What does IAP2 Canada need to do differently to effectively serve its members and stakeholders? / Qu’est-ce que l’AIP2 Canada doit faire différemment afin de servir efficacement ses membres et parties prenantes?

  • 07 Jul 2014 12:20 PM
    Message # 3039346
    Deleted user

    What does IAP2 Canada need to do differently to effectively serve its members and stakeholders?

    Qu’est-ce que l’AIP2 Canada doit faire différemment afin de servir efficacement ses membres et parties prenantes?

    Last modified: 09 Jul 2014 10:48 PM | Deleted user
  • 10 Jul 2014 4:29 PM
    Reply # 3043200 on 3039346
    Deleted user

    Identify like-minded organizations for partnerships.

    Define why P2 "shall" be required and identify tools for members to use to achieve that.

    Broaden training opportunities.

  • 10 Jul 2014 5:09 PM
    Reply # 3043220 on 3039346

    Demonstrate the value delivered by membership. Currently what I hear a lot is that we are member because it is the national organization and we should support it - not because it is defining leading practices, establishing a baseline of what is effective or not effective P2, etc. There are great divergences in the way in which the public is engaged across different sectors by different practitioners. Some of this will be addressed through the current certification implementation discussion.


    Identify mutual learning opportunities and partnerships with IAP2 USA that would deliver value - learning to Canadian members.


    Also rather than creating further layers of bureaucracy with additional reporting look at ways to streamline. Over the years there have been many dedicated people involved in IAP2 but they seem to get burned out and loose interest in volunteering in the organization. Many of the reasons have been communicated to IAP2 Canada before.

    Last modified: 10 Jul 2014 5:25 PM | Anonymous member
  • 11 Jul 2014 7:15 AM
    Reply # 3043500 on 3039346

    I have long believed, including during my time on both the federation and Canadian boards, that there is great potential to explore a sectoral/issues-based approach to developing interest and new members in IAP2. Our organizational model that is based on geographically bounded chapters seems to work well in some places but not in others. What about partnerships with provincial/national planning organizations? Or, as Catherine mentioned, CPRS? But there are other strategic relationships too, such as municipal government (FCM), engineering and architectural bodies, transportation, power generation, energy, environment and health care.

    I would also like to see IAP2 Canada join with other affiliates and partner with a post-secondary body to begin the process of creating nationally recognized practice standards, professional certification, and become a nationally recognized accreditation body around organizational standards of practice. I accept that this is an ambitious agenda item, a lot of hard work, and has a long term horizon but if we never articulate this as a goal we'll certainly never achieve it. I would like to know more about the status of the standards, certification and accreditation conversations across the international organization. I see that Australian and the US affiliates are exploring different aspects of this conversation... where are we in Canada? 

  • 14 Jul 2014 11:07 AM
    Reply # 3044909 on 3039346

    IAP2 needs to clarify its purpose, the core business. The raison d’être of any association is to serve the members!  You pose the question of serving stakeholders? Who are IAP2’s stakeholders? By whom and how were their interests defined? Why would IAP2 want to serve their interests? On the other hand, who is monitoring the changing landscape of potential strategic partners?

    There is a need for IAP2 to meet with like-minded organisations and agencies, but the strategic advantage of these meetings or partnerships becomes diluted if the ‘Why” of IAP2 is not clearly stated, understood and shared.

    If the goal is to serve the public, that is a different question. It then becomes an issue for a professional association where standards of practice are the main concern.

    I also think that a professionnal association could become a long-term goal, but there are incremental steps for IAP2 that could be answered with these questions:

    What is IAP2’s core business? What is the lead (flagship) product that the members care about and is a fair reflection of how IAP2 wishes to be known (could be revised every 2 or 3 years)? What is the public standing, the public image IAP2 wishes to portray, what area of public influence IAP2 will engage in, and then who are IAP2’s strategic partners in this effort.

    If I where to answer the 1st question, IAP2’s core business, I would say to build a community of practice; shared knowledge, research, debate, support, professional development, collaborative relationships, mentorship. I would also say that it is to be an advocate for public participation in the context of public debate, of free speech and freedom of association.   

    If the goal is to serve the public, that is a different question. It then becomes an issue for a professional association where standards of practice are the main concern.

    I also think that a professionnal association could become a long-term goal, but there are incremental steps for IAP2 that could be answered with these questions:

    What is IAP2’s core business? What is the lead product that we care about and is a fair reflection of whom we wish to be known for (could be revised every 2 or 3 years)? What is the public standing, the public image IAP2 wishes to portray, what area of public influence IAP2 will engage in, and then who are IAP2’s strategic partners in this effort.

    If I where to answer the 1st question, IAP2’s core business, I would say to build a community of practice; shared knowledge, research, debate, support, professional development, collaborative relationships, mentorship. I would also say that it is to be an advocate for public participation in the context of public debate, of free speech and freedom of association  

    IAP2 needs to clarify its purpose, the core business. The raison d’être of any association is to serve the members!  You pose the question of serving IAP2’s stakeholders? Who are IAP2’s stakeholders? By whom and how were their interests defined? Why would we serve their interests? On the other hand, who is monitoring the changing landscape of potential strategic partners?

    There is a need for IAP2 to meet with like-minded organisations and agencies, but the strategic advantage of these meetings or partnerships becomes diluted if the ‘Why” of IAP2 is not clearly stated, understood and shared.

    If the goal is to serve the public, that is a different question. It then becomes an issue for a professional association where standards of practice are the main concern.

    I also think that a professionnal association could become a long-term goal, but there are incremental steps for IAP2 that could be answered with these questions:

     
  • 14 Jul 2014 12:01 PM
    Reply # 3044966 on 3039346
    Anonymous

    I would like to see our organization provide a context or foundation for where and how the practice of public participation emerged. How it is a fundamental aspect of democracy and its evolution, the notion of citizen power and advocacy on behalf of citizens, the history of differing governments some encouraging self interest as opposed to collective interest, for example. As it stands now we focus on practice. However, the history and theory that motivated how this professional practice emerged and why we do what we do brings a sense of purpose, importance and "big picture" for me.

  • 19 Jul 2014 2:11 PM
    Reply # 3048923 on 3039346

    I really like the comments about creating communities.  For me, IAP2 is about connecting with like-minded people working for meaningful engagement.  I think we need to reach out from our focus on the practice and practitioners and engage other groups that are part of any P2 process: participants and decision-makers.

    I'd like to see a focus on the coming years on growing our membership with these two groups.  How can we bring participants and decision-makers into the organization to be part of the community working for meaningful public engagement? 

    We'd probably need new membership categories, but how awesome would it be to have members of advisory groups, community associations, non-profits, and Aboriginal communities as part of IAP2 Canada?  I'm also of the mind that advocacy is best achieved through building long term relationships and mutual understanding.  Having more decision-makers as part of IAP2 Canada would help them learn more about the importance of meaningful engagement and how to do it.  

    We (as practitioners) could also learn a lot from these two groups as we strive to advance the practice and steward meaningful P2 processes.

Privacy Policy | Copyright IAP2 Canada 2015

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software