Max Hardy Consulting

Results through collaboration

twitterlinkedinmailby feather
  • About
  • Authentic Co-design
  • Services
  • My experience
  • Courses
  • Links
  • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Newsletters
  • Contact

It’s time to do stakeholder mapping differently!

28/10/2020 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

A recent blog by Richard Delaney put forward the merit of doing impact analysis as opposed to issues identification. Worth a read!


I’d like to offer another suggestion for improving the way we plan community engagement processes; stakeholder mapping. The classic process used is the 2 x 2 matrix of plotting stakeholders according to their level of interest and their level of influence.


The matrix is meant to inform how much effort should be put into differently classified stakeholders, and how we should approach them. Key players demand the most attention – we ignore them at our peril. We should also make sure we meet the needs of those regarded with strong influence, but with less interest. We should be ‘considerate’ of high interest stakeholders who have less clout, and we needn’t waste much time with those with little interest, and not much influence.

It looks systematic and rational. So, what’s the problem? Here are a few unintended (possibly intended) consequences of this approach.

1.You are ignoring potentially useful input; children and young people, for example, see things differently; and they may not currently be interested, and probably not powerful. Check this article from Robyn Mansfield for more on this and also this statement on the ACT Human Rights Commission website.


2. We continue to focus most attention and resources on those individuals and groups who are already highly engaged, and will continue to be. It both amuses and disturbs me that organisations who focus most of their attention on these groups also complain they only ever hear from the same people. Go figure!

3. Mapping stakeholders in this way reinforces the tendency to regard stakeholders more as risks to manage, as opposed to assets to work with and utilise. This habit shapes an unhelpful mindset; one more akin to preparing for battle.

The typical approach to stakeholder mapping is counterproductive. So, if working constructively with stakeholders is something you are really serious about, then I suggest mapping these things instead.

1.What is the interest this stakeholder has with regarding this project or initiative (as opposed to the position they have on the project)?
(Interest here means, why does this matter? It does not refer to how much the stakeholder is interested; you may wish to refer to the seminal work of Ury and Fisher, Getting to Yes, which explains the difference between ‘positions’ and ‘interests’)

2. What interests might this stakeholder have if this project or initiative is fully understood and explored?
(This is useful to ponder for those who may be affected, but not yet engaged, or previously disengaged)

3. What knowledge and insights might this stakeholder have to share in relation to this project or initiative?
(It is important to recognise there are different kinds of expertise; mapping this will encourage the project team to be curious about what others could bring, perhaps uniquely bring)

4. What methods of engagement might work well for this stakeholder?
(If you don’t know then this will encourage you to find out!)

5. What networks and other resources might this stakeholder have to bring to this process?
(They may be able to share information with their networks, or even have a meeting room you can use – you don’t know if you don’t enquire)

6. What else is important to appreciate about this stakeholder?
(They might have some important demands being made on their time; they may have other activities planned that you could ‘piggy-back’ upon, there may be some history with the sponsoring organisation that should be recognised/reflected upon)

This will provide you with lots of very useful data you can draw upon, to help with your planning. It is essential, I’ve found, when planning a co-design process for complex issues. You can’t co-design any solutions unless you are drawing on the strengths of your community.

Unfortunately, these questions won’t give you a matrix. So, how about this one?


Importantly, such a matrix focuses your effort on building relationships with stakeholders and enquiring into how they might become a valued part of the process. I invite you to give this a try and to share what difference it makes to our approach, and to the outcomes derived from it.

What other improvements to community engagement planning processes have you come across, or created? For more ideas about co-designing solutions with your communities go check out Authentic Co-design.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: authentic codesign, stakeholder mapping, stakeholders

Facilitating Public Deliberations

28/08/2020 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

public deliberations

Recently I was a guest on the newDemocracy Foundation podcast where I shared some of the important lessons that I have learned over the last several decades. Click here to listen to the podcast.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Deliberation

Debunking myths about ‘deliberation’

14/07/2020 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

There is much being said and written about deliberation. This is not surprising, especially in Victoria, Australia, where the new Local Government Act stipulates this is the way to now engage communities. So, I thought I’d make a contribution as a practitioner who has promoted, designed and facilitated deliberative processes for over 20 years. In doing so I am hoping to help local government and other organisations to avoid the trap of limiting their thinking in terms of how to incorporate deliberation into their engagement.

