Member Experience Audit

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. Agree the decisions the audit will inform, map the member journey and existing evidence, identify gaps and write explicit exclusions for individual assessment and sensitive case investigation. Who could lead it: Board sponsor and audit lead
2. Design a participation and evidence plan that reaches different experiences through records, survey, interview, workshop and observation only where each method adds necessary evidence. Who could lead it: Audit lead and inclusion adviser
3. Test questions, notices, consent, privacy, small-number suppression, data access and referral with a small varied group, removing fields or questions that do not inform a decision. Who could lead it: Privacy reviewer and member testers
4. Collect the minimum evidence through accessible channels, monitor who is missing, keep identifiers separate, transfer complaints safely and maintain an evidence and access register. Who could lead it: Audit team and data custodian
5. Analyse patterns, journey breakpoints, contrary evidence and small-group risks; test interpretations with participants and an independent challenger before selecting no more than two priorities. Who could lead it: Audit lead and independent reviewer

What should we look for?

• After 90 days, review Member Experience Audit. Look for representative participation, published themes, named actions and a report back on what changed, what did not and why.
• The audit can account for who participated, who may be missing and which findings are strong, tentative or unsafe to break down.
• Every selected priority links to evidence from more than one source and has an owner, baseline, 90-day action and repeat measure.
• Members receive a de-identified account of what was learned, what the club will change, what it will not change and why.
• Individual ranking, unauthorised access, identifiable small-group reporting, lost complaints and retained data beyond the promised period 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?