[LINK] Canberra 2030 Planning Could Make Better Use of Technology

[Ivan Trundle]

On 17/10/2010, at 12:08 PM, Tom Worthington wrote:

> This appears a genuine attempt by the ACT 
> Government to get input from the community, however the process could 
> have been more efficient and inclusive by better use of technology.

Couldn't agree more, though it seems as though Elton have the ACT Government consultative process tied up. 

If they used iMEET! instead, a combination of online and face-to-face consultation cold have taken place in real time, and integrated with pre- and post-event discussion. Not only that, each table's views could be seen by others in real time, allowing for deeper discussion by all present (and remote).

Furthermore, there is no opportunity to grandstand in well-constructed iMEET! sessions: all can be heard by using the technology appropriately and constructively.

> The final report will be presented to the government by 19 November and 
> then issued publicly later. I suggest this plan be changed and the 
> consultant's report be released publicly at the same time it is provided 
> to government. This will remove the suspicion that government will 
> attempt to suppress aspects of the report it does not like.

Good luck with that. Consultants are beholden to their client, not the public.

> LIMITATIONS OF THE CONSULTATION PROCESS
> 
> The facilitator from Elton Consulting mentioned a 1,000 telephone survey 
> was conducted. This brought out for me some problems with the 
> methodology used. The telephone survey would exclude a large segment of 
> Canberra households (including mine) which do not have a fixed line 
> telephone.

Rather surprising that they chose to do it this way: I would have thought that Canberran's were better represented via the internet, given the take-up of technology.

> Similarly the workshops can only accommodate a very small 
> subset of Canberra citizens.

Again, if they had used iMEET!, it could easily have accommodated a much larger subset overall.

> Canberra 2030 has a web site which attempts 
> to solicit input, but does so very poorly.

Would you care to suggest why you think it is so poor, Tom?

> The workshop process used was a conventional consultation process and 
> was competently run. However, this method of collecting public input is 
> expensive and excludes most of the population of Canberra. These 
> techniques can now be enhanced with computer mediated communication. It 
> is possible to collect input from the community and present it at a live 
> event in a much more efficient and inclusive way than was done for the 
> Canberra 2030 process.

I was unaware that the consultative process even went to tender, so my company was unable to bid for the task. If we had been able to do so, I'm certain that the resultant activity would have been much more consultative.

> Canberra is one of the world's leading centres for the development and 
> use of computer mediated communication in public consultation. It is 
> unfortunate that the ACT Government has not taken advantage of this 
> expertise to consult citizens.

If the process did indeed go to tender (I assume that it must have done so), then it was poorly flagged in the system. If companies like mine had had the opportunity to bid, I'm certain that it would have been very different, and better overall.

Ivan