Small group discussions
Small Group Discussions
Three scenarios provided a starting point for discussion in small groups.
The scenario's generated animated discussion and sharing of experiences. From feedback, that was generally perceived as a major benefit from the workshop.
The report backs showed a general consensus aligned with the relevant Guideline content - which is not surprising as cross-agency input from such discussions provided the basis for the draft guidelines and the draft was then refined and enhanced through specialist group processes.
The groups also considered 'where to next'.
Scenario 1: Project Pink Frogs
Project Pink Frogs involves agency staff conducting face- to- face interviews in 10 community halls around the county. In the project budget you have provided for hall hire, coffee/tea/fruit to be available and $30 per interviewee to cover their travel costs to/from the hall. You need to sign off the Information Sheet before it can be sent out to the community contacts for handing to potential interviewees.
- Do you signal the $30 in the Information Sheet?
- If so how?
- If not, why not?
- What have other government agencies done in such circumstances?
- Were there any repercussions?
- Who might you ask?
Good Practice Guidelines References
Research and Evaluation Ethics regarding inducements and appropriate compensation
Research and Evaluation involving Pacific Peoples regarding provision for hospitality
Research and Evaluation involving Maori regarding Koha
Discussion outcomes (summarised)
- Definitely signal a 'contribution towards' travel costs - do not mention a $ amount; need to clarify whether $ is a koha or actual cost reimbursement; preference for a voucher (petrol/taxi rather than cash if for actual travel (1 group)
- Consider - when does a thankyou become an inducement?
- Can we inform about reimbursement without this being an inducement?
- There is an equity issue - travel expenses covered can aid removal of barriers to participation and helps get a broader spread of input
- Agency experiences with 'covering costs'
- May help reach harder-to-reach groupings - it's a chance to get input outside of usual areas
- It's a recognition that time is important
- It could affect decision-making about whether to participate and could affect randomness of sample (this is sometimes an issue).
Scenario 2: Purple Jug Project
You are told by your senior manager that the Minister has asked for a paper within three months on whether the Purple Jug project is working.
The Purple jug project involves several government agencies and NGO's delivering services in five pilot locales. Two locales have high concentrations of Samoan and Tongan people living in the area.
The Purple Jug Project has an outcome evaluation contract in place - but led by another agency. The Advisory Group for the evaluation has not met since the contract was awarded six months ago.
Policy people need information over the next two months max so they can draft the report to the Minister.
- How might you liaise with other agency information people, the locales, the evaluators and the report drafters?
- Who might you utilize to check the information collated is robust?
- How might you check the information is appropriately used in the eventual report?
Good Practice Guidelines references
Research and Evaluation project cycle - note avisory group in central role
Advisory groups and relationships with contractors
Research and Evalution involving Pacific Peoples
Discussion outcomes (summarised)
- Contact lead agency in first instance - find out where project is at
- Advise Minister of 'stage of project'
- Consider inter-agency meeting
- Discuss intended outcomes with agencies and use Advisory Groups as appropriate
- Try to match reporting expectations with evaluation objectives in collaboration with other players, especially evaluators
- Action with lead agency includes:
- Clarify what the situation is with the Advisory Group - there seems to be the implication that they have decision-making authority, work in partnership/ collaboration with lead agency through the process; key is relationship management; check/review utilising people with expertise in key areas
- Ensure appropriate use of information and its presentation in the report
- liaise with Minister/report writer
- Clarity around status of project, risks, etc & contextualizing
- Need to ensure final report references any interim reports
- Encourage Lead agency to:
- Identify and contact stakeholders
- Engage with Advisory Group; Start with getting the Advisory Group together
- Invite key stakeholders to meet (look at Pacific Peoples section)
- Identify additional sources of information the policy analysts could use (sources that could deliver in the time frame - e.g. knowledge and intelligence)
- Use the existing relationships with Pacific Research organization/provider to review the report or could use BRCSS Pacific network
- Consider a 'free and frank' discussion with seniors - three months is not long enough to get quality evaluation/ feedback
- Scenario reinforces need to engage Advisory Group through the whole process and where Pacific Peoples are involved to consider a Pacific Peoples Advisory Group?
Scenario 3: Project Blue Apples
Your agency issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) which included a detailed sampling specification.
The RFP did not give an indication of the budget range.
You have been asked to provide the technical expertise for the committee who will assess the responses and recommend to Senior Managers which provider should be contracted with.
On reading the responses, you realize that ALL have costed the Blue Apples Project at least three times more than the budget your agency has.
You ask the committee to either increase the budget or scale back the sample and to consider canceling the RFP and developing a new RFP. A decision is eventually made to cancel that RFP and devise a new RFP.
- What can you do to avoid the pitfalls of the first RFP process?
Good Practice Guidelines references
Research and Evaluation Contracting
Applying the Principle of Respect to RFP process and indicative budget
Discussion Outcomes (summarised)
- Be clear about the scoping and planning and include indicative Budget ranges - consult with experienced research colleagues and make sure the new RPF is cleared.
- Consider trying an EOI before a second RFP
- Ensure EOI's that proceed to RFP meet the project need and research standards
- Indicate budget range
- Consider having project versions - gold, silver…and be really clear at the outset whether you want the 'basic' or the 'Rolls Royce' version
- Do sufficient scoping before the RFP is issued so that an indicative $ range is agreed
- Convince your Dept's procurement team that you can state indicative $ in the RFP
- Give some indication of budget or specify services in detail and don't waste people's time - so - give budget range, prioritise most necessary elements. You can ask for unit cost, approach to be spelt out as a basis for comparison. Make sure there are legal proviso's to protect agency
