 So we currently have, the people that are able to supply some hotspots put up their names. Thank you so much for those who are unable to. We have Audrey, plus three others, Lucera and Mel and David over here. So for the hotspots, we'll share passwords. Yeah, just ask if you are a nearby friendly possible providing person. And we'll look at you in a minute as soon as you're back. I'm going to talk about PEO's network facilitation practice. And before I go into that, I would like to talk a bit about PEO's culture. So I would like to share with you PEO's cultures and values that correspond to the model, PEO network, and multi-stakehold collaboration meetings. This picture represents the working culture in editing our team and something we would like to develop with the CDS service and not with the wider state. The notion of how small impact can eventually transform into significant change. We believe that if party motivated and open-minded CDS servants truly believe in what they're doing, then they will do a better job and feel responsible for positive changes that help create. PEO network was established to achieve the goals of open government and facilitate collaboration across ministries and the wider state holder. And you can take a closer look at PEO's goal that we met out last year. So we made out is to build trust between citizens and the government. And PEO's is set up to facilitate and reinforce the trust between these two state holders. And also, we would like to cultivate the CDS society organizations and we see them by raising awareness on public issues and empower them to participate in public affairs. And also, it's really important in order to achieve this, it's important to streamline CDS servants' work flow so they can get on board and waiting to work towards these goals. Also, because we are a digital innovation team, so it's also important for us to promote the value of digital service and encourage CDS servants to be innovative and not afraid of failure. I will touch on this bit later on. So one of Audrey's agenda is open government. And open government has four pillars, transparency, participation, accountability, inclusion. This may sound really vague and grand. So I will break that down into different layers so it can be easy to understand. So the concept is open government. And if we have a concept, we need people to work towards that. So those people are presentation officers. And we have those people, we need approaches to facilitate the initiative. So the approach is collaborative meetings. And the method we use is anything that is human centered, that's something that we would like to work towards. So what is your network? As I mentioned earlier, we would like to facilitate PO Network to change the culture within the government to cut process cycles. The history background of PO Network is groups from different ministries of the Serious Service were trained to tackle issues and policies that were raised by citizens and Serious Service on the Taiwanese television website called JOIN. However, there was a clear need to have a fixed group of Serious Service trained to better facilitate communication and collaboration with and across the 32 ministries. And since October 1st in 2016, when Audrey Tommy came to the digital ministry, she helped form PIDIS and COPE for passionate Serious Service who are familiar with planning, communication, and digital tools to be part of the PIDIS Group Related Co-Disk Group with the Participation Officers Network. So what's the role of the TO? They are a mediator, they are a translator, they are also a diverse. They work on internal and external collaborative meetings. They are around 40 issues have been worked on since the beginning of 2017 until now. But what are the problems that we are trying to solve? Most important challenges we have right now are the ones that don't have a single owner. Serious Service tend to answer questions rather than solve problems when facing issues that need to be solved across ministries. And you never change things by finding the existing reality. To change something, we need to build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. So the new model that we are trying to build is the multi-state hologramment system. It's a service for a service. And failure should be allowed and be part of the culture as I mentioned earlier. We would like to try and we may success, we may fail but if we fail, we learn from it. And there are some key learnings that we have so far that can be transformed into tips. So the first one is achieving sustainable mechanisms through institutionalization. This is the direction of implementing the TO Network within the executive union and subordinate agencies. And you can see the dates over here. Because we had this idea in late 2016. After a year? Yeah. And after a year we have these directions. So you may find it interesting because sometimes we may have direction first then it will lead us towards some practice. But the reason why we have this after one year is because, as I mentioned earlier open boundary is a very general concept we need to have experiment, we need to have practice to know what kind of our open boundary law and what kind of approaches is suitable for us. So we started experimenting different approaches to create the framework, the approaches with the senior servants and then we find a more suitable way to collaborate among the senior servants so we do wider stakeholders. Then based on those practices and learnings we then be able to launch this direction after one year. And also the reason why, and also I think the benefit of having the direction being tested and experiment is it will lead the later on process more sustainable. And the second thing is it's very important to embrace inclusion and