E-170 · Detailed guide · Theme 2

Club Improvement Hackathon

Use Club Improvement Hackathon to give members a safe, visible route for ideas and concerns to lead to an answer or improvement.

Where this idea came from

Playbook entry: E-170 · Club Improvement Hackathon
Theme: Theme 2: Engagement & Belonging · Subtheme 10: Feedback, Voice & Improvement
Source material: Current playbook index title and category plus an internally authored detailed-guide draft

Initiative-specific development wave

How this draft was developed

These sources support general principles for feedback, voice and improvement, accessibility, privacy, safety and responsible governance; they are not an endorsement of the named Club Improvement Hackathon, a finding that it suits any club or approval of its local design.

Primary references consulted

Engage emerging leaders (Rotary International)
Used for: Rotary encourages clubs to ask members what they want, take suggestions seriously, assess club health, support new leaders and use deliberate planning to improve the member experience.
Community Engagement Charter Tool - Types of Engagement - Workshops (PlanSA, Government of South Australia)
Used for: Well-designed workshops use clear objectives, skilled facilitation, structured participation, outcome records and a feedback route that explains how input affected decisions.
Hosting accessible and inclusive in-person meetings and events (Australian Human Rights Commission)
Used for: Inclusive events require accessible invitations, venues, transport, formats, technology, activities, adjustments and a clear contact for participant requirements.
Chapter 3: APP 3 Collection of solicited personal information (Office of the Australian Information Commissioner)
Used for: Personal-information collection should be lawful, fair, proportionate and minimised, with additional controls for sensitive information; clubs must confirm how privacy law applies to them.

Candidate District material

No candidate local guide was used for this version. The current initiative identity and the attributed primary references remain separate.

Theme 2 source-assurance wave

What has been checked

4 current primary pages used by this guide were reopened on 9 August 2026.
4 attributed source claim(s) were mapped to their bounded use in this initiative.
Candidate District material remains separate and does not establish this result.

See each source's scope and limit

Engage Emerging Leaders
Supports: Member-centred discovery, mentoring, feedback, emerging-leader support and club-health review principles during renewal.
Does not establish: That a person is ready for office, should be selected, has consented to a role or that a proposed renewal pathway will work locally.
Community Engagement Charter Tool - Types of Engagement - Workshops
Supports: The 4 attributed Theme 2 claims attached to this source, limited to the implementation elements and supporting documents named in each initiative-level claim mapping.
Does not establish: The club's local need, legal position, capability, cost, safety, accessibility, suitability, likely effectiveness, authority to act or approval of the initiative.
Hosting accessible and inclusive in-person meetings and events
Supports: The 71 attributed Theme 2 claims attached to this source, limited to the implementation elements and supporting documents named in each initiative-level claim mapping.
Does not establish: Accessibility or inclusion conformance, the needs or preferences of any person or community, cultural authority to act, the suitability of a format or venue, or local approval.
Chapter 3: APP 3 Collection of solicited personal information
Supports: Data-minimisation, collection-purpose, proportionality and consent safeguards where the Privacy Act and APP 3 apply.
Does not establish: Whether a particular Rotary club is an APP entity or whether a proposed renewal survey, diagnostic or member record is lawful in its actual circumstances.

What still needs a person to confirm

Confirm the member, prospective-member, past-member and community needs, preferences and consent that the local design assumes.
Confirm which privacy, safeguarding, incorporated-association, charity, work health and safety, food, liquor, copyright, licensing, screening and other duties apply to the club and the activity.
Test accessibility, cultural safety, belonging, language and alternative participation routes with affected people and recognise First Nations cultural authority rather than inferring suitability from the guide.
Confirm every local fact, starting point, cost, role, current service contact, measure, stopping condition and platform capability before the club decides to proceed.
Confirm the authority and current scope of each primary source, resolve login-gated or moved-page references and keep any candidate District material attributed and unapproved until its source decision is made.