Myth 1
There is a universally agreed definition as to what it actually means when it comes to deliberative community engagement.

I don’t believe there is, but there is broad agreement about principles of deliberative democracy, described by Professor Lyn Carson as inclusion (ie; recruiting an inclusive, stratified mini-public), deliberation (providing a process to assist the mini-public to make a well-considered judgment) and influence (the recommendations of the mini-public need to be genuinely considered and responded to transparently).

Deliberation is meant to enhance decision-making; to make it more democratic, more thoughtful, and less open to manipulation (eg. powerful corporations making political donations expecting favours in return). There is also agreement that deliberative community engagement goes beyond merely harvesting opinions. Collecting opinions by encouraging people to ‘have their say’ is quite different from a cross-section of the public hearing evidence, considering a range of viewpoints and arguments, and working toward agreed recommendations. Deliberation involves people being curious and using critical thinking skills to make well-informed judgments.

The process by which this happens is a different matter. Here are just a few of the areas where there is less agreement:

  • Do all participants need to be recruited randomly by a third-party?
  • Should the days of evidence be heard on consecutive days, or spread out several weeks apart?
  • Is the remit of deliberative panels and agendas set by process experts, by ultimate decision-makers, or panel members, or a combination?
  • Do presenters of information stay to observe proceedings, with a right of reply, or do they present their evidence and take no further part?
  • Does a panel need to reach consensus, or just a substantial majority, say 80%, to convey valid recommendations?
  • Should the panel be no more than 24 members, or is around 45 a better number? Can a panel of 300 people still work in a deliberative way?
  • Can people deliberate online, or must it be face to face? (Quite a few practitioners have attempted to facilitate deliberative sessions online in recent months).
  • Do all deliberative panels operate at the empower level of the IAP2 Spectrum?

I’ve found deliberative practitioners hold a variety of views about such questions. So, while there is fairly strong agreement about what deliberative community engagement is meant to achieve, there is not so much agreement about what it looks like in practice.

Myth 2
There is only one way to do it.

As you can probably tell from my response to Myth 1, there are many ways that a deliberative community engagement process can be organised. Citizens juries, citizens assemblies, deliberative polls, people’s panels, and deliberative forums, all differ in some respects, but are informed by principles of deliberative democracy (or should be). The illustration below is my attempt at describing a number of variables.

Let’s see how different two deliberative processes might be. The first is Australia’s First Citizens Parliament, held in Old Parliament House, Canberra in February 2009, which I proudly contributed to as one of the lead facilitators, alongside Professor Janette Hartz-Karp.

The scope was a broad, codesign style question, about how Australia’s Democracy could best serve the people of Australia.

In terms of influence, where there was no commitment by government to act on it. It was more of a research exercise to show how deliberation can work, and the extent to which citizens can appreciate complex issues. It was partly funded by the Australian Research Council.

In terms of composition, citizens expressed interest in participating and from there were randomly selected, so that we had one citizen representing each federal electorate.

Regarding duration and scheduling, it was held over 4 consecutive days.

In terms of size we have 151 citizen parliamentarians, one for each Federal electorate.

Process governance? Expert Advisory Committee.


In terms of transparency it was a closed session, so no public gallery, although a team of researchers observed and recorded the process (in fact a book was produced with much of the research results).

Witnesses were selected by the process governance group.

Regarding relationship to broader public, a series of workshops and forums were held to promote the research project, and where people were encouraged to register their interest, so broader engagement fed into this deliberative process.