diversify evidence including human needs. So we use to use the term users but since we are aware of we don't see citizens as consumers, they are citizens so then we add citizens onto the diagram. But sometimes we still need to think the public service that we provide sometimes we still need to think citizens as customers but we need to have the awareness that when we need to facilitate the conversation and see them as users, when do we need to see them as citizens. So the process that we are trying to experiment is in comparison to the whole process. So the whole process is politicians and civil servants come out as policy then it will follow by process, system development, maintenance and regulation. And sometimes citizens are the last person, last people who know the regulation. And then if people are not happy about that they may call or protest to occupy the parliament and after that, because there are lots of resources being invested in that and maybe the parliament cannot do anything with that so it may go nowhere. And what we want to test is we want to bring users and citizens with me in the beginning so we understand them better and we bring the service and policy around that. Sorry. Yeah, I just wanted to ask about the use of the term citizen. Do you find that it may be limited? Just like user was limited to consumers. Citizen may not encompass every person that's in Taiwan right, individuals or folks of the fourth. So is citizen a limited word too? Yes. So in representative democracy, exactly as you said, there are no motors but in the e-participation system that is relaxed a lot. There's no age restriction. There is actually only the restriction that you have to have a valid pessimism number and a email. And so even if you're not a citizen, you only have a resident certificate or you could have a working visa for whatever as long as you can claim that you're a stakeholder, you're actually defined as a kind of wider citizen in our participatory budgeting, our other newer innovations also whereas seeing the age limit being moved to like 18 or 16 or whatever. So a definition of citizen expanding in both nationalities and age groups but of course the ability for like president to self test stays untouched. So because you asked this question, so this is the citizen that I'm referring to. So because we talk about collaboration and so we need to define who are the people who is going to join the collaboration and what kind of collaboration that we're expecting. So I think this diagram really extends our mindset really well. So we work with each other rather than we work for or for or to somebody. And we don't choose the service. We create the policy and service together and we all serve certain people. We are all facilitators that we facilitate each other and we are all able to participate in certain things and our relationship is dependent or independent. I think this is the idea of what I mean citizen. So because we would like to be inclusive and respect diversity. So we listen to users and citizens voice in the beginning before we do everything and it's also very important to take it to the way that people are comfortable with. Some people are comfortable with digital tools. Some people are comfortable with drawings. Some people are comfortable with writing down their opinions. So we have also tested different ways for people to give their voice and make sure that we can be inclusive as much as we can. Also if there are people, if there are marginalized groups that we can fairly hear their voice from the central government, we go to them and visit to their voice. And the third key learning is making sure people are on the same page. So as Audrey mentioned earlier, we do real-time backfitting feelings and ideas as a communication and we check people's interpretation as well. And I think... That's a tumble. Yes. So this is the tumble that we found out the conversation between the fishermen, tourist interest trees and environmental groups about if we should ban certain fishing areas in the remote island, which is part of Taiwan. And we used two different... We actually did an experiment here. We did a space design because there are lots of protesters from local and they would like to really give their voice. But there is a concern that not everyone is able to stay throughout the whole consultation or the diversion process and this may... We only allow one from each group anyway, so... Yeah, so we have another room by streaming another room which has representatives from different stakeholders and Audrey acts like an expert. To explain all the steps with different stakeholders in the bigger room. And it's very important to check all of the information real-time because when people express their views the language they use can be interpreted into many ways. So if we can write it down and double check with the person we can make sure that we get all the things right because getting things right collecting data in the beginning if we collect all the things right I think it will lead us to a better and more solid direction. So this is the outcome where we met how different problem statements solutions that respond to those problem statements and that. So this is kind of like a context of the issue where we can all see where we are coming from from a different perspective. And this is a very important way to show we have shared vision we have shared concerns and there are perspectives that personally I don't know before but because of the process of making all different information we are able to take different sides easily. And the first thing is creating a health environment for constructive discussion. This is like the room I mentioned earlier. This is the town hall the larger room that I'm in in Kernel so everybody can protest or whatever but it doesn't disrupt the smaller room conversation because everybody wants to watch the movie anyway so the protestor would get maybe 10 minutes and everybody would just say because whatever they say would be put into the context and then fed back into the smaller room so they do get their voice heard but they cannot in any way disrupt the conversation in the smaller room So I will talk about our next challenge and I think there are interesting questions that we are thinking about so how might we bridge those outcomes from collaborative meetings with policy-making decisions and also when policies are being basically formed how might we meaningfully include and collaborate with citizens at decision-making and the different stages So as I mentioned the stages before it's very easy to include different stakeholders' voice during the discovery stage like data collection and data structuring and cooperation development part but once we are agreeing with certain directions that we are going towards we are going to design specific policies or services that respond to those problems sometimes it take over by the smaller groups in the government where wider cities may not be able to join the process of decision-making and delivery and I think this can be like a common sense for lots of people seeing like that's why we are professionals but there is also another debate saying it's not possible can we be more open for more ideas can we create the future all together like the diagram I showed on the cities inside where all where all facilitators facilitate our future together and the last thing is how might we major impactively as somebody already mentioned and actually have a slide I skip that but since there are people mentioned over here I will open it up so this is our possible direction so to address major impact so the possible direction is a major impact by an account of policy-making there are different stages and at different stages as the stages framework I mentioned earlier we will produce different outcomes different documents at different stages and all of the things that we do must respond to transparency participation, accountability and inclusion and we can see at different stages based on our outcome at what level we are responding to those peers then we will be able to once we have all of the documents being accumulated step by step from different stages we will be able to see the impact itself so this document because it's based on the timeline so we can see the whole transparency of policy-making process and we were debating what's the best way to show impact but maybe just by showing the track, the rotate of what we have achieved is the way to show impact there are three levels so this is still a prototype because this is not like stepping stone levels because for each document we may have different criteria to those outcomes for example we have transcripts from different meanings and we have co-creation outcomes and we cannot use the same criteria to measure these things so we need to have specific levels particular towards those outcomes but we haven't figured this out yet probably speaking in the letter of participation it's non-participation tokenism and system power this is like standard public administration text so what we're trying to do is that we're distilling pillars into something like the letter of participation so that people can objectively judge whether some part of it is just token participation and some part of it is actually partnership and system control and each part would have its own APIs and we're developing this by our own but also internationally but this is of course a active research topic I think the entire government partnership is focusing on this problem so we're also using international metrics where it already exists and to invent new ones for it there are some other info in the slide there which we also have a headquarter that accumulates our toolkit training materials and a list of other materials from across the world and also there is an article about a brief introduction on the Keel Network so Keel Network and the stakeholder collaboration workshop we would like to use these approaches to create alternatives for civic participation and opportunities for collaboration across the government and onto wider stakeholders people can have another opinion to have a say apart from voting, protesting on street or making polarized conversations on the internet so I think the most important thing that we always embrace in our mind is government need to trust citizens first Thank you Thank you very much for your lunch and so for this section I would encourage all of you have some experience with this facilitation anyway so before lunch for 20 minutes or so we see whatever facilitation method you're comfortable with to reflect what the current practice is and what are your reflections on the kind of work you do based on these provocations or inspirations and I think in terms of focus for the facility question I think two of the more significant things I was hearing and please go for you to add was how are currently measuring some of the plus, some of the successes what does it mean when something is a success because it's a category so what are the measures we currently and also in terms of process do you have any accounts of like what's been working for you in your field or like your network where you can see more participation in whatever sense so sharing that with the group we also have a group of three currently I would want to join but I am just going to be setting up some food in preparation for lunch so if there's a six person group over here can we have one person come over and join there so oh great sure whatever you're sounds good so let's take 15 minutes and then group