Innovation Pitch Sessions

What could this idea change?

It gives the club a clearer view of people's experiences before decisions are made, including feedback that informal conversations can miss.

It may suit: The people whose experience the club needs to understand, especially voices that are not often heard.

A simple way to start

1. Define one challenge from evidence, state the outcome sought, exclusions, available resources, pilot size, decision date and what would make a proposal ineligible. Who could lead it: Board sponsor and challenge owner
2. Publish the criteria and participation terms, offer a one-page proposal template, coaching and accessible written, spoken or recorded submission routes without requiring polished presentation skills. Who could lead it: Pitch coordinator and accessibility contact
3. Check eligibility, conflicts, partner authority, safeguarding, legal or financial concerns and likely capacity before the session, referring specialist questions rather than scoring them informally. Who could lead it: Governance checker and secretary
4. Run short pitches with equal time, structured questions, no audience popularity vote and the same evidence-based rubric for live, written and recorded proposals. Who could lead it: Independent chair and assessment panel
5. Record proceed-to-pilot, revise, hold, refer or decline decisions with reasons, conditions, resource limits and conflicts; then give every proponent a respectful response. Who could lead it: Authorised decision panel

What should we look for?

• After 90 days, review Innovation Pitch Sessions. Look for representative participation, published themes, named actions and a report back on what changed, what did not and why.
• Every eligible proposal is assessed against the published criteria, receives a recorded decision and receives feedback within the promised time.
• Selected pilots have a sponsor, bounded resources, partner authority, risk controls, measures and a 90-day decision date before work begins.
• Participation and selection evidence shows that format, confidence, location or existing office did not become an unstated criterion.
• Undeclared conflicts, unauthorised promises, lost proposals, ungoverned expenditure and pilots continuing without review remain at zero.

Before we say yes

• Does it fit a real local need?
• Can people take part safely and fairly?
• Are the facts, permissions and Rotary branding right?
• Who will lead it, and when will we review it?