Planning policy forums with several stakeholder groups
A policy forum works only if each stakeholder group believes the room was set up fairly before anyone speaks.
The short answer
The organiser's job is process neutrality: who is invited and why, how time is divided, who chairs, what is published afterwards and who approves it. The positions belong to the participants. Write the process down and agree it with the convening committee before invitations go out.
Start with a stakeholder balance grid listing each group, who speaks for it, how much agenda time it has and how it can contribute before and after the day.
Decide the purpose before the guest list
A forum can inform, consult, exchange views or build a shared evidence base. These need different rooms and different outputs. Ask the convening committee which one it is and write it in one sentence.
If the purpose is consultation on a matter before a public body, ask that body what it requires of the process rather than assuming.
Stakeholder balance grid
| Group | Who is invited and by what criterion | Voice on the day | Pre-event input | Post-event input |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government and regulators | Agencies with a role in the topic, invited at the level they choose | Opening remarks and panel seat | Briefing paper review | Comment on the draft outcome note |
| Industry and professional bodies | Representative bodies, not only individual firms | Panel seat and floor questions | Written submission | Comment on the draft outcome note |
| Civil society and consumer groups | Organisations active on the topic | Panel seat and floor questions | Written submission | Comment on the draft outcome note |
| Academics and researchers | Subject experts with relevant published work | Evidence input session | Evidence summary | Comment on the draft outcome note |
Decisions that decide perceived fairness
- Who convenes and who is named as host on invitations and materials.
- Selection criteria for panellists, written down and applied equally.
- Chair: independent of any one group, or co-chairs from different groups.
- Agenda time per group, including time for the floor.
- Rules for questions: how they are collected and who selects them.
- Ground rules on recording, quoting and attribution, for example whether the forum runs under a stated rule on non-attribution.
- Who sees the outcome note before release and how disagreements are shown.
- Seating, naming and order of speaking, which signal rank whether intended or not.
Sequence for the secretariat
- Write the purpose and process note and get the convening committee's approval.
- List stakeholder groups and the criterion for inviting each.
- Invite at the level each organisation chooses, in the same wording for every group.
- Collect briefing inputs and circulate the same pack to every participant.
- Brief the chair and moderators on time, order and ground rules.
- Take notes against the agreed structure and draft the outcome note without interpreting positions.
- Circulate the draft to participants for factual correction before release.
Roles around the room
Use a responsibility matrix so every task has one accountable person: invitations, briefing pack, chair liaison, note-taking, publication approval. The event responsibility matrix builder flags tasks with no owner or two.
Recording what is said and how it is published is covered in documenting consultation outputs.
Worked example · Fictional example
A fictional policy forum on digital payments
Fictional organisation and figures, for illustration only.
A fictional institute convenes a half-day forum for about 80 participants. Four groups are invited: regulators, industry bodies, consumer groups and academics. Each has one panel seat and 15 minutes of floor time.
Industry first asks for two panel seats. The committee holds to the written criterion, one seat per group, and offers a written submission slot instead.
The chair is an independent academic. The draft outcome note is sent to all four groups for factual correction before release.
Use this yourself
Forum process note
Copy this and send it to the convening committee for approval before invitations go out.
- Purpose in one sentence: inform, consult, exchange views or build evidence.
- Convener and host named on materials:
- Stakeholder groups and the criterion for inviting each:
- Panel selection criteria (written):
- Chair or co-chairs and how they were chosen:
- Agenda time per group and time for the floor:
- How floor questions are collected and selected:
- Ground rules on recording, quoting and attribution:
- Who drafts the outcome note and who approves release:
- How differing views are shown in the note:
- What is published, where and when:
Handle it in-house, or bring in help?
Your team can usually handle this when
- Two or three groups with a track record of working together.
- A small invited roundtable under a clear ground rule.
- The committee has already agreed purpose, chair and publication.
Outside planning help earns its fee when
- Four or more groups with unequal resources or open disagreement on the topic.
- The forum is large, public or touches a matter before a public body.
- Nobody can hold the process note, matrix and publication approvals together.
Need the forum process run neutrally?
A conference project lead can draft the process note and stakeholder grid with your convening committee, run invitations in a single wording, build the responsibility matrix, brief the chair and moderators and coordinate drafting and approval of the outcome note. Positions, criteria and publication decisions stay with your committee. Send your purpose, groups and date range to scope the work.
Questions organisers ask
Can the organiser also chair?
Usually it is better to have an independent chair. The committee decides.
Do all groups need equal time?
Equal time is a choice. Whatever is chosen should be written down and applied the same way.
How do we handle a group that declines?
Record the invitation and reply, and tell participants the group was invited.
Who owns the outcome note?
The convening committee, after factual correction by participants.
Related resources
Content record: Draft. Written from the cited sources and checked by automated rules; not yet independently reviewed.