 For me, I'm currently seated on the lens of the Wurundjeru people of the Kulin Nation, and I would like to pay your respects for the eldest part and presence and the knowledge that this lens is not seated. So, welcome to day three of AES's Design and Evaluation Special Interest Group Learning Sprint. What's the word there? I'm Shani. I am a senior consultant at Clear Horizon, and I'd like to throw to our other facilitator today, Jo, to introduce herself. Thanks, Shani. I'm also joining today from the lens of the Wurundjeru people, and I would also like to extend those respects to the traditional cast audience of the land that I'm on. I am now a freelance evaluation consultant, have done previous work for both the consulting and the commissioning side in not-for-profits. But I also use a lot of my time working as a mental health lived experience advocate to kind of wear both of those hats in this work, which I think is really relevant for what we're going to talk about today. Back to you. Jo, I realized I didn't introduce what I do at Clear Horizon, so I work across evaluation and design, which is a nice little sweet spot, mainly evaluating social innovation projects, or designing and evaluating with culturally and linguistically diverse groups. I have seen a comment just come through from Wurundjeru directly to me, saying there's a bit of interference with my audio. If anyone else is having a similar issue, let me know, and I might need to drop out for a moment to go and find a pair of headphones. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but just drop me a line if it continues to pass the bill. All right, so just a bit of housekeeping before we kick off. As you can probably see, this session is being recorded, so we'll be working in planning for the better part of our time together, but we will be going into a breakout for a short period towards the end. The breakouts won't be recorded this bit well. Completely understand if you would rather keep your videos off and do that during our recorded sessions, but we definitely encourage you to come off mute, share your screens, and to participate in the breakouts that will come up later. Something else to note, we are going to be using Miro today as well, and so I'm going to share a link to the Miro board with everyone. And then I might actually need to turn to you, Joe, to just talk us through the introductions while I find pair of headphones. So there's a link to Miro everyone and Joe, I'm just going to hand over to you for a second. No worries. This is the joy of facilitating on the fly doing things like finding headphones to make sure everyone can participate. And we will also keep periodically reposting that Miro link in the chat just because I know that if you've arrived a bit late, you don't then get access to the previous chat. So if we're talking about the link and you can't see it, just be reassured that you will see it again at some point in the future. Thanks Bill, Bill's on it. And I should note as well, Bill's here from the AES today, just giving us a hand with managing all the tech stuff. So in terms of what we're going to do today, we're going to start with a little bit of sharing from Shani and I about some of the kind of theoretical concepts that sit behind the idea of power. I'm talking about what power is, what impact it has on your projects and then what you need to be thinking about in terms of designing an evaluation while being mindful of power. And we're also going to share a couple of case study examples as well just to try and illustrate some of the things that we're talking about. Then we're going to move into some breakout rooms and the purpose of the breakout rooms is to provide a space for you to come together and to think through in a really practical sense. What are some of the things that you can do before, during and after an evaluation process to identify and manage power in the projects that you do. And manage power is probably not the right word because that in and of itself suggests something about power, but I'm very much still working to find what the right word is. So we'll interchangeably use manage, acknowledge, address, but know that they come from that spirit of thinking about how we do something about this given that it's present in all of our projects. Shani's back. Well, shall we just do a quick sound check? Let's do the moment of truth. Can you hear me? That's I think much clearer. Yeah, I think there was maybe just a bit of room echo before. Okay, great. Thank you everyone for bearing with me. Like Joe said, the solicitation on the fly. Right, so Joe, thank you for holding down the thought as well. I'm going to start sharing this screen. And I hope everyone's been able to access me. I can see some passes in there. You can do have any trouble with their place of free to just put a comment into the zoom chat and Joe and I'll be sure to help you out. Let me know when you can see my screen everyone. I can see that now. Perfect. Thank you. All right, welcome to a mirror board. So for those of you who might not have used mirror before mirror is quite literally an online whiteboard. It allows us to collaborate together, which is always very welcome. Just want to draw your attention to the question back that you'll see underneath our brains today. So this question back is a spot for us to pop in our questions as we go. So Joe and I will be working through some content. And so if there's anything of interest that you'd like us to interrogate further, just drag one of the questions on the right hand side of the question back. And I'm popping your question or you can do that in the zoom chat as well. And we'll be coming to that at the end of our session and responding to any questions or queries that you have. Okay. So what are we doing together today? The other thing just before we get into that, Shani, we covered this one while you were off the screen so we can zip through it. But I also just wanted to draw your attention to the resource bank as well that sits under the question back. And so as we go through, we'll be mentioning some things that that and resources that we've drawn on. There are some others in there that we find useful but also there's this a lot of wisdom probably in this collective group and so again we encourage you to grab a post-it note and if there's something that you use in practice that you think's great. Chuck it in that resource bank because we'd love this to be something that you can come back to and draw on in the future. Back to you Shani sorry to jump in. Oh, thank you. Yeah, back to me again. So we thought for having our conversation about power it was probably useful to start by actually having the conversation about what power is. And this is one of these, one of these definitions that can be as long as piece of string. But ultimately power is about the capacity to impact and influence our environment. And there's some work there by Julie Diamond that's linked to and she talks about the, there being kind of two different senses of power. One is the social power. And I think this is the one that we generally tend to think of in terms of evaluations and how they're designed. And those are the things that we've, we talked about on Monday if you were there around privilege and structural power and physical ability to contribute to things. But the other thing that I want to draw your attention to is also this dimension of personal power. And that's the sense that independent of the structural power that you hold you also have this internal source of power that you can draw from that guides your values and decision making and your kind of holistic power, the total of that draws on both those different senses of power. So for example, in a project I did recently, there was, it was a group of consumers and they recognize that while there was a group of consumers with mental health lived experience and there was a group of clinicians. And traditionally you would assume that the clinicians held the power in that situation. There was one or two consumers who had really dominant personalities and that was shaping the nature of the discussion that happened in that space and it was another dimension of power that needed to be accounted for in how that was managed. And we'll go to the next one now. So I also wanted to just talk about this idea of faces of power and this draws on the work of a few different people who are mentioned there. And this is basically just recognizing that power expresses itself. And it's a bit like a liquid if there's a if there's a gap that power can flow into it fills it up there and takes over that space. And so this different faces of power that they talk about the visible power is I think what we would probably traditionally associate with power it's the observable decision making those formal formal structures that determine who gets to make decisions, how they get to make decisions, and the institutions that that power is vested in. And then there's this hidden power. And that's about setting the agenda of who even gets to have those conversations in the first place who even gets to take part in that decision making. Finally, there's the invisible power and I think this also draws a little bit on some of the cultural values that we were talking about in terms of social power. And this is this idea of shaping what is acceptable and kind of the cultural forces that give people power and again I think this is like strongly tied with the notion of privilege. And that, you know, privilege is a way that this invisible power, you know, they, they, they work hand in hand it's the invisible power and the privilege working together to shape what knowledges and whose knowledges are more important than others in in this space and that's really important in evaluation and design when we're thinking about how we make decisions how we prioritize things and determining what knowledge is. And then we'll go to the next one which is when I will then stop talking and hand back to Shani again. And so this I think draws quite strongly on that work of the faces of power that I was talking about before. And this is a diagram that I've put together based on the link that's provided there, which I think is a really handy practice guide for thinking through how you practically work out power in evaluation and design so I encourage you to have a look at it. I won't necessarily go through these in a great deal of detail now because you can come back to them. And but my good will identifies these kind of five different domains of power that come to bear in a project. And while they are listed there are separate boxes, I think the important thing to recognize is that they really all feed off one another so power begets power and if you have power in one space it feeds into having power in and another. So you end up with these increasingly extreme and marginalized ends between the people who hold the power and the people who've been marginalized. And this is based on things like access to decision making ability to influence decisions and the ability of the power that you have from your role and the ability to identify what's legitimate. And how you then influence how that plays out in particularly a group context. I'm going to hand back to Shani now who's going to give you some examples of what this looks like in practice. Thanks so much, Joan. So I think that really sets up some of these examples too. So I wanted to talk to you a little bit about the work Clean Horizons has been doing designing and evaluating in the alcohol and other drugs sector. This has been a really interesting and challenging sector to work in. So for those who might not have had me introduce myself, most of my works in the culturally and linguistically diverse space, I tend to do this because of my lived experience as a migrant to Australia first generation migrant. So it's very interesting now designing and evaluating with a traditionally marginalized and decriminalized part of our community, a community in and of itself, but I don't have shared this experience with. So through this process, power really came to the forefront in ways that it wasn't coming to the forefront in my work with culturally and linguistically diverse communities. And some key lessons we learned through the process that I do want to talk about in the context of process facilitation generally are what you can see on the screen. So a lot of this work was done in the beautiful era that is virtual coded. And therefore we had to deal with issues like tech and sound like we just did earlier today. So what that meant was some of these issues that probably play out every day and were exacerbated or enhanced in some way. And it really comes with key lesson one. So lesson one, with expertise is not selective. It encompasses all of a person with experience. So often when we talk about power, we talk about how we share power across groups. And this really goes hand in hand with our push, our drive to have more voices at the table. We talk a lot about getting lived experience or lived expertise into our evaluation and our design. However, with getting lived experience or lived expertise at the table, we have to acknowledge that we are encompassing or we're asking them to share very much all of themselves. No one can be selective about who or what they bring to a state. And especially in the alcohol and other drug sector, participating in evaluation design can come with emotional responses and sometimes having to revisit trauma. It's very important that we create safe spaces for that. But we also recognize implications of the different power in the room. So a good example was my work working with people who inject drugs and peer workers who very honestly and frankly told us that they don't take well to authority. And our role there as process facilitators automatically put up in a position that they aligned or thought was akin to that authority. And today's issue of social power that was coming through to go back to the terminology Joe was using earlier. And that comes into that second point there as well, which talks about the being of such thing as perfect power sharing. So one of my most controversial lessons. And definitely one that can be provocative in and of itself. But the reality is where there are roles. It is often impossible to perfectly share power in a process. And that happens when someone is holding a technical expert a process role. So again, in that particular example of how someone was experienced can color and how they approach a particular room. In that experience in that same example talking specifically about the emotional response to authority. And in reality, you're holding a process you're holding some level of decision making power that can then create a power differential within this room as well. The final lesson I just wanted to share in the context of our work in the alcohol and other drugs sector is that you need to be prepared to continue iteration when you're revisiting and interrogating power in your work to genuinely address power you need to be able to revisit and challenge your own processes because often those processes don't always work. Because feelings emotions and even perception of power is not static it's dynamic and it responds to those in the room and circumstance and so that can change as well. Stop there and ask you Joe if you wanted to add anything to that. I just want to particularly expand on point to there about there being no such thing as perfect power sharing and I think there's particularly no such thing in the kinds of work that we typically do in evaluation like I flagged in my provocation on Monday. There's usually somebody driving why and how you're doing the project and that in and of itself is a form of power that can't be overcome. But the really important thing is to be transparent about that, because acknowledging that there is no perfect power sharing means saying, we know we're not doing this perfectly rather than pretending you are pretending you are doing things perfectly is in itself a form of holding power and kind of lying essentially to your participants that they are equal when they're not really back to you. And so this is just one of many examples that we could probably spend the rest of our session unpacking together but it was one that I just wanted to bring to the forefront when we talk about the impact of power on our work in evaluation. If you want to look ahead to the future and think about what we do. How do we really navigate power in our life? Well, it comes down to how we might identify power. And so I'm just going to share one tool that I often use in my life. And this comes from Thinkplace and Co-operative Consulting and it's called the Four Voices of Design. So what this does is it maps out the different stakeholders in the design process. And I think it's equally relevant to evaluation as well often as we said in my evaluation work. So you see four voices there with the voice of intent and that is really the driver of any process. That's the intentional voice who's bringing together and mobilizing the work that you do. So you could understand the voice of intent to be a fighter. It's often your client if you are a consultant evaluator, they are the voice of intent who's bringing together and operationalizing the work that you are here to deliver. Then you've got your voice of design. That's really talking about that technical process role. And so it could equally be the voice of evaluation. And that would be the people in the room here today. So we often are the evaluator designers walking into a space. And we're there to help guide a process and to hold a process. Now you see two other voices there. There's one that's called the Voice of Experience. I love this particular schema, but I often like to think of it as the voice of lived expertise. I think experience has relative to that other voice of expertise tends to undermine the value of lived expertise in the room. So we're going to call it voice of lived expertise as opposed to experience if that's okay with everyone. And those are usually the beneficiaries of the program. Those are often the kinds of communities that we've just discussed, whether that's in the alcohol and other drug sector or in the culturally and linguistically diverse community as well that we often work in. And what do they bring to the table? They bring from a design standpoint, they often bring user experience. They understand and they live the programs that we're often there to evaluate of design and are very valuable. But they also bring traditional and cultural knowledge and other types of knowledge that we don't often factor into the work that we're evaluating or designing either. Because it sits outside of the mainstream ways of thinking or logic models that we can often apply a theoretical framework. The last voice you've seen there is called the voice of expertise. So in design a voice of expertise here refers to technical expertise. If you think about a design process and if you're here to design an employment program, let's say, your voice of expertise might be other employment service providers, other employment program designers, who bring in that third party or independent viewpoint into your work. If you think about it in evaluation, we often talk about bringing in expert panels to help review evaluative judgments that are made. That might be the voice of expertise that you talk about in that particular regard. And so this is something that I often use when I come to thinking about power and why? Because by identifying the roles that we play in the process, it's a bit easier to unpack the power associated with those particular roles. So it goes back to the hidden power, the other kinds of power that Joe was talking about. And it's easier to peg them to a particular role. And you can then use things like role authentication or role and power nothing to then test how your power sharing as you go. So if you identify who fits into these particular categories and you know what powers associated with that role, and if the intention is to share that power, you can then use these kinds of schemas to come back and test how you're going against that at different parts of your evaluation or design process journey. So that's just one tool I've used. Joe, are there any other tools that come to mind for you? Can you talk about identifying power in your work? I think I have mainly used most recently that wheel that I demonstrated before because it can be used as kind of a checklist for just making sure we were thinking about those other types of power and stepping beyond. Again, as I flagged on Monday, I think we tend to think of power in terms of privilege and whose voices are in the room. But I think both of these tools are really good at prompting you to think about how those voices get expressed, not just what the voice is. Yeah, and they can be used in conjunction as well actually. So we've been using these tools in isolation and now I can see how they can really be brought together in very productive and useful ways. You can start moving forward. Yeah. I think that goes to the point where we're providing you with some ideas today, but there's absolutely no one way of determining this and we're far from the first people that have thought about power in this context. And so I think it is about finding the thing that works for you. Thanks, Joe. So putting this particular tool in process. This is another case study you just want to bring to the table. So this is a project that's very close to my heart. It's called Flamington Works. So Flamington Works is a place-based initiative in Flamington, so in North Melbourne. And it's funded by the Department of Jobs and Precincts. And the whole purpose of Flamington Works is to improve employment outcomes for women and young people residing in the Flamington housing state. In October 2018, Co-Horizon was called, originally, to co-design an employment program with women residing in the housing state. And one of the first things we did was to try and map the world to power. So we used the voice of design to understand who had a stake in the process and how would they would be engaged in that process. So we had Co-Horizon acting as the voice of design in that particular case. Many Valley City Council who funded House Flamington Works, they were our voice of intent. Our voice of lived expertise were the women from Flamington housing state and our voice of technical expertise for other employment providers that existed in the ecosystem. So by mapping roles to power, we then tried to identify ways we could power share. And the most clear way was to actually embed the voice of lived expertise into our voice of intent. And so what happened was Flamington Works actually recruited project support offices for the duration of the project from community to participate in designing. And how that's different from other co-design is actually brought a