Blog | Max Hardy Consulting

People get ready, there’s a train a-coming’ …

04/05/2021 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

Readiness is something we are acutely aware of when organisations approach us to do codesign or a deliberative engagement process for a complex issue.

Thoughts about readiness to codesign

No doubt you’ve heard the song (I admit my favourite version is Eva Cassidy’s).

Readiness is something we are acutely aware of when organisations approach us to do codesign or a deliberative engagement process for a complex issue. In recent months I’ve been working with many Councils, mostly keen to comply with requirements of the new Local Government Act in Victoria. This Act directs councils to undertake deliberative engagement with communities to establish a community vision and inform key planning documents.

It’s fair to say, some Councils are more ready to work with communities than others. Here are some of the common statements we’ve heard reflecting a lack of readiness;

“We’ve never done this before. Usually, we tell people what we’ve planned, and the community tells us we how we got it wrong!”

“As Councillors we believe we’ve been voted in to make all the decisions – I find all this deliberative engagement stuff confusing. Where do we fit into all this?”

“Council plans involve so many dimensions. There are things we must do because they are tied to state govt grants; other things we’ve always done and there are plans from years ago we are now just getting around to implementing. I just don’t see how the community can now appreciate this and add any value to our planning.”

“How can we be sure the agenda we won’t be captured by a powerful minority?”

“We’ve already been doing lots of research and planning. Now it looks as though we’ll be starting all over again.”

“We talk to our community all the time. It feels insulting to be told to do something we never stop doing?”

In summary, some Councils are not sure why they are being required to deliberative engagement with communities. Some aren’t sure how it can be done well. Some believe they’ve been doing it well for some time and don’t see the need to do more of it.

Readiness means different things to different people and different organisations. For me, these are some of the things to work through in order to be reasonably ready for codesigning solutions with community, or inviting the community to deliberate over complex issues.

Can you view your community as an asset to help you work through your trickiest, most complex and potentially controversial challenges? (ie; can you let go of any pre-conceived notions of the community or other stakeholders being ‘difficult’ and only capable of being critical and/or single-minded or self interested?)
Can you acknowledge that you and your organisation may not know everything that is useful about tackling this challenge?
Can you accept that it is possible to be credible leaders, or a credible organisation, AND be able to ask for help?
Can you be curious and open to finding a different solution to the one that seems most appealing to you right now?
Can you commit to explaining the extent to which you endorse the outcome of deliberative or codesign processes, and if, for some compelling reason you cannot endorse the entirety of the proposed solution/recommendations, respectfully explain why?
Can you allocate a reasonable amount of resources (time, funds, staff) toward the process to give it a reasonable chance of being do-able? (nb; it helps to realise there is usually a very strong business case for engaging early and authentically – mopping up the mess after a superficial, ‘nonsultation’ process is invariably expensive and damaging – to learn more about nonsultation and other damaging approaches to engagement check out Jacinta Cubis’ fabulous blog).

If you can answer to yes to ALL these questions, you are well on the way to being ready.

Head over to our website for more information and articles about co-design and engagement. Don’t forgot to check out our co-design courses, team development and consulting services on offer.

“You don’t need no baggage, you just get on board!”

How do you learn?

16/03/2021 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

An opportunity for those committed to authentic co-design.

It is worth thinking about it – the question, how do we learn? Have you ever reflected on moments in your life when you have a major awakening? A time when ‘the penny dropped’ for you, or a time when you were so challenged about a particular issue you changed your viewpoint?

Rarely, I find, people recall moments when they have been in a training course, or at a lecture, although some do. Mostly people recall a conversation, where they have listened intently to a story, or they’ve been asked a really challenging question (for which we have no immediate answer).

For me, I recall a time, aged 18, mixing with mature age students at a hotel in Ultimo after classes. No subject was off-limits. I was the youngest person there. There was banter, provocation, stories and questions. It was stimulating, confronting yet respectful. Having grown up in a working-class family from southwestern suburban Sydney it was an eye-opener. It was, for me, transformational.

Ever since my work has centred around making space for such conversations and learning. This is why, with my colleagues Susan Carter and Anthony Boxshall, we are providing a free opportunity for anyone who has completed either the Authentic Co-design course or the Introduction to Authentic Co-design Course.

The first Quarterly Conversation will be at 8 am (Australian Eastern Standard time) on Thursday 15 April.

You’ll have the opportunity to join the experienced Authentic Co-design team and ask questions, share reflections, or discuss current projects and challenges.

