Make participation concrete
Publish the challenge, tools and contribution briefs. Fix onboarding, member work and organiser queues.
Gate: a visitor can find a useful tool and a bounded contribution.
Build. Test.
Show what changed.
A founder-led programme, beginning with duplicate reporting in residential aged care. Windows start when the people and resources are committed.
Current status: tools and a synthetic workflow are available. Provider recruitment, operational baseline, field testing and independent results remain outstanding.
Establish a provider baseline
Recruit one residential service; agree sponsor, workflow, staff time, measurement and information handling.
Gate: committed capacity and local approvals. No provider is confirmed yet.
Demonstrate and test
Walk through synthetic information, test usability, then consider an authorised shadow trial.
Gate: traceability, reliable fallback and no critical defects.
Publish an honest result
Review effort, completeness, follow-through, staff experience and full costs. Release a reusable pack.
Gate: independently reviewed claims and publication permissions.
Test transferability
Repeat in another team or service; improve actual interfaces; assess a second workflow.
Gate: reproducible improvement and affordable support.
Build the policy proposition
Bring evaluated models and costed options to peak bodies and government. Demonstrate aggregate reporting and funding simulations.
Gate: evidence supports the scale proposed; any live funding decision needs lawful authorisation.
Capacity to secure
| Role | Time | Responsibility |
|---|---|---|
| Founder | 8–12 h/week | Priorities, recruitment and decisions |
| Engineer | 8–12 h/week | Website and smallest demonstration integration |
| UX / community contributor | 4–6 h/week | Onboarding, resources and support |
| Provider improvement lead | 2–4 h/week during active work | Baseline and team coordination |
| Finance / evaluation reviewer | 1–2 h/week at key stages | Costs and independent scrutiny |
| People, families and workers | Short supported sessions | Design priorities and usability |
Cost the whole programme.
Keep movement operations and provider implementation budgets separate. Include hosting/API use, participant support, accessibility, integration, licensing, training/backfill, evaluation and support. Record donated time and historic software investment separately. No savings, grants or sponsorship are assumed.
How we will work
One active project draws on six perspectives. Every fortnight, publish what changed, the evidence, costs, unresolved questions and the next decision. Accepted contributions receive feedback and permission-based attribution. Provider procurement and evaluation disclose the convenor’s software interests. General tools and membership remain free. Sponsored challenges or implementation support would require transparent terms and conflict management.