Let's go fly a…… Kite-mark? - Is it time to establish a quality standard for Public and stakeholder consultations?

There comes a point in most areas of life where the amateur gives way to the professional, and where the rich diversity of people re-inventing the wheel every time yields to common standards.

It is not always a good thing, and one of the characteristics of today's post-modern culture is that we appreciate the value of this diversity.

In consultation terms, it has led to a huge range of dialogue methods and an infinite variety of consultation processes. There is no shortage of new methods to try; and some consultancy firms give the impression that they can develop a new methodology every month. Some of them even work!

But this variety also has disadvantages. There are few enough working in the areas of public engagement who have received training and who are experienced in more than a handful of methods. Selecting the right consultation technique for a given situation is often a question of the experience and preference of the relevant staff rather than the appropriate-ness of a particular method. And there is also the stakeholder perspective.

Accosted from all sides and urged to "participate", "respond" or otherwise "be engaged", some stakeholders already complain of consultation fatigue. Some of this reflects in too many uncoordinated exercises targeting the same organisations. But some of it is sheer exasperation with the unpredictability of it all. A failure to standardise on a sensible timescale that respects the need for umbrella bodies and others to consider matters properly and consult their own members and interest groups (secondary consultation) is but one example.

But there is another issue. Consultation is not an exact science, and it is difficult even for experienced consultors to get everything right. Consultees know this very well. That is why when some of them feel disappointed with the outcome of some consultations, they will turn their fire on the process by which they were consulted. It is not unknown for stakeholders to go to court to set aside decisions they don't like, arguing that the consultation was fatally flawed.

So the answer may lie in setting best practice standards and finding an acceptable way to sign off a consultation exercise or maybe a consultation programme as conforming to these standards. Organisations which undertake high volumes of consultation already have some standards and could consider ways of labelling exercises that meet all the standards they have set. However, we need a kite-mark that shows that the consultation is being done properly and that can be independently verified. The Institute is beginning the work to develop such a scheme.

Trigger points

• Start keeping records of stakeholder dissatisfaction with particular aspects of your consultations; address those aspects where you appear most vulnerable
• Examine your internal standards to see if they lend themselves to an approval mechanism
• Contact the Institute if you would like to work with us on developing a national kite-mark scheme.

This is the 13th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement