MetroQuest

Category: Public Engagement

  • [CONFERENCE] Summit on Public Consultation & Engagement

    [CONFERENCE] Summit on Public Consultation & Engagement

    MetroQuest was honored to be included in the program of the 4th Annual Summit on Public Consultation & Engagement in Toronto on November 5-6, 2014. The event brought together a wide range of public engagement experts and a diverse range of delegates from the public and private sectors.

    We hope you enjoy this recording of the 18-minute plenary presentation “How to Use Digital Media For Faster and More Comprehensive Engagement” featuring MetroQuest Chief Engagement Officer, Dave Biggs.

  • [INSIGHTS] The Evolution of the Scenario

    [INSIGHTS] The Evolution of the Scenario

    Scenarios aren’t new but they certainly have evolved. While the concept of scenario planning can be traced back to the military, planners have been using scenarios for decades. In a nutshell, scenario planning involves creating a variety of possible alternative futures and using them to inform dialog about choices and then ideally, decision making. It’s a kind of “what-if?” exercise.

    Having been involved in scenario planning academically and professionally for 25 years, I’ve seen more than my fair share of scenarios. It strikes me that they have changed in really interesting ways – and many of these changes have made them more useful for public engagement. For simplicity I’ve divided the history into three eras.

    The Mainframe Era (1988 – 1997)

    When I first started working with scenarios, most were extremely complicated and sought to simulate the real world as closely as possible. They took days to compute, weeks to decipher and there was virtually no chance that the public could absorb them quickly. Despite efforts to synthesize the main messages in each scenario, they were still far to complex and multi-faceted to engage all but the most dedicated participant. We used a mainframe computer that required its own air-conditioned room and produced a stack of printouts several feet high. In one project, we worked for 2 years creating a single scenario and wrote a book about it called, “Life in 2030.” Ideally this scenario would have been compared with a few other alternatives but frankly we were exhausted after creating just one. And we weren’t the only ones. The Global Scenarios Group, for example, was also creating elaborate scenarios of the future of the world. Who can forget, “Fortress World?”

    The GIS Era (1998 – 2007)

    As personal computers became more readily available and GIS software grew in popularity with planning agencies, scenarios became suddenly more visual, though pixilated. Maps of alternatives along with graphs of indicators became the go-to way of presenting scenarios. Here are a few scenarios we created for a newspaper section for Vancouver, Canada.

    READ THE FULL ARTICLE

    These scenarios are better than those of the early days. They at least showed visually what it might look like and could be explained to the general public, though I’m not sure how many people took the time to read the rather long article. So, in terms of usefulness for public engagement, scenarios had come a long way but they required more effort to understand than the average citizen was willing to put in.

    The iPhone Era (2008 – 2017)

    Something profound started happening in the late 00’s. The focus turned to simplicity and brevity. Life sped up, computing became more ubiquitous, and there was no time for reading. For technology, if instructions we’re needed, forget it. Instant gratification, rounded corners, colors everywhere, simplicity – the iPhone nailed it all. People’s expectations for everything shifted – and for planners wishing to engage the public – they needed to change too. And some did.

    We are starting to see more and more of these kind of scenarios used for public engagement and it’s easy to see why. When dealing with such short attention spans, it’s really our only hope. If the goal is informed input from a broad demographic, we have to pack a lot of learning into a tight timeframe. If a picture is worth a thousand words, looking at this scenario must be like reading 200 tweets in 30 seconds!

    I’m encouraged that the scenario planning industry is making good progress. What does the next era for scenarios look like? I’ve never been more optimistic about the marriage of scenario planning and public engagement.

  • [INSIGHTS] Public Engagement Pioneer Speaks in Vancouver

    [INSIGHTS] Public Engagement Pioneer Speaks in Vancouver

    It was great fun to reconnect last week with friend, mentor and collaborator Dr. Carolyn Lukensmeyer at Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue.

    For those who don’t know her, Dr. Lukensmeyer is the Executive Director of the National Institute for Civil Discourse and founder of America Speaks. As one of the foremost citizen engagement practitioners in North America, she has gathered public input on issues ranging from the redevelopment of the World Trade Center after 9/11 to the rebuilding of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. Carolyn is a true inspiration and a pioneer in the field of public engagement.

    I was honored to be asked to help facilitate an America Speaks event in September 2008 called “Equal Voice for America’s Families Campaign” that brought together 12,000 participants in one session spread across three cities (Los Angeles, CA, Chicago, IL, and Birmingham, AL) all connected by simulcast. It was a thrill and the lessons I learned preparing for and facilitating that event have stuck with me to this day.

    The day-long workshop at SFU last week brought together a who’s who of public participation on the west coast including leading academics from SFU and UBC, municipal and regional government agency representatives, and public involvement practitioners from a diverse array of sectors. Carolyn gave an inspiring talk that highlighted her work with America Speaks as well as more recent initiatives leveraging texting and other forms of digital engagement.

    Some of the initiatives she spoke about were: Creating Community Solutions as part of the U.S. National Dialogue on Mental Health; the Washington D.C. Citizen Summit on municipal planning and budgeting; and, Listening to the City, the redevelopment of Lower Manhattan after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

    The interactive session was, not surprisingly, a dialog and will produce a document of findings on key questions around how we need to act to develop infrastructure to support deeper and more meaningful democratic processes in decision making in BC. The discussion focused on three topic areas: mental health, transportation and urban design.

