Appendix 2:

MERI Lab table work –

Key Evaluation Question review Reviewing the draft Key Evaluation Questions for the Healthy Waterways Strategy MERI

Topics discussed at individual tables were: KEQ 1&2, KEQ 3, KEQ 4&5, assumptions,

indicators, and improvement. Attendees each went to two out of six tables.

2

Table 1: KEQ 1 & 2 – themed around the waterway conditions

Summary:

- Questions were seen as important and

on the right ones to ask. Nesting the

questions eg 1 and 1a was a bit

distracting and may be confusing.

- Scale at which this is asked at is

important. We may need ‘sentinel’

reaches that tell us if we are on track

rather than monitor everything

everywhere. May need to ask KEQs at

multiple scales

- Need to make sure KEQ 1+2 report

against the predicted trajectory that

the original strategy has set e.g. values

50 yrs, conditions etc.

- Need to develop a framework for

reporting that allows all stakeholders to

cooperate to monitor and report

together

Social value conditions – how will this be

answered:

Idea: That some of the LG’s leading in the

stormwater space (eg Knox, Kingston)

could get together with MW and help with

developing the metrics for stormwater

PO’s– they know what they have data on.

- There was a lot of other good info on

use of apps and HWS recommending

which ones the community should use

to report.

- Participants also noted the need to be

careful that data is collected uniformly

e.g. Kingston measures ‘area’ of

revegetation not km’s.

3

Table 2: KEQ 3 – themed around the delivery of the strategy

Summary:

- Include in the KEQs a hook to assess the

efficiency or appropriateness of actions

to achieve outcomes

- Outcome of action is important – not

output

- Learning from KEQ3b

o How does it advocate change?

- Question whether focus of KEQ 3c is

collaboration in delivery of strategy? Or

collaboration in achieving outcomes for

values?

- All organisations are different - need an

approach that works for the unique

types

4

Table 3: KEQ 4&5 – themed around learning, collaboration and adaptation

KEQ4:

- Needs to link to improvement “I” in MERI

- 4-8 year frequency is OK

- Difficult to come up with indicators for

what we have learnt – can guess?

o Don’t know what learnt or going

to learn, until learnt it

- Learnt as group or each agency

- Question in 2 parts, but links

- Indicators can be under headings such

as – technical, collaboration, conceptual

models, monitoring, technology

KEQ5:

- Confirming goals of HWS catchment

program

- Goals were developed together so

important to check in together

- Can the goals be refined? Frequency for

refinement?

- Check in every two years with quick

survey

- Deep dive every 4-8 years

- Question is difficult to understand – is it

reviewing progress, review of goals &

indicators is dependent on individual

catchment goals

- Reviewing how well goals linked to

targets – longer term

- All about sharing knowledge through

portal/your say or newsletters

5

Table 4: Assumptions – in the plan and program logic

Some changes were suggested to the likelihood and consequence ratings in the table.

What impacts can we attribute to the HWS compared to climate change or urbanisation?

Table 5: Indicators – measuring performance objectives

Summary:

The group discussed the measurements and data sources that could be used for different

conditions and performance objectives. We identified the need to engage more broadly

and allow more time for individuals and groups to consider data sources they already

have that they can contribute to and/or share.

6

Table 6: Improvement – process and governance

Governance:

- RLG to liaise with Science panel, Social

experts, Comms experts - To identify

improvement opportunities

- Channels need to be available to suggest

red flags/improvement opportunities any

time

- How strong is the RLG to influence change?

Content of improvement part of the MERI plan:

- Roles, responsibility, accountability of each

partner in improvement

- What improvement opportunities should be

dealt with at each level (project, forum,

RLG): provide some examples to illustrate

Improvement toolbox:

- Identify improvement levers and who

controls them

- Bring organisations who control the levers

togethers

- Reflect on weaknesses of our tool-box and

investigate new levers

- Identify where the best “bang for buck”

improvement can be achieved

- Stories and case studies are a key lever

Roles:

- Forums: Identify two improvement

opportunities a year to raise with RLG

- 6 monthly review of improvement

opportunities (forums) (or line this up with

business)