You can book into the event as soon as you have bought a course. This is a great opportunity to extend your skills, and join a network of people interested in genuinely working with communities to address complex issues.

If you want to find out more, message me, or email us at susan@thecommunitystudio.com.

You can also register right here.

Let’s learn together because we all need to get smarter about how we can collectively make a difference.

Max

Engaging to make a difference. A conversation with Ben Neil.

01/02/2021 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

I had the pleasure of meeting and talking with a wonderful community engagement practitioner, Ben Neil. He has so many stories from his wealth of experience. Here is some of what we spoke about.

Max: Ben, give us a really brief description of your role at Capire and professional background?

Ben: I have been at Capire for almost four years and am an Associate and Sector Lead for Social Inclusion and Housing. The role allows me to work on projects that I find really rewarding and that are a perfect compliment to my skills and experience.

My professional background is very varied. I’ve held senior roles in Government, the not-for-profit and charity sectors and now the for-profit sector. I was previously CEO of Cultivating Community who are a not-for-profit specialising in urban agriculture services through supporting community gardens and food security projects. This gave me a deep insight into the everyday lives of people who live on the public housing estates of Melbourne.

While at Mission Australia I was Social Enterprise Manager for Victoria. This was a really rewarding role as I looked after Charcoal Lane, a restaurant specialising in using native ingredients whilst providing training and employment opportunities to young Aboriginal men and women. I also ran a smash repair shop that aimed to reduce recidivism by working with young people involved in vehicle related crime, then supporting them to obtain apprenticeships in the industry. Both projects provided high levels of wrap around support to maximise the chances of success for the participants.

In Government I managed a large housing office on an estate that was going through a renewal process. Managing a site with large scale construction and 1,650 tenancies certainly honed my skills at dealing with complex conflict situations and outrage.

Max: As a consultant at Capire, what kind of work gives you the most
satisfaction?

Ben: There are many elements of my role at Capire that give me a very deep sense of personal and professional satisfaction.

From the perspective of working with clients I really enjoy advising and supporting in a collaborative manner. Working closely to solve complex and challenging issues really excites me, especially when the outcomes have a positive impact on the community. It is especially rewarding when our engagement has a positive impact on the participants. Whether that’s increasing their capacity to engage in the process, gaining knowledge on a particular topic or growing their confidence levels and willingness to participate in democratic decision making in the future.

Max: Do you have a story, or example, you can tell us about, that illustrates this?

Ben: One of the most satisfying experiences I’ve had at Capire was a project in a large inner-city estate in Melbourne. It was a significant project which included six weeks of engagement that gave us multiple opportunities to work with the community. We worked closely with the local community centre who were running a course for people to become interpreters. A couple of the students were tenants and keen for some work experience prior to completing the course and becoming NAATI accredited. We invited them to help out at a few pop-ups and an informal community meeting. One in particular was incredibly impressive managing to hold a conversation in three different languages at the same time! She was genuinely interested in what we were doing and actively reached out to members of her community to encourage them to participate. It was amazing to see her confidence grow and I was touched to receive a letter of thanks a few months later. This person now works as a professional interpreter and was incredibly thankful for the opportunity that we had given her as it helped grow her confidence in pursuing her career.

We stayed in touch and a few months later I was running one of our Learning Labs on the benefits of taking a social inclusion approach to engagement. I asked her to come along and share her experience. It was very inspiring to have been part of her journey from student to effectively teaching 25 engagement professionals about how best to work with interpreters.

In many ways our involvement was small but I love it when we can think outside of the square with our approaches and passionately believe this benefits the engagement process, the individuals involved and leads to better outcomes.

Max: Wow. What a great story. So, tell me, what do you believe you bring to the engagement profession or practice?

Ben: I’d like to think there are many things I bring to the engagement profession but the key one is to try and embed social inclusion into all my projects no matter how big or small. I feel very privileged to have had many roles in my career that have let me elevate the voices and opinions of our most disadvantaged. We need to make sure engagement is accessible and all people are genuinely supported to participate.

Max: I know you pay lots of attention to the experience of people in being engaged. How do you believe this attention can transform the outcomes of engagement processes?

Ben: I honestly believe, as an engagement practitioner, we really need to think about the impact of our work both relating to the project and the legacy that it leaves. I think a key deliverable for all engagement practitioners is to make sure we build people’s capacity through positive participation so it encourages them to participate in the future.