  • [INSIGHTS] MetroQuest vs. MindMixer – Selecting a Tool for Successful Community Engagement

    [INSIGHTS] MetroQuest vs. MindMixer – Selecting a Tool for Successful Community Engagement

    Project leaders are faced with challenging decisions when designing community involvement approaches for planning projects. In some situations, online engagement can provide a cost-effective alternative or complement to traditional forms of engagement. Choosing the most appropriate online tool to meet the needs of the project can be difficult since many tools seem similar.

    MetroQuest and MindMixer are two of the most popular tools and many people ask how they differ. The short answer is MetroQuest is a survey tool and MindMixer is a crowdsourcing tool.

    Crowdsourcing tools, like MindMixer, encourage participants to generate their own ideas and vote on each other’s ideas so the most popular ideas rise to the top. The content is primarily text-based questions and responses.

    MetroQuest, as a style of survey tool, collects very specific input from participants to inform decision-making for the planning process. It’s also a highly visual and educational tool that helps people learn about the choices and their tradeoffs to inform their input.

    Next are some key differentiators to help determine which tool is right for your engagement needs.

    What are the Key Differences Between MetroQuest and MindMixer?

    1. Breadth and Level of Public Participation

    How important is it to engage the widest demographic and attract the most participants possible?

    MindMixer: Attracts the most enthusiastic and motivated stakeholders.

    Tools like MindMixer, which require people to register before participating, attract about 90% less participants compared to tools that allow users to participate instantly. The reason is simple: on average only 10% of visitors (typically the most motivated stakeholders) are willing to register before participating in a planning project. On projects where both MetroQuest and MindMixer were used, MetroQuest collected input from approximately 10x the number of participants compared with MindMixer.

    MetroQuest: Attracts a large number of participants from a broad demographic.

    To maximize participation visitors can begin contributing instantly with MetroQuest as there is no mandatory registration step. The result is typically 10x the number of participants compared with tools with mandatory registration. To avoid the possibility of people abusing the system, MetroQuest has a sophisticated fraud detection capability so it’s easy to identify and eliminate any abusers. MetroQuest collects demographic information and email addresses at the end when people are most invested in the project.

    2. Type of Public Input

    What type of input do you need from the public?

    MindMixer: Public provides open-ended ideas.

    With crowdsourcing tools, participants create their own content or ideas. Input is open-ended and text-based in most cases. It can be freeing for participants to have this flexibility but it can be difficult for planners to analyze the results for reporting.

    MetroQuest: Public provides specific input that can be tabulated and analyzed.

    With a survey, the project team creates specific questions for participant response. These can include a wide variety of input types, such as priority ranking, image rating, comments on maps, scenario rating, and budget allocation. Quantitative outputs can be easier to analyze and summarize in planning documents.

    3. Level of Interactivity

    What functionality and types of interactivity are needed?

    MindMixer: Idea generation and voting are needed.

    MindMixer has a standard format and can be deployed out-of-the-box. Its functionality is focused on idea generation and voting.

    MetroQuest: Various types of interactivity are needed.

    MetroQuest is the only tool available that has an extensive toolbox of screen types to satisfy diverse needs. As such each MetroQuest configuration is tailor-made by the MetroQuest team in collaboration with project personnel to best meet the needs of the project.

    4. Flow of Dialog

    Is it more important that participants communicate with each other or with the agency?

    MindMixer: Dialog flows from participant to participant.

    In crowdsourcing, dialog is between participants. They generate the ideas and vote on each other’s ideas in a collaborative exercise.

    MetroQuest: Dialog flows from participants to the agency.

    In a survey, the dialog is from the participant to the agency or planning team. The planning team defines the questions and participants respond.

    5. Level of Education

    Is community education a key requirement (e.g. learning about options & tradeoffs)?

    MindMixer: No, education is not critical on this project.

    In MindMixer, the content is created by participants. They can offer any idea they wish. It’s up to users to consider those ideas and make their own conclusions.

    MetroQuest: Yes, education is a key component.

    In MetroQuest, the content is created by the project team and is presented in a way that can be quickly and easily understood by the public. Learning is up front and built into the interface to help ensure the input being collected is informed.

    Throughout the course of planning projects there is often a time to generate ideas followed by a need to develop and refine alternatives. We are thrilled to recommend MindMixer to assist with the former and we stand ready to assist with the latter.

     

    Check out what professionals are saying about MetroQuest:

    “We chose MetroQuest over MindMixer for the Oasis Rail Corridor project for two primary reasons. First the project called for an extensive and inclusive public outreach effort. We felt that MetroQuest would attract broader participation since it does not require participants to create an account and is very fast for people who only have a few minutes to spend. Secondly, the project required very specific information from people to inform the planning process. MetroQuest’s extensive data collection capabilities provided the project team and partners with demographic information and preferences that facilitated an informed decision-making process. We were very pleased with the impressive number of responses and the data that we were able to collect.”  Richard Dial, Oasis Project Manager, HDR

    “We have used MindMixer in previous studies, and find it can be helpful to generate new ideas; but, as comments are open, it can be difficult to interpret relative priorities or identify a desired overall direction. We prefer MetroQuest in situations that call for an in-depth exploration of planning issues. Its ability to present planning alternatives, educate about tradeoffs, and collect informed input on scenarios sets it apart. We also like MetroQuest’s ability to be adapted to the needs of each phase of the planning process and collect specific input relevant to each phase that can be used directly in our planning documents. Our clients also appreciate MetroQuest’s ability to support other engagement applications like interactive workshops and kiosks.” Paul Glasgow, Senior Planner/Project Manager, MIG