It’s another year. Last year I blogged about ‘Aiming at average’. It worked so well I think I should do the same this year. Maybe that’s too boring, or I’m being lazy. To remind me, and perhaps you if you read it last year, it was basically about not aiming at perfection all the time. It tends to stop me attempting new things, and worrying about failing. Somehow taking the pressure off means I can function better ‘in the moment’. Aiming at average often means I function better than when I aim at excellence. Ironic isn’t it?

Anyway, I believe it is a bit lazy not to have a new focus for 2016. It’s taken awhile to come, but here it is. For me 2016, will be about working with others to maximise impact. I have come across so many fabulous people since moving to Melbourne. The opportunities for partnering seem endless. Probably too many to turn into something tangible. I have a habit of saying ‘yes’ to anyone offering an opportunity to work together. Mostly that works well for me. Somehow though I will need to make some choices about those opportunities. I can’t pursue them all.

So here is my criteria for the opportunities I believe are worth pursuing.

• Opportunities where my skills are likely to complement those of others; or in other words, partnering with those who are really good at stuff that I’m not so good at.

• Opportunities that focus on making the world a better place. It sounds ‘twee’ I know, but I don’t care. It matters to me. For me this means contributing to a world where there is more respect of ‘otherness’, more appreciation of complexity, more thinking and less judging, contributing to more liveable places for people and more compassion for those who are struggling.

• Bold opportunities – ones that push beyond tinkering around the edges, or fine tuning. I’m not sure the human race has enough time to play is safe. Playing it safe seems increasingly scary.

It’s only been just over twelve months since starting my own business. It has been really productive and busier than I ever imagined. Thanks to all those who have made the transition so smooth, and who have welcome Angela and I into the life of this great city.

There were a number of times last year when I returned to my motto for the year – about Aiming for Average. It helped. This year I hope I am able to remind myself to ‘Seize opportunities to maximise impact.’ We’ll see how it works out. There are already many opportunities ticking that box for me so it should be an intriguing year.

So, happy new year, and all that. And what is your motto for 2016?

The ABC recently announced that a review, or audit, of the show QandA will take place, led by veteran broadcaster Ray Martin. This follows the recent controversial incident when an individual, who was convicted of threatening the lives of ASIO officials, was allowed to participate in the show’s audience. I’m not going to discuss this particular incident (which is relatively trivial by comparsion); rather I am proposing a much more substantial review of the whole program.

Despite being inexpensive to produce with a reasonably loyal following, the formula is, at best, tired and predictable. At worst, QandA represents much that is broken and outdated with our version of democracy, and especially our parliaments. Although QandA claims that it is ‘democracy in action’, I would argue that it contributes to inaction, even inertia, and disillusionment. This is why.
• There is no deep dive into any issue raised – rather each episode generally tries to cram in about five issues.
• It is about theatre and not substance.
• Guests are set up to perform – a good performance is one where they score points against those with different views. It is especially ‘good’ when they receive a round of applause (at least half the audience will probably support their point of view to some extent, so if they deliver the message eloquently with a strong finish, the applause will come).
• No-one ever changes their mind on anything – it is not about learning, appreciating different perspectives, and finding a way forward.
• The audience questions are invariably comments or points disguised as a question – there is little evidence of genuine curiosity. Again – the questioners want to score points as well.
• The sizeable audience is usually frustrated by not having enough time to pose their ‘questions’, and if they do they are rarely given adequate attention.
• The conversations between guests are usually debates – and generally audience participants, viewers and guests are more polarized than ever as a result of what occurs.

Sound familiar? Parliament operates in much the same manner. Point scoring. No genuine dialogue. No curiosity. Debate, which is more about theatre and much less about policy, plans or potential solutions. There are defenders of the program, as there are those who advocate for the value of so-called ‘robust debate’. They say, ‘Aren’t we fortunate to live in a country where we have free speech, where we can share our opinions freely, and where we can agree to disagree without being shot at (generally anyway).’ Well, I’m not buying that. I don’t feel that we are lucky with the way our politics is being played out, and I’m nearly always left feeling incredibly let down by QandA (yes, I watch it often in the hope that they dynamics will shift). We can do much better, and we must get better if our faith in our democracy is to be restored.

Fortunately there have been experiments with democracy both here and abroad that are showing how it can be done differently (eg; for example how the City of Melbourne developed a ten year financial plan with the help of randomly selected citizens (modelled on participatory budgeting processes originating in South America) and where the state of Queensland developed a thirty year plan with 80,000 contributions, and where 700 participants virtually achieved consensus with regard to priorities and directions. Or the NDIS Citizens’ Jury that gave a scorecard on how this incredibly important social reform initiative is performing in the trial sites, to help inform the full roll-out of the scheme.

NDIS Citizens’ Jury – photo Claudio Raschella

Let’s focus on QandA. How could the formula be changed to produce something more useful, and something that strengthens rather than erodes our confidence to make progress as a nation? Here are my suggestions.

• Don’t have episodes on topics, but have a single, compelling question to explore, one that we are really interested in making some progress on, possibly generated from viewers (online collaborative platforms are great for doing this).
• Have less guests – four would be the maximum (I actually think the better episodes have been those with a maximum of two guests).
• Use a skilled facilitator rather than a compere.
• Have a much smaller, diverse audience – or even have an arrangement whereby audience participants move from the outer circle to the inner circle to join the conversation for a time.
• Let guests know that they are expected to learn something from the conversations, and will be asked at the end to talk about any new insights they have gained, and how they might act upon them.
• If a new idea or proposition emerges, test it with the audience (live and watching on TV) to check the pulse about its attractiveness or merit.
• Invite viewers to share what they have learned or have been challenged about.

