1 / 15

MISSION POSSIBLE Evaluating Stakeholder Consultation Mechanisms

MISSION POSSIBLE Evaluating Stakeholder Consultation Mechanisms. Presentation by: David Taylor and Unnati Vasavada Program Evaluation Directorate Transport Canada Canadian Evaluation Society Conference 2003 Vancouver, B.C. June 2, 2003. Presentation Overview.

lara-morse
Télécharger la présentation

MISSION POSSIBLE Evaluating Stakeholder Consultation Mechanisms

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MISSION POSSIBLEEvaluating Stakeholder Consultation Mechanisms Presentation by: David Taylor and Unnati Vasavada Program Evaluation Directorate Transport Canada Canadian Evaluation Society Conference 2003 Vancouver, B.C. June 2, 2003

  2. Presentation Overview 1. Evaluating Consultation: How? 2. Case Study: Safety and Security Group, Transport Canada • Evaluation Approach • Key Study Findings • What Went Well • Challenges • Lessons Learned

  3. How to evaluate consultation?**Privy Council Office. Consulting and Engaging Canadians: Evaluation Guidelines

  4. Case Study Evaluation of consultation mechanisms used by directorates in Transport Canada responsible for safety regulation in aviation, marine, rail and road modes of transportation.

  5. Evaluation Approach • Consultation defined: “Consultation” involves two-way exchanges of ideas and information before a decision is made.

  6. Evaluation Approach Scope of evaluation determined: • formal consultative committees • stakeholder meetings • direct mailings • Internet discussion sites

  7. Evaluation Approach 11 assessment criteria established: • Clarity and Achievement of Purpose • Stakeholders • Selection and Structure of Mechanisms • Decision-Making Process • Roles, Responsibilities and Accountabilities of Decision-Makers and Stakeholders

  8. Evaluation Approach Assessment criteria (cont’d) • Resources • Time Frame • Information • Compatible with Context • Open and Credible to Those Being Consulted • Ongoing Review

  9. Evaluation Approach Stakeholders selected for interview • random sampling • targeted sampling • population Interviews (mainly by telephone) conducted

  10. Key Study Findings Need to: • Improve direct representation of general public in consultations • Provide regular and timely feedback and decision rationale. • Improve length of decision-making process • Maintain face-to-face meetings

  11. Key Study Findings (cont’d) Need to: • Articulate and communicate consultation objectives, participants’ roles and responsibilities • Conduct periodic assessments of consultation exercises • Explore benefits of direct citizen engagement techniques

  12. What Went Well? • Clear definition of consultation • Assessment criteria • Stakeholders appreciated evaluation exercise

  13. Challenges • Low or non response rates • Poorlymaintained stakeholder lists • Varying levels of consultation experience among respondents • Length of time lapsed since participating in consultation • Managing qualitative data

  14. Lessons Learned • Consider carefully who should evaluate: consultants vs. in-house experts • Plan carefully study timing and timelines • Use focused and pragmatic evaluation approach • Use mix of qualitative and quantitative research methods. • Be thorough in attending to administrative details • Consider informal means of evaluating consultation

  15. Discussion Questions? Comments?

More Related