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.
Our May #MonthlyMyth focuses on an assumption that is often made about the community by managers, project leads and technical 'experts'.
Statements like "if only they understood X, Y or Z, they would see we were right!" are an indication of a potentially risky, yet common assumption that community opposition or distrust is based on ignorance or incapacity.
Advisory committees – we love them and we hate them – and we can’t stop setting them up. They're possibly the number one method of engagement in Australia.
When used effectively, these groups (also called stakeholder/community reference groups and a whole host of other titles) can provide an opportunity to gather local knowledge and input, test ideas and proposals and improve communication and relationships. However, when used improperly, run poorly, or put in place as a substitute for a comprehensive engagement process, they can create more risk than reward.
This post will help you to overcome some of the biggest challenges associated with advisory committees, and ensure that both organisation and group benefits from the experience.
Our monthly myth for March is here! Low participation rates is a problem many organisations face when it comes to community engagement activities. The cause of this, however, is not always obvious. Today we're exploring some of the other (common) reasons that people don't get involved in your process.
Group decision making processes (particularly deliberative processes such as citizens' juries, community panels and people's panels) can be both exciting and overwhelming for participants.
We all want every group we work with to get the most out of every moment they spend together, so, we created a handy, free video outlining some suggested 'do's and dont's' for participants that will help the whole group to get the most out of their journey.
Recently, we posted an interview with Lyn Carson of Active Democracy and the newDemocracy Foundation, who is working in partnership with MosaicLab to research what happens when critical thinking skills, techniques and concepts are introduced to participants in a deliberative process.
Today, in Part 2, we're talking with MosaicLab co-founder Nicole Hunter, an experienced facilitator with extensive experience in deliberative engagement. Nicole, alongside MosaicLab's other two co-founders Keith Greaves and Kimbra White, has been working to integrate critical theories into real, on-ground processes.
Welcome to our February #MonthlyMyth post! Today, we're exploring a commonly held belief that prevents many organisations from engaging in a meaningful way with citizens around complex, technical or information-rich issues.
This one misconception can reduce an engagement process to a surface exercise without any real outcomes, create unintended and less than desirable consequences down the track and even prevent a potentially valuable engagement process from happening altogether.
So let's get into it - what can everyday citizens REALLY handle and should we ask them to handle it?
If you happened to come across our previous post ‘A new venture into critical thinking’, you will know that MosaicLab is currently working on a fascinating research project with Lyn Carson of Active Democracy and the newDemocracy Foundation.
A final report is now in development, and, excitingly, early indications suggest that introducing critical thinking concepts to participants during deliberative processes can result in a number of benefits.
From increased trust (between both participants themselves and between participants and decision makers) to increased ability for participants to question and understand information (including complex or technical data), the work is highlighting how these skills can enhance and transform both processes and participants.
Welcome to MosaicLab's first ever #MonthlyMyth post. There are a number of myths and misconceptions that often surface in relation to facilitation, deliberative democracy, outrage management, conflict management and community engagement more broadly.
As part of our work to promote quality engagement practice and share information and learning we are addressing some of the most commonly expressed myths and misconceptions each month on our blog. We hope you find this series interesting, informative, and perhaps a little surprising!
One of our co-founders Keith Greaves was interviewed on a recent episode of Real Democracy Now! - a podcast that answers the question: can we do democracy differently?
The episode, which also features interviews with facilitators Lucy Cole-Edelstein, Director of Straight Talk and Max Hardy, Principal at Max Hardy Consulting, considers the concept of 'mini publics' (or deliberative processes) from the perspective of the facilitator.
The MosaicLab team is regularly involved in events that feature speakers and presentations. As we all know, regular old PowerPoint presentations can sometimes be a little lengthy, dull and un-engaging. So, to shake things up and ensure each presentation really connects with the audience, we often encourage the speakers we work with to adopt a very high-energy, fast-paced style of presenting known as Pecha Kucha ...