The source-verification release gate remains closed.

Checks still on hold

The Theme 2 index establishes this current code and title. No post-E-100 candidate record or unverified crosswalk has been used as delivery evidence for this draft.
No newly added or publicly writable Drive material has been used in this record. Existing Drive candidates remain attributed, unapproved and held from controlled-source status until integrity, ownership, crosswalk and human approval are resolved.
Before local delivery, the club must approve the decision, participant choices, access arrangements, privacy and records plan, role boundaries, referral or escalation routes, resource limit and the specific control for this boundary: it must not promise funding, authority or system access before approval.
Formal human review has not started. Club Improvement Hackathon remains an internal initiative-specific draft until the full corpus reaches the Full-Corpus Review Build and every source, editorial, local-suitability, accessibility and governance gate is resolved.

Still an internal draft: source interpretation, local suitability, accessibility, governance and editorial approval remain open checks.

Why a club might use this

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.

Use it when

Consider Club Improvement Hackathon when feedback is collected informally, repeatedly raised or rarely followed by a clear response.
A club where a defined member or volunteer experience question is genuinely open to change and the club can respond visibly within 30 days.
A club able to resource a one-day improvement sprint where mixed teams test club-process prototypes, name accountable owners and act on a tested prototype, evidence card and pilot owner.
A 90-day trial of Club Improvement Hackathon with a starting point, participant choices, practical controls and a scheduled continue, change or stop decision.

Before the club starts

A board-approved brief naming which prototype merits a 30-day trial, what is open or fixed, the local authority, resource ceiling and decision date.
A participant and access plan suited to a one-day improvement sprint where mixed teams test club-process prototypes, with plain-language information, voluntary choices and a non-digital or alternative route where needed.
Named delivery, evidence and governance owners, including a person authorised to pause Club Improvement Hackathon when the boundary or a safety control is not met.
A proportionate privacy, records, conflict, safeguarding, work-health-and-safety and referral check for the actual local design rather than an assumption that the initiative is low risk.

Capacity guide

Likely cost: Low; use existing survey, meeting and communication channels where possible.
Lead time: About two weeks for one complete listening and response cycle.
People: Three to five people, including a decision owner, feedback coordinator and action owners.

A useful club conversation

Questions worth asking

Whose experience, authority or safety could be missed if Club Improvement Hackathon is designed only by regular attendees or current leaders?
What would make a tested prototype, evidence card and pilot owner credible enough for a club decision, and what would still remain uncertain?
What local adaptation would still respect this boundary: It must not promise funding, authority or system access before approval.

Common traps

Trying Club Improvement Hackathon when A club that has no open decision, no response owner or no capacity to act on a tested prototype, evidence card and pilot owner.
Proceeding with Club Improvement Hackathon when Club Improvement Hackathon must not be used for complaints, safeguarding disclosures, disputes or personal support needs that require a private responsible process. It must not promise funding, authority or system access before approval.
Raw comments or scores expose a person or are reused beyond the stated purpose. — Minimise collection, restrict raw access, remove identifying combinations and publish only the approved de-identified result.

A practical 90-day path

Three milestones for Club Improvement Hackathon
When	What the club does	Evidence to keep
Days 1–30: Agree the local design	Write a decision brief for Club Improvement Hackathon: define which prototype merits a 30-day trial, the evidence already held, people affected, local authority, fixed constraints, success signals and stop conditions. Invite a varied participant mix, offer a private and non-digital route, explain what is open or fixed and ask about access requirements without collecting unnecessary personal information.	An approved decision and boundary brief A participant, access and information-handling plan
Days 31–60: Run and adjust the first version	Build and test a one-day improvement sprint where mixed teams test club-process prototypes; use the Hackathon Prototype Canvas, rehearse the boundary wording, check materials and confirm who can decide, refer, pause or close the activity. Facilitate the activity using equal contribution opportunities, a neutral chair, a separate route for sensitive matters and an agreed record of minority as well as majority views. Capture only the evidence needed to judge whether the trial achieved its stated aim: turn a known member frustration into a small testable improvement.	A tested hackathon prototype canvas and delivery pack A controlled activity and evidence record
Days 61–90: Review the evidence and decide	Analyse the evidence against the starting point, validate meaning with the people involved, record exceptions and unintended effects, and prepare a tested prototype, evidence card and pilot owner without overstating what the trial proves. Make and record the authorised continue, adapt, refer, scale or stop decision for Club Improvement Hackathon; explain the reasons, complete every action or referral, close unnecessary records and schedule the 90-day follow-up.	A tested prototype, evidence card and pilot owner A published response, closed action register and next-step decision

