Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Lisa Beutler / MWH
IAP2 NorCal: January 30 Virtual Brown Bag Features Digital Engagement Case Study
Digital Engagement Case Study: Collaborative Policy Making California Water Plan Update 2013
• CWP - State’s Strategic Plan for Water - Updated Every 5 Years
• Collaborative Development required by Law • Stakeholders are generally people already
interested in water or related topics (like Agriculture, Forestry or Land Use)
• All Water Plans Since 1998 have exceeded the collaboration requirements
• Water Plan Collaboration has evolved overtime adapting to requirements
Background
VOLUME I – Strategic Plan VOLUME II – Regional Reports VOLUME III – Resource Management Strategies
Outlines the mission, vision, and objectives. Describes the current state of California’s water portfolio, potential future, gaps and options to respond. Offers key recommendations to meet objectives.
Describes the current state, potential future, gaps and options to respond for each of the 10 hydrologic Regions and compiles an overlay for both the Bay Delta and Mountain Counties which contain multiple watersheds.
Provides a tool kit to be used in responding to the current and future state. CWP 2013 IS THE FIRST to include Outreach & Education as a tool.
3 Water Plan Volumes Developed with Significant Collaborative Input
Audiences for each Plan Volume are Different Volume 4 is References and Volume 5 is Technical Guide
For CWP 2013
• Well over 300 active stakeholders attended meetings and provided on-going feedback
• Well over 5,000 stakeholders engaged at the information sharing level
• Because it is a Statewide Plan have always utilized phone and, beginning in 2008, on-line meeting options
• The Water Plan also has a significant commitment to the website and on-line communications
More Background
Digital Collaboration and the CA Water Plan – The CASE STUDY Situation: Much of the information for creation of the Regional Reports comes from the local stakeholders in the Region. The staff compiles this information into a draft then returns it for comment. Staff asked – Is there a better way??? Would something like a Wiki be feasible??? There remained a number of questions -
Some of Our Questions How do we:
1. Maintain Quality Control? Address editorial rights? Can anyone create or edit or just people acknowledged as experts?
2. Prevent a “serial meeting” prohibited under the open meeting laws? How would document creation be treated under these laws?
3. Would anyone actually participate? 4. Who owns the platform/ technology? 5. What platform/technology would we use?
The Experiment Try to create a Water Plan Chapter
using a Wiki type interface.
– Use New Chapter on Outreach and Education Resource Management Strategy (RMS) for the Experiment – multiple reasons to chose this particular chapter
– Find a free software with Open Access (must not require financial contribution or disclosure of personal information to participate)
What We Did to Create the Base Document
•All RMS’s have the same prescribed format. First draft was an outline with the format and a statement of the required information •Second draft was created using input from a stakeholder focus group that identified key items they would like in the chapter •Third draft was provided for the On-Line Experiment
What we Did to Conduct the Experiment
• Advertised the experiment to a wide group of experts in Outreach and Education
• Advertised the experiment to the active CWP stakeholder community
• Created a Pre-Work Session for people to engage prior to an on-line work session
• Conducted an on-line review of the document with real time editing
• Concurrently conducted an in-room meeting • Used a CrocDoc for the Wiki / free software
What Worked / Things We Liked
•Received real/ thoughtful feedback •Participants commented on work from others – agreeing or not / was really helpful •People that used it said software was a little buggy but they could see doing something like it again •People like being involved in the early input and the approach
• The Software was buggy so we didn’t get to see how it might play out completely •We had HUGE problems with the on-line meeting, almost all related to human error or lack of capacity in the meeting space --- not the technology •We had about 20 people attend the in-person meeting at 7:30 a.m. - we had intentionally made the in-person meeting less convenient hoping that people would attend on-line but they didn’t trust the technology -
Things that Could have Gone Better
1. It Works, we just need to find the right software. 2. 14 people provided on-line feedback, & over 30
engaged in the on-line session plus the 20 in the room.
3. We see it initially as needing to be iterative – not giving up the real-time collaboration but being able to do more with people on their own timeframe.
4. We will need to resolve the potential legal issues. 5. We will need to create rules for editing and quality
control.
Results
See for Yourself - The WIKI Experiment
• This was the pre meeting sample: • https://personal.crocodoc.com/kQoaq6v
• This is the draft Chapter Now: • http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/cwpu2013/2013-
prd/Vol3_Ch29_Outreach-and-Engagment_Public-Review-Draft_Final_PDFed_fk.pdf
• This is more about How to Navigate the Water Plan: • http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/cwpu2013/2013-
prd/NavigationGuide-2013PRD.pdf
MWH IRWM Business Strategy
14
Ways to Access Water Plan Information •Visit the Water Plan Web Portal www.waterplan.water.ca.gov
¾ Subscribe to Water Plan eNews a weekly electronic newsletter www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/enews