different level of authority and decision making power to their role. They quite literally had a position description that listed how and where they influenced this process as opposed to, in some cases, where collaboration with community can feel a bit consultative because they're called into the workshop office as opposed to participating in a process from start to finish. So that was our community co-leadership approach. And that's a leadership approach that we currently undertake. We've been working with Flamington Works for the last three years now, I guess, and we've now embedded that co-leadership approach into evaluation work. We've recently helped them evaluate their model as they move into their new funding rounds with the department. And it's proven to be a really effective way of trying to check some of that power that comes with engaging lived expertise without really engaging and giving them decision making power in the process. Other ways that we tried to tackle power was for establishing a working culture using co-developed ways of working. So it wasn't just about recruiting lived expertise into the process. We actually had to have very clear ways of working where we could meet each other at a better middle ground. And so that was co-developed and tried and tested. It gave us a way to check in with ourselves and have a selection point. And that was our method of interrogating our process, which I mentioned earlier. We were also able to create accessible and culturally appropriate. But I love it when you find a typo. It's got to be one. Now I found it culturally appropriate data collection analysis tools. And we were able to do that by working with the project offices throughout the process to then actually scale up some of the tools for use. So at Clear Horizon we used Most Significant Change quite often. And we were able to scale out an interview guide that drew on the Most Significant Change tool such that we conducted about 10 interviews ourselves. And the projects were thought offices but then able to scale it out to community and increase it by fivefold based on how the tool is constructed and how we applied the logic in a way that makes the most sense. But the most important mechanism there would have to be the embedded community feedback mechanism. And so that's again recognising that when we identify those voices of power by moving a voice of lived expertise into a role of a voice of intent, we actually lost some of that accountability at the table that existed outside of the process. So it's recognising that there are more and other people from community in this case who would be impacted and would participate in such an employment programme who needed to be represented and their views had to be accountable. And so by having an embedded community feedback mechanism that extended beyond our work with our project support offices, we're able to expand out and get more voices of lived expertise for the table. All right, so that was a run for that particular case study. We're about to move into a collaborative effort that we're going to do in the breakout. But before I get there, Jo, is there anything you wanted to add to the content we've moved through today? No, I think so. Let's jump into the breakout rooms and there's a couple of questions in the question bank already that we'll get to when we come back from the breakout room but add any more that you have in there as we go. All right, so what are we going to do in our breakout? We've talked a lot about what has been happening for us in the past and what we need to think about. Now we want to try and bring that to the table so we can learn from each other. Like Jo said, many people have done this before us and by no means are we experts, we're the only experts in this space. So in our breakout groups, we'd like to work on identifying how we might address power before, during and after an evaluation, drawing on the experiences and expertise of everybody else in this workshop today. So we've got these little frames in there and the frames divided into before, during and after an evaluation. I encourage you to just use the post-its to draw out ideas that you might have. And once you've been able to populate the frame, you will notice there are some gold stars in the box on the top right-hand side of the screen. We'd like everyone to just pick up three stars maybe and to identify which of these ideas that you'd like to see in both their work and other work moving forward. So I can see people are already getting started. Jo, what's already used to get us into a breakout? I sat in on some really interesting conversations. I was just, there are a couple of things I'm like slowly working my way across the board. There's a couple of things in the question bank that are in there, which we can start answering. But if there's anything else that anybody wants to add, feel free to pop a question in there or to put something in the chat. We've got about 10 minutes to talk through some things. I do have an answer ready to go to both of the questions, but Shani, did you want to go first on either of them? I'll go jump in. I'm still going to that. I think the reason I have one ready to go on the blue one that's in there about evaluating a project and whether we should acknowledge power dynamics in a report and how you go about doing that. Have an answer of mine because we just discussed that in one of the breakout rooms that I was in. And in my mind, I see that as much like you would acknowledge methodological constraints or differences in any kind of approach that you use. It's not unusual in a quantitative paper to say there was a sampling bias with this survey that we used. I think similarly acknowledging that in the same way in a report