Fit it to the club you have

Small club

Use an external facilitator when relationships make candour or de-identification difficult, and suppress any result that could expose a person. Apply this specifically to Club Improvement Hackathon and a one-day improvement sprint where mixed teams test club-process prototypes.

Larger club

Use several small groups or channels with one core question, common capture rules and a single decision register. Apply this specifically to Club Improvement Hackathon and a one-day improvement sprint where mixed teams test club-process prototypes.

Regional or rural club

Offer telephone, paper and low-bandwidth input, allow for travel and seasonal work, and protect comments recognisable in a close community. Apply this specifically to Club Improvement Hackathon and a one-day improvement sprint where mixed teams test club-process prototypes.

Metropolitan, hybrid or online club

Offer several times, captions, keyboard-friendly materials and a non-digital equivalent, and compare participation gaps across channels. Apply this specifically to Club Improvement Hackathon and a one-day improvement sprint where mixed teams test club-process prototypes.

Learn, adapt and know when to stop

Evidence worth keeping

Club Improvement Hackathon produces a tested prototype, evidence card and pilot owner by the promised decision date, with evidence limitations and any participation gaps stated.
The intended range of member or volunteer experiences is represented, with participation gaps recorded rather than hidden.
Every accepted, declined or deferred idea receives a reason, owner and response date.

Change course when

The club proceeds with Club Improvement Hackathon without respecting this boundary: it must not promise funding, authority or system access before approval. — Name the boundary in the brief and participant information, give the delivery lead stop authority and move any excluded matter to its responsible process.
Confident, senior or majority voices become the finding. — Use individual reflection, structured turns, alternative input and a minority-view check before accepting themes.
The club invites input after the decision is effectively settled. — Publish the decision boundary before participation and cancel or reframe the activity if nothing material is open.

How to put it into practice

Detailed implementation steps for Club Improvement Hackathon
Step	Action	Suggested owner	Timing	Evidence or output
1	Write a decision brief for Club Improvement Hackathon: define which prototype merits a 30-day trial, the evidence already held, people affected, local authority, fixed constraints, success signals and stop conditions.	Board sponsor and member-experience lead	Week one	An approved decision and boundary brief
2	Invite a varied participant mix, offer a private and non-digital route, explain what is open or fixed and ask about access requirements without collecting unnecessary personal information.	Board sponsor and member-experience lead with the access and privacy contacts	Weeks one and two	A participant, access and information-handling plan
3	Build and test a one-day improvement sprint where mixed teams test club-process prototypes; use the Hackathon Prototype Canvas, rehearse the boundary wording, check materials and confirm who can decide, refer, pause or close the activity.	Independent facilitator and evidence custodian	Before the trial	A tested hackathon prototype canvas and delivery pack
4	Facilitate the activity using equal contribution opportunities, a neutral chair, a separate route for sensitive matters and an agreed record of minority as well as majority views. Capture only the evidence needed to judge whether the trial achieved its stated aim: turn a known member frustration into a small testable improvement.	Independent facilitator and evidence custodian	Weeks three to eight	A controlled activity and evidence record
5	Analyse the evidence against the starting point, validate meaning with the people involved, record exceptions and unintended effects, and prepare a tested prototype, evidence card and pilot owner without overstating what the trial proves.	Independent facilitator and evidence custodian and an independent reviewer	Within seven days of the trial	A tested prototype, evidence card and pilot owner
6	Make and record the authorised continue, adapt, refer, scale or stop decision for Club Improvement Hackathon; explain the reasons, complete every action or referral, close unnecessary records and schedule the 90-day follow-up.	Action owner and club secretary	By day 90	A published response, closed action register and next-step decision

