I’ve been wondering about this since realising that we pay insufficient attention to post-decision dialogues with those impacted by major projects.

As I’m finalising a new framework for public consultations, I’m keen to include the types of engagement that Publiq is focused upon.

In the UK, we have become very fixated on one particular form of public and stakeholder consultation - where a consultor contemplates a significant decision, policy or a programme of action, and seeks responses and reactions to a range of proposed options. It is usually quite formal, takes some time (traditionally 12 weeks) and rightly attracts the application of legal rules known as The Gunning Principles. We need a much broader approach that takes account of many other forms that consultation can take, and how we might establish and promote best practice.

For example, we need to recognise that it is neither possible nor desirable in many cases, to identify a start-point – or an end point to consultations. This is already recognised by the term ‘continuous engagement’ which has been used for years in environments like the NHS, where there is a perpetual relationship with representative bodies. Here, as in other public services or policy areas, one issue seamlessly morphs into another. Agendas are set and public services rightly monitored closely.

But it is also important to keep communicating well after the event. With major projects or new policies, we can call this the IMPLEMENTATION phase. In effect, the project has been approved – whether it is a new road, a regeneration scheme or maybe a new town. Or the new policy has been decided, and new legislation has been passed. The pros and cons will have been thrashed out. Decision taken! Policy adopted! Programme approved! It is seldom the end of the argument, but, normally it is the end of the process. If there are continuing issues, we need to find some other machinery to handle them, and in a typically British pragmatic way, we have often found some way to ‘fudge’ it!

In Parliamentary terms, once legislation has passed, it becomes the role of Departmental Select Committees to keep a watching brief and monitor the application of new laws. Maybe an All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) might be set up, receiving financial support from lobbyists or pressure groups with a specialist interest. And those responsible for implementation (eg a Government department) might themselves create a Stakeholder Reference Group or similar to sound out views about various aspects of what happens next.

But this is often less about relations with politicians and bureaucrats. Frequently, those most impacted by major decisions are ordinary people, and they need a way to be heard on a vast range of questions that may arise as time progresses, and practice varies considerably in the way organisations handle this dynamic.

What’s interesting about Publiq’s background is that construction companies in the Netherlands had found benefit by using a simple but sophisticated mobile application to keep residents and businesses informed when major projects went ahead. The original SitePodium product’s strength was that it was a cost-effective tool that was usable by anyone with an interest in what was going on. Not so much a consultation – but what I call community dialogue – just a means for those building or implementing something to have easy, informal contact with those who are affected by their progress.

I welcome the adoption of a new name, identifying less with the construction industry and its concept of ‘site’. In my view it should be the start of something much wider, for it is not only builders that need to create a mechanism for talking to those whose lives they may affect. It is true that a local authority can always use Facebook if it needs to explain why roads will be closing for a month to undertake repairs, or if it wishes to announce some local net-zero initiative or another. But many of these issues and raise questions of a personal nature for affected individuals or businesses – and social media platforms are seldom as useful for one-to-one exchanges. Neither do the analytics support the organisation in gathering insights about public or stakeholder reactions to what’s happening.

Some years ago, when the Elizabeth Line was a series of massive ‘holes in the ground’ by ‘Crossrail’, I was briefed that there was a problem. It seemed that these enormous building projects affected thousands of businesses, residents, shoppers, commuters etc and that each contractor (they were all different! ) handled the engagement challenge differently. Could we not, possibly, devise a set of common standards they could all follow? What emerged was a set of guidance that inevitably touched upon the legacy from the previous consultations. What had people been told? What were their expectations? Who was being compensated? Who wasn’t? And then, the realisation that the consultations were years ago; the stakeholders were now different; and in central London, they were VERY different.

It is not just infrastructure! The continuing implications of social and economic policy changes can be just as demanding in their need for continuous dialogue. Consider problematic areas such as Special Educational Needs & Disability (SEND) where resources never matched the legislative ambition. Or the impact of immigration policy changes on the financing of the University Sector? Or something yet to happen like the forthcoming Regulation of professional football?

What is clear is that consultation should not stop when key decisions are taken and that the requirement to listen and be influenced by informed stakeholder views should continue well into the IMPLEMENTATION phase.

As I look forward to sharing my new consultation Framework, I expect tools like Publiq, to feature strongly and probably help create a change of culture that acknowledges the enhanced role of effective dialogue over a considerably longer period.