The QandA game would change by design (and I know full well it will be resisted by some guests who will habitually stick with their party line). The new game would be, ‘How much can we learn from each other?’ ‘What ideas are worth testing, or further exploring at least?’ ‘How collectively smart can we be to make progress on some of our most pressing challenges?’

So, ABC, in summary, it’s time to be bold. Time to show how democracy can be done differently, so that we can generate hope, and instill greater confidence in our policymaking, and our politicians.

Having been involved for over 20 years (yikes) doing this strange thing called community engagement, I thought I’d offer my assessment of how things have changed and are changing. Obviously not a complete list – that is why I’d like your thoughts about trends. There are a few obvious ones – less reliance on public (town hall) meetings, and written submissions, and more use of online discussion forums.

These are four trends that I believe are worth mentioning; smart technology, the use of random selection, DIY approaches, and attempts/experiments at involving the ‘community of interest’ much earlier.

Technology

Almost impossible to keep up with technological advances available for engaging communities. This list provided in a blog by Amanda Newbery, founder of Ariculous, is very helpful, giving examples that are far superior to flythroughs.

Augmented reality

Check this video to see what all the fuss is about. This document is also worth looking at. Of note, it looks as though Apple has just purchased an augmented reality start-up company in Germany. Augmented reality is going to be commonplace before long so learn about and think about how it can make engaging your community more engaging when it comes to visualising a project.

Immersive panoramas

According to Amanda Newbery, “this is like being inside a scene and being able to control where you walk and what you look at. You’re not at the mercy of where the fly through takes you.”  It is just like navigating with Google Maps street level view. To get an idea of how it works scroll down to the latest adventures of Mister Fogg or examples at Articulous.

Gamification

Gaming is a way for people to interact with a concept in a very playful way.
According to Andrew Coulson construction companies, telcos and the health sector are leading the way when it comes to developing online and offline games to engage people for education, training or for brand loyalty. It is now increasingly being used to engage communities creatively with regard to planning. An example is the Community PlanIt Gamification tool. Check it out!

3D printing

Just watch this space. 3D models can now be printed from photographs, and it will become increasingly more affordable to create.
Models of cities can now be printed, such as this example of Adelaide.
Just imagine how useful this could be for all sorts of projects!

Voting with phones.

Here is one that I really find useful and reliable. Instead of using sourcing and supplying voting devices (which can prove to be unreliable at the worst possible time), use Poll Everywhere. With Poll Everywhere participants at a workshop or large meeting, individual respond to a series of questions, using their phones (and it doesn’t have to be a smart phone). A graph is built in real time for all to see. Great for transparency, and for working out where the whole room is at – which sometimes varies considerably from what you might expect.

Random Selection

I have blogged about this recently – the growing trend of using random selection to form citizens’ juries who deliberate over an important, complex and/or controversial decision.

Other processes that use random selection include:

• Deliberative polls
• Televote/teledemocracy (described in this paper by Prof Lyn Carson et al)
• Citizens’ Assemblies and Citizens’ Parliaments
• 21st Century Town Meetings

I really believe these processes offer a great option for some situations. They can also be misused, badly designed, and poorly facilitated, which no doubt have the potential to give such processes a bad name.

The value of such processes is that they allow so-called ‘average’ citizens to weigh up evidence from a range of experts and to provide their verdict to the sponsoring organisation/decision makers. They provide an opportunity to do the really deep dive, and given their relative neutrality, citizens’ juries are not subject to the same pressures and fixed positions as stakeholder representatives or politicians. (Check out the short film here of the NDIS Citizens’ Jury process, superbly filmed by the highly talented Lara Damiani of Think Films.)

DIY approaches

An interesting development has been the growing phenomenon of Do-It-Yourself community engagement. This involves a discussion guide being produced and made available for any individual, group or organisation, to examine, ponder and respond to. It means that the organisation does not have to manage, organise or facilitate every meeting. It allows people to gather wherever and whenever it is convenient for them, such a during a dinner party, a barbeque or any group that meets regularly together. Follow the conversation the output can be posted on a website or emailed.

An example of this approach was The Queensland Plan where over 78,000 people provided input (we were hoping for about 20,000).

The reason for this trend? It takes less organisation, it’s convenient to participants and it’s made possible through greater online functionality.

Attempts/experiments at involving the ‘community of interest’ earlier.

Conventional community consultation, or community engagement, invariably means that a plan or proposal was substantially developed, and then presented for comment or feedback. It neither allows the ‘community of interest’ to help shape the scope of the process, nor the questions or issues the plan or proposal is meant to address. Through many years of experience I have found that one of the most frustrating aspects of community engagement is that the community does not always accept the premise upon which the plan or proposal is based. Or in other words, the community is not thrilled about a presented with a solution when they don’t agree with, or don’t understand, the question it is meant to answer.

For this reason some practitioners are now urging organisations to actively involve a cross-section of the ‘community of interest’ in developing, refining and clarifying the questions, before exploring possible solutions. Twyfords’ Collaborative Governance Pathway, as outlined in the book “The Power of Co” put forward the case for, and described the process involved in, such an approach. Using this approach for a number of projects I have found the advantages to include:

• Individuals/groups are provided with the opportunity to appreciate different perspectives
• Having generated the questions or dilemma to be addressed, participants are inclined to become advocates for the process.
• The scope of the project is more inclusive or a range of perspectives, as it is not defined by the initiating organisation alone.

Well there you have it – my view about trends in the area of community engagement, and especially engagement around tricky issues for government. There are no doubt more, including community engagement for the purpose of policymaking, and processes that are initiated by the community.

So what trends are you noticing?

Max