Having a community wanting to participate in civic decision-making leads to better outcomes for all of us. It is easy to underestimate how positive engagement experiences can impact other aspects of people’s lives.

Max: What advice would you give to organisations that want to take their engagement to the next level?

Ben: This is a tricky question as it depends very much on where the organisation is in its engagement journey. Things like core principles about how they or their consultants develop and deliver engagement strategies are incredibly valuable. This can really help communities who are asked to participate regularly and prevent the same mistakes being made over and over again.

I guess my two most practical pieces of advice are be open to opportunities to build the capacity of participants and to draw on their strengths, and most importantly, if you’re not going to take notice of what people say, then don’t bother asking them the question!

Max: Well, there it is. Engagement that makes a difference – and not just by improving decisions. Thanks Ben!

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.

Common objections to committing to collaborative (co-design or deliberative) engagement processes

30/09/2020 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

We know not all projects require, or are appropriate, for co-design (to find out when this is appropriate check this blog and short video). But let’s imagine your situation ticks all the boxes. You have a complex, even a potentially controversial project, and there is quite a lot of uncertainty about the best way forward. There is every chance the project could be delayed, abandoned, or just one of those really drawn out, painful projects to implement.

Yet, there are objections with the sponsoring organisation to giving it a go. They are not uncommon. Here are a few of them.

1. “We shouldn’t go public until we have worked out a solution ourselves; and when we have an answer to nearly every question, we are likely to be asked, or able to defend any accusations that might come our way.”

2. “The public can’t really add much value to this process. It is one for the experts.”

3. “Every time we engage the public we just hear from the same people banging on about their favourite issue, or just giving us a hard time for the sake of it!”

4. We have not got the time or money to do something as resource-intensive as co-design. Imagine if we did this for every issue? All we’d be doing is engaging, as opposed to delivering?

What other objections have you heard? Let us know!

Here are some of my very short responses to these objections – feel free to use them!

Taking this approach will mean your engagement is more likely to resemble ‘marketing your solution’. Once you believe you have figured it out, you are more likely be preparing to defend. It will reinforce views in the community that you are not really committed to engaging in a meaningful way. You will also miss out on what the community could bring to the process. Which brings us to ….

2. “The public can’t really add much value to this process. It is one for the experts.”

Ok, so how do you know that? It is important to recognise there are different kinds of expertise. There is always something to learn from others and local knowledge guarantees a different perspective than a technical expert working from a distance. It is not about either/ or. It’s about both. It’s about tapping into the collective ‘smarts’ of the whole ‘community of interest’. I can honestly say I have NEVER engaged a community on a complex issue when nothing worthwhile has been contributed.

Some projects are merely complicated, in a technical sense, and are not complex in terms of social/political/cultural issues. That is true. If that is the case you would not invest on a co-design process. However, if you think there is a reasonable chance you won’t be able to implement the project due to community concerns, then it is not only a technical issue you are trying to address.

3. “Every time we engage the public we just hear from the same people banging on about their favourite issue, or just giving us a hard time for the sake of it!”

Well, that is probably because you have only designed the processes in the past to suit the ‘hyper-engaged’. You have probably designed perfect processes for alienating the ‘harder to reach’, or people who simply haven’t been able to participate because of methods being offered. You can design processes in such a way that you’ll get much more diverse participation. In fact, designing the process with the help of community members will help achieve this more effectively.

4. We have not got the time or money to do something as resource-intensive as co-design. Imagine if we did this for every issue? All we’d be doing is engaging, as opposed to delivering?

You don’t need to collaborate or codesign with everyone, all the time, about everything. However, if you have a complex project you run the risk of projects blowing up and blowing out. Have you had projects like that? Ones you thought would be relatively straightforward that end up taking 5 times as long and cost you up to five times as much? It may be that investing in a process that builds trust will not only be the most cost-effective way of delivering a project; it will also help you to do ‘business’ with those communities more efficiently in the future.

For more information about addressing challenges and objections you may like to check out our website. Sign on to being part of our ‘community of practice’ for starters! We also have a Linkedin page for Authentic Codesign.

Any other objections you’ve had to deal with? Or have you expressed another objection not listed here.

Look forward to hearing from you.

People get ready, there’s a train a-coming’ …

How do you learn?

Engaging to make a difference. A conversation with Ben Neil.

It’s time to do stakeholder mapping differently!

Common objections to committing to collaborative (co-design or deliberative) engagement processes

Contact Details

Testimonials