Improving access to primary health care for multicultural communities was the focus of the North West Melbourne Primary Health Network (NWMPHN) community panel. Supported by an innovative AI tool, the panel developed practical recommendations and funding ideas for NWMPHN’s federal submission. This process highlighted the importance of genuine community involvement and continues to inform NWMPHN’s place-based health initiatives, showing that addressing barriers to care requires more than policy.
MosaicLab and Dambimangari Aboriginal Corporation co-designed a Code of Conduct training that brought values to life. Over a day and a half, staff explored ethics and workplace behaviour through real-life scenarios, cultural storytelling, and hands-on activities - then shaped the Code in their own words, images, and symbols. The process built clarity, connection, and confidence - and ensured the team has a Code that’s lived, not just learned.
We don’t just facilitate conversations - we design them with purpose, strategy, and care. In under three minutes, our new video lifts the lid on what really happens behind the scenes at MosaicLab. It’s not just about what we do, but how and why we do it - and what makes our work different. Come take a look - this time, we’re the story.
Have a challenging issue to tackle but lack the resources for meaningful engagement? ML Giving is MosaicLab’s not-for-profit division and we’re here to help. We support emerging and under-served communities in fostering deeper conversations that drive real change. We believe everyone deserves a voice in shaping their communities. Learn how you can apply to work with us.
How do you bring stakeholders from across Australia together to shift how spiritual health is embedded in our healthcare system? MosaicLab partnered with the Spiritual Health Association to design and facilitate an engagement process that helped shape the country’s first National Model for Spiritual Care in Health. The model was piloted in 21 hospitals and health services, including a national health service. After the pilot, sites conducted audits to assess its impact on spiritual care, staff awareness, and patient experiences. The results were published in an evaluation report released in late 2024, offering key insights from this national initiative.
We often hear councillors and staff saying they don’t need to involve the community in deliberation as it is the role of councillors, or any elected official, to deliberate on an issue and make decisions. It is important to note that deliberative engagement does not supersede or dismiss the role of councillors in making decisions.
In this #MonthlyMyth, we discuss the five main ways that deliberation can help decision-makers and add value, rather than take away their decision-making powers.
Since COVID-19 started impacting our engagement world, people have been telling us they’re worried about reaching and including those who aren’t online and/or those they believe are ‘hard to reach’.
Not only are we talking about two different issues or cohorts here, but we’re also exploring a topic that’s prone to myths and misconceptions. Often people we think are ‘beyond reach’ aren’t, and people who we label ‘hard to reach’ are simply waiting to be found.
Deliberative democracy isn’t a ‘one size fits all’ type of deal. Deliberative processes can come in multiple packages, and deliberative elements can be integrated into a range of different engagement approaches. However, a truly deliberative process is built around some simple core principles, and it’s risky to call a process ‘deliberation’ if it doesn’t truly hit the mark.
So, what are the principles of deliberative democracy, and how would we know if a process wasn’t truly deliberative?
Facilitators work across many industries, audiences and topics, and sometimes the issues or information being considered are complex or technical. We’re often asked how we manage to move across so many broad ranging issues and projects, and whether we need to become ‘experts’ in each topic before we facilitate.
This #MonthlyMyth explores some of the misunderstandings that sit behind this myth, highlights the true role of a facilitator, and uncovers how facilitators really work with information and content.
Deliberation can be refer to either a micro-process (something you can build into part of a session or engagement process) or a full deliberative democracy process (such as a citizens’ jury).
Deliberative engagement has a lot of potential benefits - these processes can lead to new solutions to challenging problems, improve policy outcomes and engender trust between citizens and decision makers.
So, is deliberation always the right answer/process? The short answer is no.
We’re kicking off our 2019 #MonthlyMyth series by addressing a topic we’re often asked about. We’ve noticed that it’s an issue that makes organisations nervous. There’s a fear that (where a randomly selected panel or jury is involved) stakeholder and interest groups will be cut out of the conversation and oppose the process or decision.
Luckily, not only is it important to incorporate these groups in a deliberative process, there’s also lots of ways they can be involved. Today we’re exploring why it’s a good idea to do so, and giving you seven ways to bring them on your deliberative journey.
This month’s myth addresses mistaken assumption that offering people less influence over a decision translates to the organisation having increased control over the process and outcomes.
Some engagement processes lend themselves to a lower level of influence than others, However, if the intention is to reduce influence in an attempt to ‘manage’ the process, control outcomes, cut corners or minimise time and resources, organisations can find themselves in hot water.
Read on for 6 key questions you can ask to determine the right level of influence and a list of helpful reading and resources.
Want to get the best possible value out of the consultant or facilitator you engage? Hoping to minimise wasted time, money and resources? Seeking to deliver an engagement process that’s as effective as possible? Our tip: don’t develop a detailed engagement methodology before you appoint your consultant.
This month’s myth explores the potential consequences of this all too common error and provides 4 steps to achieving the best possible return on your consultant investment and delivering an effective process.
Often, the purpose of an engagement process (or one phase of an engagement process) is to cast the net wide, capturing as many views and voices as possible. Often, this is a good approach, particularly at the beginning of a longer engagement process. What you generally don’t want to aim for, however, is the highest possible volume of feedback and data, with no regard for how useful or informed that input is.
Today we’re highlighting why you might get an overload of responses – many of which aren’t relevant to the issue at hand, why this is a problem, and how you can avoid it for your next process.
Sometimes, as facilitators, we find ourselves in awe of a skilled Master of Ceremonies (emcee). Some emcees can really bring an event to life, confidently engaging the audience and seamlessly pull an occasion together with effortless flow and poise. Where appropriate, the best MC’s will also inject humour and entertainment and make an event ‘sparkle’.
The reason we’re so impressed is that this isn’t our core skill set! Contrary to popular belief, these two roles aren't interchangeable. To address this month's myth, we interviewed a professional emcee and professional facilitator, gaining first hand insights into these two unique worlds.