The response to each variable for Australia’s First Citizens’ Parliament is coloured red, as shown below.

By contrast, and without going through each of the variables, the deliberative process I ran with Anna Kelderman, Shape Urban with the City of Vincent (Perth), to develop a thirty-year vision looked quite different. It was called Imagine Vincent. One noticeable difference was running the process at the Empower end of the Spectrum. It was the community’s Vision being articulated, and Council then responded to it in terms of how Council could support progress toward this Vision. Another variable which differed was the iterative nature of the relationship between the deliberative panel and the broader public. The deliberative panel first worked together to frame questions for the process. After extensive board engagement, the panel reassembled to consider some of the challenges and issues which emerged, and then finalised the vision. Take a look at this video to get an idea about how this worked.

Again, without going through each of the variables, the deliberative process following on from the Hazelwood Mine Fire to design the air monitoring system looks quite different again, as shown below. The main difference with this was the involvement of stakeholders in helping to design the process, scientists working with the panel through the process of codesigning the solution, and the level of influence was at the level of Empower.

(If you are interested in Codesign process you may wish to join our Community of Interest, and receive a free step by step guide).

Phew, the next three will be quite a bit shorter. The key message from all this is that there are many different variables, and there are definitely different ways to do deliberation.

Myth 3
It’s best to get out of the way to let the experts do it for you.

I’ve written about this in a recent blog. I firmly believe the best processes are ones where the consulting team work collaboratively with the organisational project team, and even working collaboratively with some key stakeholders. Co-designing the process is the best way of building support for the process, and making the most of collective knowledge and insights. Don’t let anyone tell you, the client, to get out of the way to let them make all the process decisions.

Myth 4
Deliberative engagement is the only worthwhile type of engagement.

Deliberative engagement is superior in quite a few respects, but other forms of engagement also have value, and sometimes are much more appropriate. Take for instance a project to engage the community in new ways to help prevent suicide. It is not about deliberating over any single decision (although deliberation could be useful to work out how best to allocate resources for a suicide prevention strategy); it is about a movement for system-wide change, to involve as many as possible in the process of being more aware of risks, and groups and organisations working better together to provide support appropriately. It is a different kind of community engagement required for systems change, which I have written about previously.

Of course, it is not about choosing between participative engagement (where large numbers of people being involved is a key objective) or deliberative engagement (where smaller numbers examine a matter at depth). Some of the best processes are ones where the two kinds of engagement work together (such as the Imagine Vincent example). Only doing deliberative community engagement, without any broader engagement, can be criticised for involving too few people to be valid, and depriving people who are keen on the opportunity to contribute.

Myth 5
Deliberative engagement is really, really expensive.

It can be expensive, but it doesn’t have to be. For complex projects investing in a robust deliberative process, along with other forms of engagement, is likely to be a great investment (especially when compared to the alternative – see Nick Fleming’s article Taming the Flames).

A really inexpensive process that leads to greater mistrust, domination of the process by powerful interest groups, and which does not impress decisionmakers or the broader community, is very costly.

Having said that, it is fair to say that local government cannot afford many deliberative processes run in the form of a classic citizens’ jury. However, a large panel recruited for a longer period of time (say two years) can be used in a very cost-effective way. Smaller groups selected out of the larger group, can be invited to deliberate over different kinds of issues over this period of time. Online deliberation is also more possible; although it might not be the same as face to face session, online tools are being refined all the time toward achieving a greater level of deliberation. Tools like Synthetron, Ethelo and Text, Talk and Act are quite affordable for local government and can take participants on a journey whereby a much higher level of deliberation can be achieved (compared with online discussion forums).

There you go. Five myths and my response to them. In summary, here is my advice about local government doing deliberation:

  1. Be clear on principles, be open about the methods.
  2. Work with consultants who are willing to collaborate with you.
  3. Co-design the process with a diverse range of people, including consultants, internal and external stakeholders.
  4. Consider how broader engagement can complement, and inform, your deliberative processes (and yes, I believe this can occur in an online environment, though it’s more challenging).
  5. Trust your community. Be confident that if you make space for community members to deliberate you will be rewarded with their wisdom, your reputation will be enhanced, and you will meet all the requirements of the new Local Government Act (if you operate in Victoria).