can be really helpful because I think one of the, you know, I'll bang on about this but I think one of the most insidious ways that power is used is by not being transparent and keeping some things hidden. And so the more that you can put out there openly to people so that they're making decisions off the basis of true and accurate and full information to them. The better the outcome you're going to get and the more power equitable within that context of nothing being perfect and that you're going to get. And Shani, did you have anything else you wanted to add to that one. Yeah, I definitely would agree that acknowledging power is so integral to what we do and we actually talked about the concept of like what's the end game like what are we acknowledging power to begin with. And in my head there are two answers I can answer with my valleys I can answer with slightly more pragmatic consultant in me. And, you know, and the answer is quite literally addressing power we're often continuing to let these blind spots perpetuate or we're getting over can actually see entire processes fall apart and evaluations discontinued because power, the lack of addressing power has actually resulted in really dangerous and harmful situation so acknowledging power is important and therefore I think it's important to build that culture of embedding that into a reporting ways of doing this. So we're seeing more roots being created and other kinds of mechanisms to measure progress mapping against where we sit in some of the things we say that's a different. It's a type of acknowledging power it's about accountability to the kind of processes that we're undertaking so you can start to look at some of those mechanisms to maybe evaluate to some extent the process that it adopted to so it's about being able to say okay, we've actually you know, a very easy one to pull back on but by no means perfect is the IP to spectrum like how much of, if we're saying we didn't participate your values where do we actually sit in that spectrum how how far have we gone in embedding certain principles and style ways of working so that could be a quick way of trying to find a couple of words that exist they're creating new. I definitely think there's a value to thinking more about how we met power and power sharing in process so that could be a space that someone chooses to continue investing some thought and effort into. Thanks, Shani. I might go to the other one that's in there now which was about providing a bit of an example about the distinction between those faces of power. So one that I might use because I think it's a tangible one that we can probably all relate to is, I'll use the example of something like terms of reference that might be established for an advisory group. So in terms of the the visible power that comes with that the terms of reference are the visible power in and of themselves they're the terms of engagement what are the rules that this group has made for how decisions are going to be made for who's there and all of that kind of thing. The hidden power that sits under the terms of references who's determined that the terms of references needed who's written and developed those terms of reference. And who's made the ultimate decision about within those terms who gets to make a decision so that's then that kind of hidden power that sits behind that with the visible being the terms of reference. And so the invisible power is then the bit that we probably don't get to most of the time is thinking about how will we even landed at this kind of social point that terms of reference are the thing that guides how a group works in that formalized structure of having you know that three four page document that we all work through and agree. And how have we determined that having a kind of hierarchical committee structure that relies on terms of reference is the way that decision making needs to be made in this project are there other ways that we could think about distributing power, and decision making through an organization that might be more networked or collaborative than some of those processes imply. So I thought that was maybe a practical example to try and explain something that can be really quite academic and abstract. Yeah. Was there anything else that you wanted to add on that one. I think it was great. I was listening to you. Yeah, I think it's something I've become really interested in the projects that I'm working at the moment because I do think the idea of the governance structures that we use around projects are an expression of power and often tie up with the concepts of privilege so you know if you set up a project with an advisory board. You then tie yourself into which I think is great in abstract but then you tie yourself into finding the eight to 10 people who are representative of all of the voices that you want to be involved in that project. And then you put the power on them to make decisions on behalf of the community and you also put the stress on them to feel like they're making the right decisions on behalf of the whole community that they're representing. And you tend to get a certain group of people who have the capacity to navigate their way through traditional power structures like being on advisory boards and that kind of thing. So, I, yeah, I'm really interested in this idea of like how do we do project governance in a way that in and of itself is power cognizant. And again this is something that I could probably run about for a lot longer than the four minutes we've got left in this session. I just wanted to add one thing to that, Joe, because I think it really raises that question of the other dimension of personal and personal power and how personal power then plays a role in