As we wrap up 2025, we’ve been thinking about the people we’ve had the privilege of working with and the conversations we’ve been honoured to support over the last twelve months. We’re also looking forward, and we expect to see continual shifts in engagement practice in 2026. From AI becoming BAU for enabling more effective conversations to new ways to increase representativeness, shifts are underway. In this post, we share our standout stats for 2025, and a video previewing three of the big trends we think organisations should be thinking about for their engagement programs in the new year.
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.
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.
Many of the engagement processes MosaicLab delivers are built around big, complex or strategic issues or decisions. These processes can result in outcomes that affect large cohorts of staff across an organisation.
Not only will some of these staff be required to implement the decision, but involving and informing them from the start of the process will contribute to the overall success of your project.
We wanted to delve deeper into this topic, so we sat down with two internal communication and change specialists with backgrounds in the public sector. They’ve shared easy-to-implement internal communications tips and ideas that you could apply to any big project, engagement process or change.
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.
We’re very pleased to announce that, together with partner Dr. Lyn Carson of Deliberative Designs, we have won the 2018 IAP2 Australasia Core Values Award for Research. We feel very honoured to have had this exciting work recognised in this way.
To celebrate, we’re providing everyone with all the digital resources and materials that have been produced to date as a result of this work. Providing these resources to others is in line with our commitment to enhancing the quality of deliberative processes, and our aim to encourage quality engagement practice everywhere.
(continue to the bottom of this post to access all the 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.
This one has been a long time in the making. Finally, we can announce that our latest 'Deliberation Ready' video is here. This edition is particularly exciting because, for the first time, we've interviewed participants from across multiple deliberative processes.
Together, these 10 citizens share their unique perspectives and provide candid, first hand reflections on their journey - the challenges, the surprises, the highlights and more.
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.