So, do you have any other questions, or maybe other myths, relating to deliberative community engagement?

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: citizens assemblies, citizens juries, Community Engagement, Deliberation, Deliberative community engagement, deliberative community engagement process, deliberative forums, deliberative polls

Democratic Innovation and Beyond the Vote (Guest Blog by Dr Wendy Russell)

18/09/2016 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

wendy-r

Thanks to Max for having me as a guest on his blog. It’s been a pleasure to know and work with Max overthe years, as I know it has been for a large number of people.

I want to talk today about innovation. Innovation is one of the over-arching themes of Open State, this exciting event that’s being held in Adelaide in October. It’s also a central theme of an Open State workshop I’m helping to organise: Beyond the Vote. Democratic Innovation in Australia.

Innovation is a thing I have a mixed relationship with. Having done research on emerging technologies and science and technology governance, I’ve studied innovation. I also worked for several years in the federal Department of Innovation (it always had other things in its title, which changed over time). Like other people, I’ve used the term innovation or innovative to make something I’m doing sound better.

On the other hand, I am something of a neo-Luddite and a late adopter. I do now have a smart phone, but I’m still weighing up whether to sign up to Facebook. This is partly because I am a highly sensitive person and deeply reflective. I’m not risk-averse, as such, having made some brave (possibly crazy) choices in my life, but I’m easily over-stimulated and I actively seek to keep my circle of concern close to the bounds of my circle of influence.

So, for me, new is not necessarily good; new can be and often is stressful, so the good it brings has to be clear.

I’m therefore sceptical about the innovation buzz word, and I’m also aware that a lot of innovation is actually old stuff being dressed up as new. This is true for our ‘democratic innovation’ workshop. Deliberative mini-publics have been around for decades, as have co-design processes and principles, grass-roots movements even longer. Many of these ‘innovations’ trace their roots back to the beginnings of democracy.

Recognising this, I think the kinds of questions we need to ask are:

  • What is new and disruptive about these processes and approaches as they are emerging in contemporary contexts (citizens juries influencing state politics, co-design reshaping delivery in traditionally technocratic policy areas, grass-roots movements competing with popularity politics at a federal level)?
  • What good do they bring? What problems and challenges do they bring?
  • How can we learn from what has come before?

The Beyond the Vote workshop will bring practitioners and researchers together. As well as showcasing and exploring great practice cases, this will bring an academic perspective, to the workshop and to Open State. As a person working at the nexus of engagement practice and academia, I’ve really seen the value an academic perspective can bring. I’ve also experienced the tension.

Social science scholars bring both empirical rigour and a critical lens to the study of practical developments. This can be uncomfortable, especially when we’re busy getting excited and patting ourselves on the back about the great work we’re doing. But it’s really important.

As well as doing great work in democratic innovation, practitioners are making mistakes, reinventing the wheel, working at cross purposes, and competing where they could be collaborating or complementing. Academics can point this out, not only in the context of better practice, but from a bigger picture perspective. They can see practice from a system perspective, and give advice about the integration and implementation of practice interventions to give better outcomes at a whole system level.

At the same time, practitioners can give academics unique perspectives on real-world developments, access to empirical cases to test and build theory, and can teach academics a thing or two about celebrating their work.

I’m really looking forward to working with practitioners and researchers at Beyond the Vote, including John Dryzek, Gerry Stoker, Carolyn Hendriks, Simon Burall, Emily Jenke, Nicole Hunter, Chad Foulkes, City of Melbourne, new Democracy Foundation, Voices4Indi, CAPaD, and hopefully, Max Hardy!

I’m also looking forward to the IAP2 conference and all the other exciting events at Open State, and to catching up with friends, old and new.

