Meet MosaicLab
Nicole Hunter
TEAM SPOTLIGHT: POLO, POLLY & GUS

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!

TEAM SPOTLIGHT: POLO, POLLY & GUS
Case studies
Nicole Hunter
CASE STUDY: THE TALE OF TWO ENERGY SECTOR ...

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.

CASE STUDY: THE TALE OF TWO ENERGY SECTOR CUSTOMER PANELS
Meet MosaicLab, ML Giving
Nicole Hunter
SUPPORTING CONVERSATIONS WHERE THEY'RE NEEDED ...

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.

SUPPORTING CONVERSATIONS WHERE THEY'RE NEEDED MOST
Case studies
Nicole Hunter
CASE STUDY: Jemena

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.

CASE STUDY: Jemena
Case studies
Nicole Hunter
CASE STUDY: AUSGRID VOICE OF COMMUNITY PANEL

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.

CASE STUDY: AUSGRID VOICE OF COMMUNITY PANEL

transparency

,

#MONTHLYMYTH: STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES

,
#MONTHLYMYTH: STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES

We’re kicking off our 2019 #MonthlyMyth series by addressing a topic we’re often asked about. We’ve noticed that it’s an issue that makes organisations nervous.  There’s a fear that (where a randomly selected panel or jury is involved) stakeholder and interest groups will be cut out of the conversation and oppose the process or decision.  

Luckily, not only is it important to incorporate these groups in a deliberative process, there’s also lots of ways they can be involved.    Today we’re exploring why it’s a good idea to do so, and giving you seven ways to bring them on your deliberative journey.

#MONTHLYMYTH: TRANSPARENCY & RISK GO HAND IN HAND

#MONTHLYMYTH: TRANSPARENCY & RISK GO HAND IN HAND

‘Transparency’ is a key term in the world of engagement.   We all know that it’s central to any robust, effective engagement process.

It’s also a word that, for some, goes hand in hand with risk and a loss of order and control.  That makes sense - because being honest, sharing the problem and providing in-depth insights into an issue can feel scary. 

Today, we're addressing this myth and providing some reasons to be brave, risks to be aware of and key starting points when it comes to transparency. 

#MonthlyMyth: Tight communication reins = risk minimisation

#MonthlyMyth: Tight communication reins = risk minimisation

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.  

#MONTHLYMYTH: LOW PARTICIPATION IS CAUSED BY LOW INTEREST

#MONTHLYMYTH: LOW PARTICIPATION IS CAUSED BY LOW INTEREST

Our monthly myth for March is here!  Low participation rates is a problem many organisations face when it comes to community engagement activities.  The cause of this, however, is not always obvious.  Today we're exploring some of the other (common) reasons that people don't get involved in your process.