Table 1.

Evaluation of the SEA Change Portland Process according to steering group and community task team members

	Systems thinking	Collective impact	ABCD
Significant events in process	• Group model building/systems mapping workshops • The ‘organic evolution’ of SEA Change Portland across all areas and levels of the system	• Information sharing within the steering group via online platform (Zoho) • Engaging Department of Health • Formation of relationship with Deakin University and topic experts • Contribution to development and adherence to applicable Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan • Commitment of varied local agencies to participation in a steering group collaborative • Regular steering group meetings • Steering group action planning	• ABCD workshop with steering group and community leaders • Connecting people • Formation of community task teams • Steering group action planning
Positive factors impacting process	• Defining the problem with the community through group model building/ systems mapping workshops • Having a diverse steering group promoting direct community links	• Strong organisational and personal steering group relationships • Leverage of topic experts (Deakin University, The Collaboration for Impact and Peter Kenyan) • Trust and support between collaborating agencies • Equitable steering group dynamic	• Strong community engagement and recruitment • Social media presence (radio program) • ABCD workshops – the ABCD approach as a new and different approach to engaging community • Health promotion workers having existing strong relationships with community members
Negative factors impacting process	• Poor community engagement at some levels of the system – attributed to limited interest, capacity, time and miscommunication of the approach. • Limited diversity in attendance at community group model building/ systems mapping workshops • Lack of referral throughout the process to community created resources, e.g. the systems map	• Miscommunication and confusion over perception of ownership within steering group organisations • Misaligning thought processes of steering group members • A lack of support from within steering group agencies given to those working at ground level • Targeted engagement efforts – efforts could have been less focused upon agency and more on community change agents over all levels of the system Process of voting on the SEA Change Portland name was dominated by larger steering group organisations without wider consultation – steering group members voted with their respective agencies • Communication issues in development of terms of reference and media policy	• Timing of the ABCD workshop – this could’ve been more effective had it occurred earlier, in conjunction with the systems mapping workshops • Systems mapping workshop content could have been more ‘action orientated’, rather than solely focused on problem definition • Systems mapping workshop content was too heavy for some community members present with low health literacy, no additional efforts were undertaken to engage these groups through a different process
Triggers for involvement in process	• Development of a briefing paper and systems map highlighting a complex problem • Understanding of the problem for the system as a whole • Identifying a new approach towards obesity prevention is required	• Through personal and organisational relationships • Understanding of the value in collective impact	• Providing community members specific prompts to action • ABCD workshops • Facebook, webpage and radio program • Identifying opportunity for asset based involvement • Positive influence of community members already engaged
Specific areas of concern regarding the process	• True alignment with systems thinking – the community systems map is not being used effectively	• Disproportional access to knowledge and resources between the steering group, organisations and individuals • Inappropriate information sharing missing the opportunity to enhance community engagement	• Inconsistent media representation of SEA Change Portland • Community ownership of the program is not yet at the desired level • Has community capacity been built enough for ‘doing’?

ABCD Asset based community development