On this page:

Evaluation of the Scottish Executive Consultation on Best Value in Public Services

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

ANNEX 3: CONSULTATION COMMISSIONERS' GROUP INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

INFORMAL CONSULTATION

DESCRIPTION AND CHOICE

What did the informal consultation comprise? (How many meetings? When?)

What was their aim? At the start? As they progressed?

Why were these approaches chosen?

  • Were other options considered?
  • Did you seek advice from any other Scottish Exec Dept/Division? Civic Participation Research Team?
  • Did you cost different options? Any business case made?

Was any part of your approach "window dressing" or was it all totally necessary for your purposes?

Did you have a plan for whole consultative approach from the start or did each stage evolve as you progressed?

Are you aware of other Best Value events going on at same time?

SELECTION OF STAKEHOLDERS

How did you choose these? (Representatives? Their interest in this area? Expertise?)

Did you encounter any reluctance?

Do you feel that delegates represented their organisation?

How did you choose people for the group discussion?

OUTPUTS FROM INFORMAL CONSULTATION

Did the interviews achieve their aims? In what way?

What did they not achieve? Why?

What did you come away with?

What did interviewee come away with?

Was it worth it? A good use of time? Better done another way?

Particular benefits of this approach/Drawbacks?

Indirect benefits?

Did the group discussion achieve its aims? Etc.

Did the internal seminars achieve their aims? Etc.

FEATURES

Thinking of this informal consultative approach which you adopted, what would you describe as its key features? Eg.

  • Informal
  • Non-written

NEXT TIME

If doing this again, what would you do differently?

TENSIONS

Any areas of tension/conflict within the planning team regarding the informal consultation stage?

STAKEHOLDER SEMINARS

CHOICE

What was the rationale behind these?

Their aim?

Why were they needed in addition to the informal consultation? What added value did you think they would bring?

OUTCOMES

To what extent did these build upon the previous informal consultation stage?

To what extent did they achieve their aim?

Did you get any added value from the seminars over and above that which emerged from the informal consultation?

Which aspect of the seminars was most beneficial for your needs?

Anything superfluous or which did not work well?

Any other indirect benefits? Benefits to others?

Was this an efficient way to achieve the aims and benefits?

ADVICE SOUGHT?

Any prior advice sought on benefits of this approach or operational aspects?

FEATURES

Thinking of this formal consultative approach which you adopted, what would you describe as its key features? Eg

  • Formal
  • Non-written

Specific benefits of each of these?

SPECIFICS

  • Why did you choose the particular speakers?
  • Why choose those particular group questions?
  • Where did the voting, entry activity come from?
  • Choice of facilitators?

NEXT TIME

If doing this again, what would you do differently?

TENSIONS

Any areas of tension/conflict within the planning team regarding the informal consultation stage?

GAPS IN CONSULTATIVE APPROACH?

Eg If only we had done that…..

NEXT STEPS

Any change in plan as result of consultation so far?

To what extent has the consultation so far informed the work of the Stakeholder Reference Group?

Any benefits of the consultation so far or could you have gone straight into the reference group?

What has the consultation told you that you didn't know already?

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Page updated: Friday, October 13, 2006