—

Dr A. Wendy Russell
Principal consultant
Double Arrow Consulting,
Two-way engagement for robust decisions
E: a.wendy.russell@gmail.com

Filed Under: Uncategorized

If citizens’ juries are the answer, what is the question?

12/08/2016 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

Picture1

It’s been so long since I blogged. I can’t recall a busier time as a consultant. Mostly, this has to do with the surge of interest in deliberative engagement processes, such as citizens’ juries. I’ve blogged about this before, but now I’m going to attempt to write to organisations, executives and politicians about what they are, what they offer, their different forms, and what needs to be considered for them to be effective. It will take a few blogs to cover it all of this. Here goes.

Although citizens’ juries have been around since the early 1970s, developed by Ned Crosby in the USA, they have become much more popular in recent times, especially in Australia. Why the sudden interest? Well for many of us who have been promoting deliberative forms of engagement, and alternative ways to strengthen democracy, it has not been sudden at all. I recall doing an assignment on deliberative processes in the mid 1990s, when Professor Lyn Carson was my lecturer at Southern Cross University.

Then, as consultant at Twyfords, Vivien Twyford encouraged me to read more about them and to look for an opportunity to ‘do’ one.  An opportunity arose in 1998, when a small council on the fringe of the Sydney metropolitan area, was desperate to try something different. The council manager expressed frustration with hearing from the same people, doing the same thing, and having the same kind of conversations. The jury’s job was to provide recommendations for council’s social and community plan. It was run on a meagre budget, and a number of corners were cut, but on the whole it was a fascinating experience for me, and a refreshing one for participants and Council.

Less than a year later I was co-presenting a session on Citizens’ Juries in Banff, Canada at an IAP2 Conference, with Doug Nethercutt, Executive Director of the Jefferson Center (which was set up by Ned Crosby in 1974), sharing the story of how the citizens’ jury process can be adapted for organisations with smaller budgets. The session was observed by an executive from the Australian Waste Association, and I was then invited to speak at further conferences, mostly closer to home. Funnily enough when someone from Australia approached Doug Nethercutt for advice he suggested to them to contact the Australian expert, Max Hardy. It was rather hilarious given my limited experience at that point.

During the early 2000s there was a surge of interest in Western Australia, when Planning Minister Alana McTiernan joined forces with deliberative democracy academic and practitioner Jeanette Hartz-Karp, which Geoff Gallop was Premier. They proved to be incredibly useful and very cost effective (an internal review revealed that for every dollar spent on this approach they saved five dollars when compared with more conventional community consultation practices).

The trend in Western Australia subsided temporarily with a change in State Government. By that time newDemocracy had formed, and there was definitely an appetite to explore alternate ways for democracy to be. Founded by philanthropist Luca Belgiorno Nettis, Lyn Carson and Kathy Jones, with the support and involvement of former politicians Fred Chaney and the late John Button, and supported by a host of willing volunteer practitioners, has opened many doors and minds, as to how citizens’ juries and other deliberative processes offer ways to improve decision-making for complex issues.

NewDemocracy is certainly gaining traction and has designed and overseen countless citizens’ juries in recent years, most recently Infrastructure Victoria’s 30 year priorities, and consideration of a Nuclear Waste facility in South Australia. But it begs the question, on the demand side, as to why there is such interest in citizens’ juries. If citizens’ juries are the solution then what is the question, or the issue for which they offer a solution? I know what academics and practitioners might say, but I’m just as interested in what politicians, CEOs and other executives have to say.

‘We just don’t know what the silent majority think about this issue.’  

‘We are tired of being yelled at by people who just don’t understand our context and our challenges! How can we create space for a more civil discourse?’

‘When we engage broadly with hundreds, even thousands, of people it is very hard to demonstrate we have listened and our decisions have been influenced by the process.’

‘We need an end point to our ongoing conversations and debates about some issues. We are stuck, and it seems whenever we are close to a resolution, a campaign is likely to send us back to the drawing board.’

