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)