Stakeholder Database. In summary • Working group stakeholders (WGS). As part of the co-design initiative, COACCH worked with around 40 stakeholders who were involved in the co-design of the project. These organisations were invited to join the working groups, attending four working group meetings during the project (months 6, 24, 36, 42). The aim was to develop the design and research focus, then continue to provide advice to ensure the research stays relevant to the needs and interests of stakeholders. • Deep engagement stakeholders (DES). From this larger group, around 10 organisations were offered the opportunity to be involved more closely in the project. These so-called ‘deep engagement stakeholders’ benefit from more targeted-research and co-production (within the boundaries of the project), helping to guide case study analysis to provide insights of direct relevance. This focused on practice orientated research, with a bilateral programme of detailed co-design, co-production and co-dissemination. This was anticipated to involve approximately at least one additional bilateral meeting a year (in addition to the workshop) to co-design and co-produce a deep engagement case study, to help ensure the relevance and user-orientation of the research, and to discuss the synthesis material and outputs from the work.
Stakeholder Database. Creation of two main types of stakeholder: WGS and DES. • Identification of other individuals of interest for dissemination purposes. • While it is possible to identify a group of representative stakeholders, maintaining and holding onto a balanced and representative group is something that needs to be actively monitored and managed. • Much greater success was found - in terms of collaboration and use of the COACCH results - when a deep engagement process was followed. • However, the distinction between types of stakeholders (‘working group’ or ‘deep engagement’) may cause unnecessary confusion as well as leading to heterogenous experiences of project engagement (i.e. for those not selected). • For a truly ‘representative’ group, it is important to target specific people as well as an organisation. Engaging with multiple people from an organisation can increase the extent and impact of knowledge co-production as well as minimising the risk of stakeholder ‘bottlenecks’ or drop-out.
Stakeholder Database. To develop the overall process for the co-production process. A co-production pathway/roadmap will be completed in advance of the first workshop, to set out the proposed process, goals and outcomes. • To identify roles and responsibilities. Based on the proposal, it is proposed that PWA and Ecologic Institute act as the boundary agents for the overall co- production process and that each stakeholder is assigned a ‘relationship manager’ from across the consortium. Additional roles will be discussed and agreed at the first workshop. • To identify potential user needs and decisions. This has been progressed through the development of a stakeholder template, completed for all stakeholders (in Deliverable 1.1). Further user needs will be discussed at the first workshop and key decisions will be identified through the Deep Engagement Stakeholder meetings.
Stakeholder Database. Update the stakeholder database at regular intervals and provide to RCTC upon request.
