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.
Since COVID-19 started impacting our engagement world, people have been telling us they’re worried about reaching and including those who aren’t online and/or those they believe are ‘hard to reach’.
Not only are we talking about two different issues or cohorts here, but we’re also exploring a topic that’s prone to myths and misconceptions. Often people we think are ‘beyond reach’ aren’t, and people who we label ‘hard to reach’ are simply waiting to be found.
Deliberative democracy isn’t a ‘one size fits all’ type of deal. Deliberative processes can come in multiple packages, and deliberative elements can be integrated into a range of different engagement approaches. However, a truly deliberative process is built around some simple core principles, and it’s risky to call a process ‘deliberation’ if it doesn’t truly hit the mark.
So, what are the principles of deliberative democracy, and how would we know if a process wasn’t truly deliberative?
Facilitators work across many industries, audiences and topics, and sometimes the issues or information being considered are complex or technical. We’re often asked how we manage to move across so many broad ranging issues and projects, and whether we need to become ‘experts’ in each topic before we facilitate.
This #MonthlyMyth explores some of the misunderstandings that sit behind this myth, highlights the true role of a facilitator, and uncovers how facilitators really work with information and content.
Deliberation can be refer to either a micro-process (something you can build into part of a session or engagement process) or a full deliberative democracy process (such as a citizens’ jury).
Deliberative engagement has a lot of potential benefits - these processes can lead to new solutions to challenging problems, improve policy outcomes and engender trust between citizens and decision makers.
So, is deliberation always the right answer/process? The short answer is no.
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.
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.
Want to get the best possible value out of the consultant or facilitator you engage? Hoping to minimise wasted time, money and resources? Seeking to deliver an engagement process that’s as effective as possible? Our tip: don’t develop a detailed engagement methodology before you appoint your consultant.
This month’s myth explores the potential consequences of this all too common error and provides 4 steps to achieving the best possible return on your consultant investment and delivering an effective process.
Often, the purpose of an engagement process (or one phase of an engagement process) is to cast the net wide, capturing as many views and voices as possible. Often, this is a good approach, particularly at the beginning of a longer engagement process. What you generally don’t want to aim for, however, is the highest possible volume of feedback and data, with no regard for how useful or informed that input is.
Today we’re highlighting why you might get an overload of responses – many of which aren’t relevant to the issue at hand, why this is a problem, and how you can avoid it for your next process.
Sometimes, as facilitators, we find ourselves in awe of a skilled Master of Ceremonies (emcee). Some emcees can really bring an event to life, confidently engaging the audience and seamlessly pull an occasion together with effortless flow and poise. Where appropriate, the best MC’s will also inject humour and entertainment and make an event ‘sparkle’.
The reason we’re so impressed is that this isn’t our core skill set! Contrary to popular belief, these two roles aren't interchangeable. To address this month's myth, we interviewed a professional emcee and professional facilitator, gaining first hand insights into these two unique worlds.
It’s important to consider and tailor your engagement approach to ensure you meet the needs of all stakeholders, and that includes those who have the most to say.
This mistake, however , lies in forgetting about everyone else. Suddenly, you realise the needs and opinions of a few have demanded time, attention and resources at the expense of the rest of your stakeholders or community.
Today we’re addressing this myth by providing 9 ways to ensure diverse perspectives make it into your next process.
