-book is specifically for local government staff and decision makers, and aims to provide assistance and information to help councils better understand deliberative engagement, its principles and how it can be implemented into council processes to meet the new requirements of the Act.
It takes time, effort and resources to achieve best practice engagement at the best of times. And right now it’s not the best of times. We’re hearing from many that engaging at all (let alone engaging well) is difficult.
Your organisation may be grappling with how to respond to the crisis, facing reduced revenue and budget cuts, responding to increased demand for community support and services, and wondering how to sustain it all long term. Local government bodies are also working to comply with the enhanced engagement requirements set out in the Local Government Act.
So we’ve announced two new service options designed to help you engage robustly, cost-effectively and appropriately.
This month’s myth addresses mistaken assumption that offering people less influence over a decision translates to the organisation having increased control over the process and outcomes.
Some engagement processes lend themselves to a lower level of influence than others, However, if the intention is to reduce influence in an attempt to ‘manage’ the process, control outcomes, cut corners or minimise time and resources, organisations can find themselves in hot water.
Read on for 6 key questions you can ask to determine the right level of influence and a list of helpful reading and resources.
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.