Most of my experiences designing and facilitating citizens’ juries, and other deliberative processes, have been extremely positive. Not just positive, they have been inspiring. On the whole organisations are amazed at how sensible and wise everyday people are when given an opportunity to appreciate a complex issue from a number of angles, and given time to reach a conclusion. These blogs are testament to how jurors experience these processes too.

Liveable Yarra

Kiama Local Environment Plan

Deliberative processes, like citizens’ juries, have the potential to transform how government can interact with citizens, building trust, and drawing on collective intelligence. But they also have to be carefully and well designed, organised and facilitated. Lots can go wrong, and poor practice could easily see them lose their appeal. So my next blogs about deliberative processes will be about these topics.

  1. How do citizens’ juries and other deliberative processes differ in form? What are the variables and what are the essential ingredients? (aka When does a process cease to be deliberative?)
  2. How can we make sure it is ethical and genuine?
  3. How can we make sure it is ‘do-able’?
  4. How can we make sure it is ‘useful’?
  5. When might citizens’ juries not be appropriate?
  6. How do we connect deliberative processes with broader community engagement processes?

It is hard to know how much to pack into any blog, so I’m always keen to hear what people are most interested in – so please let me know!

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Community Engagement, Deliberative democracy

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 6
  • Next Page »

Search

Authentic Co-design

Deliver better projects, build trust and involve multiple stakeholders productively…

authentic co-design

Find Out How

Subscribe to my newsletter

Sharing

twitterlinkedinby feather

Recent Posts

  • It’s time to do stakeholder mapping differently! 28/10/2020
  • Common objections to committing to collaborative (co-design or deliberative) engagement processes 30/09/2020
  • Facilitating Public Deliberations 28/08/2020
  • How safe is it to participate? 27/07/2020
  • Debunking myths about ‘deliberation’ 14/07/2020
  • What is your approach to consulting? And… which one best works for co-designing solutions with the community? 06/07/2020
  • Getting the ball rolling on co-design 19/06/2020

Contact Details

Max Hardy Consulting
Email: max@maxhardy.com.au
Phone: 0418 217 261
Twitter: @maxchardy
Skype: maxhardy
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/max-hardy/11/339/a4b

Testimonials

The Honourable Andrew Powell MP

'I have always been impressed with Max’s ability to navigate and resolve the thorny issues through collaboration.  He involves all participants right from the beginning: asking “what’s the question that needs answering here”? His efforts alongside John Dengate in the journey that was The Queensland Plan were stellar and he was a significant contributor to

Kellie King

'I have had the pleasure of both being a participant in a fantastic training session run by Max, and also as a client. Max was of tremendous assistance navigating through a challenging engagement process with great support, advice and good humour. Thank you Max.' Kellie King General Manager – Community & Corporate Services, Wannon Water

Ian Dixon, Dixon Partnering Solutions

'I have worked with Max on many occasions and have great respect for his skills and knowledge around community engagement and collaboration. He is an expert trainer and a strong advocate for Appreciative Inquiry approaches.' Ian Dixon, Principal, Dixon Partnering Solutions

Amanda Newbery, Articulous

'Max Hardy has a unique ability to build the confidence and capacity of teams working in engagement. He brings a wealth of experience and insight. We have worked together on a number of deliberative projects and he is a delight to work with!' Amanda Newbery Articulous

Lisa Rae

I first encountered Max in Auckland when he delivered IAP2 training I was attending. Many years later, I’ve had the opportunity to work with him on two significant local government projects in Melbourne using co-design and deliberative engagement approaches. Max’s great strength was helping council decision makers understand their role in the engagement process and

Lindy Fentiman

'I have had the pleasure of working with Max when he ventures up to sunny Queensland!  He is a generous, insightful and highly skilled professional who absolutely practices what he believes in.  Nobody understands the importance of collaboration, engagement and the challenges this brings for organisations better than Max!  He is an excellent coach, facilitator

