Convene the Convenors 2026: Conversations that matter

The afternoon followed the lifecycle of standards participation, from identifying new opportunities through to international influence, committee engagement, working group participation and consensus-building. The focus throughout was practical experience. Participants shared what had worked, what had been challenging and what others could learn from their own committee journeys.

From idea to international standard

The first discussion, led by Frank O’Connor, centred on the journey from identifying a need to developing an international work item proposal. Drawing on work under way within ISO/TC 283, Frank shared how an idea evolved into a proposal and the effort required to build support across multiple countries and stakeholders.

The discussion highlighted that progressing a new work item requires more than a good idea. Participants reflected on the importance of understanding the problem being addressed, engaging the right people early and developing a compelling case that resonates internationally. Time, resourcing and stakeholder support were all identified as common challenges.

Keeping people engaged

The second session, led by Kenneth Irons, focused on one of the most common questions facing committees: how do you keep people engaged when everyone is busy?

Participants explored what motivates involvement and what helps sustain participation over time. Several themes emerged, including the importance of purpose, meaningful contribution, visible progress and a sense of belonging. Kenneth spoke about participation being driven by people who already have demanding roles and still choose to contribute because they see value in the work.

Breakout discussions generated a wide range of practical insights. Participants emphasised the importance of regular communication, wider engagement beyond the committee table and ensuring people understand the impact of their contribution. One group observed that members are more likely to stay involved when they can see how their expertise contributes to real-world outcomes. Others highlighted the importance of maintaining a core group of active contributors while finding different ways for specialists to participate when needed.

Paul Barrett’s group noted that meaningful participation relies on ongoing communication, engagement beyond the committee itself and creating opportunities for wider community input. They also stressed the importance of recognising specialist expertise and ensuring members understand the impact they can have.

New Zealand at the international table

The international participation panel brought together Liz Kolster, Joanne Knight and Ann Smith to reflect on what happens when New Zealand takes part in international standards development.

A recurring theme was the value of relationships. Joanne shared examples from the information security standards community where collaboration with countries such as Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom helps strengthen New Zealand’s voice and influence. She reflected on the way smaller countries can achieve meaningful outcomes through cooperation and shared interests.

Ann highlighted the importance of participation itself. She noted that submitting comments is only part of the process. Being present to explain, discuss and advocate for those comments often determines whether they make it into the final standard. Her committee has achieved a strong success rate in having New Zealand contributions accepted internationally, reinforcing the value of active engagement.

The discussion also explored the changing international environment. Panellists shared examples of geopolitical influences becoming increasingly visible in technical discussions, particularly in areas such as climate change, data governance and digital technologies. Despite these challenges, participants agreed that New Zealand’s reputation for technical expertise, constructive engagement and practical problem-solving continues to be highly valued internationally.

 

 

 

 

Working groups, expertise and participation

The conversation then turned to expertise and how committees connect with the people needed to contribute effectively.

Mark Begbie and Richard Murcott shared experiences from their own committees, examining the realities of attracting expertise, supporting working group participation and maintaining engagement over time. They also discussed the opportunities emerging through changes to the ISO/IEC Directives and the growing need for more flexible participation pathways.

Participants described approaches for identifying expertise, including personal networks, targeted outreach and inviting specialists to contribute to specific pieces of work. Several groups discussed the challenge of balancing formal committee membership with the need to bring in highly specialised knowledge for particular projects or working groups.

One discussion focused on the idea that expertise should not be limited to those already sitting around the table. Participants shared examples of introducing observers, engaging external experts and reaching beyond existing networks to identify people with valuable knowledge to contribute. Many felt there was scope to continue exploring how committees can make participation easier for experts with limited time.

The session also highlighted the importance of stewardship. Richard reflected on long-term experiences within the geographic information community and the role that leadership, vision and institutional support play in sustaining participation over time. His observations reinforced the need to continually build capability and create pathways for future contributors.

Consensus in practice

The final discussion brought everyone back to one of the foundations of standards development: consensus.

Participants shared practical examples of how they navigate disagreement, manage competing perspectives and work towards committee positions that can be collectively supported. Rather than viewing consensus as complete agreement, most participants described it as a process built on listening, transparency, evidence and trust.

Several useful techniques were shared. Stephen McPhee described using the Delphi method to help committees work through difficult issues by collecting anonymous responses and gradually narrowing areas of disagreement. Others described the importance of creating an environment where all members feel comfortable contributing, particularly those who may not naturally speak first.

One message came through consistently: consensus takes work. It depends on creating opportunities for people to be heard, working through concerns openly and ensuring that committee members understand how decisions are reached. Participants spoke about the value of clear processes, constructive discussion and giving people confidence in both the journey and the outcome.

Looking ahead

Across every discussion topic, one message stood out: the strength of New Zealand’s standards system comes from the people who contribute their expertise, experience and time.

Whether the conversation focused on new work items, international participation, expertise, working groups or consensus, participants repeatedly returned to the importance of engagement, collaboration and learning from one another. The event provided an opportunity to step outside individual committee activities and share ideas across the wider mirror committee community.

The breadth of experience in the room demonstrated the depth of expertise contributing to New Zealand’s participation in international standards development. Convene the Convenors continues to provide a valuable forum for strengthening those connections and supporting the people who help shape standards on behalf of New Zealand.