For us that process always starts with the following four questions:
 
(1)What does engagement need to achieve to be of value to the organisation?
 
Engagement is predicated on the need for the process to be meaningful for the community and stakeholders and while this should never change, the best way to avoid tokenistic engagement and to strengthen the organisation’s desire to engage, is to ensure the outcomes and processes are meaningful for the organisation. 
 
(2)What does quality engagement look like from the organisation’s point of view?
 
This question flows on from the first and asks the organisation to get more specific about what quality engagement looks like. One issue with engagement is when decision makers dismiss the engagement outcomes by trying to invalidate the process as a whole. More often than not, it is because there is not a clear and agreed measure of quality.
 
(3)What does quality engagement look like from the community/stakeholder point of view?
 
Engagement is not one way and the quality lens, likewise, needs to look out as much as it looks in. There is nothing like asking the organisation to put itself in the shoes of the community to deepen the understanding of how they might engage.
 
(4)What is the organisation’s current engagement mindset and what does it need to be?
 
You can’t define the change you want, without defining the change you want! Embedding engagement is no different and there is no one size fits all; each organisation will be at different stages and have different drivers and goals. While there are some still having the debate about the need for engagement, there are certainly many more that have already recognised its value and benefit.
 
Organisations first ask ‘why’, then they ask ‘how’ and then some even ask, ‘how else’. 
 
Over our time working with embedding engagement , we have discovered four main approaches that organisations take to engagement and that having a conversation internally about the kind of approach you currently take and the one that you want to take/need to take is a critical first step when wanting to make engagement normal.
 

​As a way to support you to make engagement normal in your neck of the woods, this dial can be downloaded here.
​

​A number of years ago, Lorenz Aggens offered us the Orbits of Participation. A concentric circle model that explores the different roles and types of influence community members and stakeholders might have in relation to project decision making. His Orbits of Participation laid out five different roles that show an increasing level of influence from those that are at most ‘Aware’ of the project but not seeking or likely to have any influence; to those who might be ‘Reviewers’ of any options, outcome or report; followed by those who would be ‘Advisors’ to the project, offering either expertise or local knowledge to those who are the ‘Creators’ of the options being considered and finally the closest to the project are the ‘Decision Makers’.
 
The orbits of participation It is an elegant model and one that is used around the world as a stakeholder mapping tool. These orbits offer an important perspective on influence over decision making and even on different roles that may assist with balancing power differentials, e.g. shifting people closer to or further away from the decision maker role.
 
However, the orbits of participation stop at the decision making and don’t flow through to implementation. For many projects, getting to the decision is an important goal but when the decision relates to services and program, implementation is where the real work begins. A recent engagement program within the Health Sector on a Healthy Weight Action Plan brought this to fact into the spotlight. As we mapped the engagement process, we knew that we could not talk about the decision making process without talking about implementation.
 
Strategies and plans are important, but it is often the implementation where things fall over.
 
Thus, the Orbits of Implementation were born. The obits of implementation are an exploration of the different roles and levels of influence that people and organisations may have over the delivery of any given plan, strategy or initiative.
 
In the tradition of Aggens, they follow the same concentric circle model but brings its focus to implementation. They are not offered as a replacement for the Orbits of Participation but as a complement;

​While the case could be made for a different order, the following rationale is provided for the layout:
 

• Funders/Sponsors: Without funders or sponsors any project or initiative is dead. As such, while they may have less direct involvement in the implementation, they are central to it going ahead.
•  Coordinators: They are the people who are the closest and most influential to the initiative as they help to set up the systems, process and pace of what is being delivered.
•  Deliverers: They are the ones closest to or at the coal face who have the direct responsibility for the consistency of the delivery and the alignment to the project’s/initiative’s objectives. They experience firsthand the practicalities of what is needed for its delivery. They carry significant influence, either through their alignment to the initiative’s objectives or in opposition to it.
•  Champions: They bring their ability and willingness to influence others and support the project/initiative. Their role is about brining other to the project and to be advocates and ambassadors within their own circles of influence. While their influence the more outward than on the project, it can be argued that their willingness to offer this type support would be limited by how much influence they have had on the project design (see Orbits of Participation).
•  Evaluators: They carry their own realm of influence and it could be argued that, being more removed from implementation, places them in a more neutral position from which to conduct the evaluation. In most cases, their influence, while critical, is less immediate.

 
How to use the orbits
 
If you have an engagement project where implementation is a key risk, consider the Orbits of Influence alongside the Orbits of Participation. It is common that people’s willingness to take on an implementation roles is limited by their level of involvement in the original decision making process.
 
For example: You may find that involving people as ‘Creators’ (Orbits of Participation) may be a useful way to build a group of ‘Champions’ (Orbits of Implementation) when it comes to implementation.
 
So. mapping the desired required implementation role can help identified if there are people that have been left out of the decision making process or may even influence what role they have in that process.  

We have found it a useful tool and interested in your reflections as you get to know the orbits.
​
You can download a template of the Orbits of Implementation here

​At a recent International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) breakfast in WA, three leaders presented their views on leadership in engagement; their insights were too valuable not to be shared more widely. The speakers were:

• Dr Shayne Silcox,  CEO of the City of Melville
• Anthony Vuleta, CEO of the Town of Victoria Park
• Catherine Ferrari, General Manager Customer and Community, Water Corporation

This is what I gleaned from their contributions:
​

Rather than having every decision go through management, this approach is about giving staff the authority to use their expertise and understanding. 
Dr Silcox called this an empowerment warrant.  Which was not just about working with the understanding that staff should trust their judgment but making it clear to them that he will back them, when they do.

Having an engagement policy was seen as an important step in having your staff on the same page BUT the policy needs to be lived. This means that it needs to be up for review and that staff are given the chance to practise and apply it.

Mr Vuleta has given staff from across the organisation the chance to be trained and get involved in engagement projects. There are people facilitating workshops from across the whole organisation, at the same time not learning an engagement policy exist but how it is lived and breathed in real life.

While organisations may have a team of people with engagement expertise, engagement is not something that is just for them.  Ms Ferrari made the point that different parts of the organisation can begin to think that ‘engagement is their job’ but the fact is, engagement is everybody’s job. 
The more your technical/project people have the responsibility and exposure to engagement the better they understand how it works in their context. 

What was truly surprising was that all three leaders were genuinely confused that other leaders could not or did not see the inherent value in engagement. It was noted that at times it does take a painful and sometime public failure to trigger that awareness but in the reality of all the management fads to come and go, engagement is one of the only truly NEW and constructive paradigms to be offered to organisations.

As such, there is value in backing your staff to build skills and understanding. Not everyone needs to be the ‘expert’ but most people need some understanding.
In all these cases these leaders have invested in in-house training and staff development. This was made available not just for communications and engagement staff but for the technical /project people and leadership as well.  

​The Town of Victoria Park now have nine people who have completed the IAP2 Certificate of Engagement and 70 people who have done the one day IAP2 Engagement Essentials course, making the language of engagement more widely accessible and understood across the whole organisation. Their councillors have also completed a 2hr ‘Understanding engagement’ workshop


To find out more about IAP2 training for your organisation.