Vivien Twyford

'I worked with Max for 17 years and appreciate his honesty, integrity and ability to connect with people at all levels. I learned much from him, particularly around Appreciative Inquiry, the appreciative approach and the value of deliberation. While I miss him, I have confidence that he will continue to be a wise advisor and

Eugene McGarrell, FACS

'Max Hardy has worked with my senior executive team and local stakeholders to facilitate the co-creation of social wellbeing strategies. Max’s style is both collaborative and supportive and he gets the best from people involved. I highly recommend Max to anyone who is embarking on a process of co-creation.' Eugene McGarrell District Director, Northern Sydney

Moira Deslandes

'Max is a democracy enthusiast. He finds ways to enable, empower and encourage every voice to be heard and designs processes that foster the principle: every voice is worth hearing.' Moira Deslandes Director, Moira Deslandes  Consulting  

Amber James

'I have known Max for more than ten years. I was a student of his doing the IAP2 Certificate, engaged him as a consultant for in-house work in local government, and then worked alongside him on a consumer engagement capacity building project at the Royal Brisbane Womens Hospital. He is great to be around and

Beatrice Briggs

'Max Hardy brings to his work a delightful combination of common sense, integrity, experience, laced with a sly sense of humour.'   Beatrice Briggs Director International Institute for Facilitation and Change (IIFAC) Tepoztlán, Morelos, Mexico

Craig Wallace

I have worked with Max Hardy on two complex projects which took deliberative democracy and applied it to new problems. In 2007 at a ceremony in Arizona, USA Max along with the ACT Disability Advisory Council was awarded the IAP2 (International) Award for "Project of the Year" for our Citizens Jury project which provided scorecard

Amy Hubbard, Capire

“Max is a trusted and respected colleague and friend of Capire. He is always able to provide us with a sound, strategic and independent perspective – even on the toughest projects in very complex communities” Amy Hubbard CEO, Capire.

Courtney Brown, Director, BDR Projects

'I have known and worked with Max for about two years, however I have been very aware of his career and engagement experience applied to major projects across industry sectors for a much longer period. Max has been at the forefront of pioneering new mechanisms and methodologies for genuine engagement and this resonates for his

Becky Hirst

'Max is one of the leading superstars of community engagement and collaborative governance in Australia. Since I first met him as my trainer in Adelaide back in 2007, I've admired his approach. He's passionate, dedicated, admired in the field and I look forward to seeing the next steps of his career unfold. Watch out world!'

Lara Damiani

'I had the wonderful opportunity to watch Max in action facilitating the Citizen's Jury for People With Disability Australia in Sydney last month which I was filming. Max's tagline "results through collaboration" is spot on. It was pure magic watching Max create collaboration and results from a randomly selected jury - 12 very unique personalities

Liz Mackevicius

'Max worked with us to design and execute a series of workshops based on the citizen jury principles, to enable a conversation between community members about the growth and change expected to occur in a challenging inner city municipality. Max understood the key issues at hand, gave expert advice and worked with us to tailor

Anna Kelderman

'Max's extensive experience with deliberative engagement, as well as his uniquely calming facilitation style, has helped bring about a step-change in the type of public engagement expected in Western Australia. It has been an absolute pleasure to partner with and learn from the best in the business, and I continue to look for opportunities to

Crispin Butteriss, Bang the Table

'Max is a long time colleague, mentor and friend. He has a deft touch as a facilitator and collaboration strategist due his deeply developed empathetic listening skills, along with the experience and wisdom of many years of working on thorny problems with people from all walks of life'. Crispin Butteriss, PhD Co-founder and Chief Practice

Barbara Dart

Max recently facilitated a two day course for us at Council about tackling the internal and external challenges of community engagement. Max is an exceptional facilitator and his ability to draw on experiences across such a broad and diverse background in CE is invaluable to those before him. I would highly recommend Max to anyone

Copyright © 2021