these spaces as well. So sometimes even there was a well intentioned processes create platforms and intending to be to diversify the voices making decisions at the table but then the makeup of those who's at that table as well can really impact how representative our unrepresentative decisions are. And I think there's that tension often with lived experience and being engaged in processes of having lived experience on table but then recognizing that sometimes certain advocates are able to take that on because they have more confidence in their personal power, but that might not necessarily reflect other views that are shared by slightly less engaged individuals who exist in the same communities as well. And that's something I grapple with a lot in my life. Absolutely too, like I'm fully aware of my privilege as a lived experience person. We got a couple of minutes I've noticed Kara's raised her hand so rather than me and you rambling on let's go to Kara. But look, I was just, this is the pragmatic evaluator in my me talking now and I think sometimes, sometimes we do have to balance what could be perceived as some pretty intense not enable gazing but getting down deep in the weeds versus just getting down to the job and the sorts of trade offs that we have to make and some of those advisory boards are put together to for efficiency. There's been a process where where people have been selected and unless it's sort of like a playing favorite shoulder tapping exercise, those advisory boards have been put in for a good reason actually to acknowledge the busyness of other people. So I guess I'm just saying that. Yes, we need to think about that but we also need to balance that with why were these put in place. What value are they adding and you know sometimes if you've got a little budget but you're trying to get diverse views. That's a really great way to go. Yeah. Yeah, I did and I didn't mean to be totally negative. I think no no right you know what I mean like sometimes we can, you know, as evaluators sometimes we can really go to town and go down. I think I'm always in that sweet spot of trying to be pragmatic but also think about what could we be doing doing differently and absolutely appreciate that sometimes we just have to be pragmatic and get on with it. I think there probably is scope and I would say even in my own practice sometimes to be pushing back a little bit and going, Well, how do we build the time how do we build the budget but I appreciate that that's not always something that can actually be done and I certainly look at my own practice and go well that didn't happen there. And I was going to say something else but it's completely gone and I've noticed that people also has their hand up so last question before we wrap up. It's probably more of a comment than question but I think it's kind of making me think of who we are doing the evaluation for, because often the evaluation is not necessarily for program beneficiaries or end users often the end users are for clients for donors for people who are investing the money in the process and I think it kind of problematizes the whole conceptualization of evaluation itself in a good way, not necessarily in a bad way but kind of thinking you know how do we and Shani and the group we were discussing a bit about core design as well. So it just kind of, you know, is something worth reflecting on as well in terms of the whole concept of evaluation and the purpose of it as well. Yeah, I agree and I think it comes back to and the other thing that I just remembered as you were talking that I meant to say. It coming back to just being transparent about that transparent about why a project's being funded about what it aims to do about how people are involved and about the attempts that were made to deal with to navigate power as France said before. Even if you didn't get a perfect so I think it's much better to be open about where you made mistakes than it is to try and pretend that they never happened in the first place, which is in the spirit of evaluation anyway so you know I'm probably preaching to the choir on that. Sorry, I talked again. Shani, is there anything else that you wanted to add? I think that's great. There was something we talked about in one of the other groups I was very bad at getting across the groups and sorry but it was the idea of okay so you know you've got to do something and go as opposed to not but then what happens if you have done more harm than good as well and it's a whole notion of falling forward and I think that's why understanding how we address power before during but after evaluations is very important. So if we haven't got it right how do we do it in a way or how do we learn in a way that doesn't undermine the experiences of those who might have found that experience difficult and I think that's something we still quite haven't worked out because it's technically a scope of the work that we do but it shouldn't be. And so I think that's probably my challenge to everyone like how do we get better at embedding falling forward into our business as usual. Great. Well that's it that's all the time that we've got because we've already run over by two minutes. It's been lovely talking to you all about this issue that I know is really passionate to our hearts and hope that we conveyed that to you and we learned some things from you along the way to in the breakout I just want to say thank you to Bill for being here and doing the tech side of things and the AES for this sprint this week. And as I put in the comment will organize to send around the mirror link so that you'll have access to the points that you've put in there and the resources and the diagrams and that after the end of this session. Thanks very much.