Controls and safeguards

Check the idea with the people affected and confirm its purpose, owner and practical limits before putting it into use.
Protect member choice and privacy, make participation accessible, and do not infer belonging or satisfaction from attendance alone.
The club proceeds with Club Improvement Hackathon without respecting this boundary: it must not promise funding, authority or system access before approval. — Name the boundary in the brief and participant information, give the delivery lead stop authority and move any excluded matter to its responsible process.
Confident, senior or majority voices become the finding. — Use individual reflection, structured turns, alternative input and a minority-view check before accepting themes.
The club invites input after the decision is effectively settled. — Publish the decision boundary before participation and cancel or reframe the activity if nothing material is open.
Raw comments or scores expose a person or are reused beyond the stated purpose. — Minimise collection, restrict raw access, remove identifying combinations and publish only the approved de-identified result.
The Theme 2 index establishes this current code and title. No post-E-100 candidate record or unverified crosswalk has been used as delivery evidence for this draft.
No newly added or publicly writable Drive material has been used in this record. Existing Drive candidates remain attributed, unapproved and held from controlled-source status until integrity, ownership, crosswalk and human approval are resolved.
Before local delivery, the club must approve the decision, participant choices, access arrangements, privacy and records plan, role boundaries, referral or escalation routes, resource limit and the specific control for this boundary: it must not promise funding, authority or system access before approval.
Formal human review has not started. Club Improvement Hackathon remains an internal initiative-specific draft until the full corpus reaches the Full-Corpus Review Build and every source, editorial, local-suitability, accessibility and governance gate is resolved.

What to measure

After 90 days, review Club Improvement Hackathon. Look for representative participation, published themes, named actions and a report back on what changed, what did not and why.
Club Improvement Hackathon produces a tested prototype, evidence card and pilot owner by the promised decision date, with evidence limitations and any participation gaps stated.
The intended range of member or volunteer experiences is represented, with participation gaps recorded rather than hidden.
Every accepted, declined or deferred idea receives a reason, owner and response date.
Private matters, identifying detail and misleading claims of confidentiality remain outside published findings.

Follow-up: At the 90-day review, compare the recorded measures with the starting point, resolve the listed governance holds and tell participants whether Club Improvement Hackathon will change, continue or stop.

Made for this initiative

Tailored supporting documents

These working documents use the decisions, safeguards and evidence needs of this initiative. Complete them with the people affected and keep the agreed version with the club's project record.

Club Improvement Hackathon Decision and Scope Brief

Define the question, authority, evidence and response before asking for input.

Open supporting document

Club Improvement Hackathon Participant and Access Plan

Reach relevant experiences through accessible and proportionate channels.

Open supporting document

Club Improvement Hackathon Facilitation Run Sheet

Run the activity consistently, fairly and within scope.

Open supporting document

Club Improvement Hackathon Evidence and Theme Record

Separate observations, themes, divergence and uncertainty.

Open supporting document

Club Improvement Hackathon Decision and Action Register

Carry every finding into an authorised response.

Open supporting document

Club Improvement Hackathon Feedback-Loop Update

Tell participants what was heard and what will happen.

Open supporting document

Club Improvement Hackathon Privacy, Referral and Close-Out Log

Protect private matters and close retained information responsibly.

Open supporting document

Hackathon Prototype Canvas

Move a proposed improvement from problem to bounded experiment

Open supporting document

Related playbook entries

E-169
E-171

Supporting worksheets

Before your club says yes

Does the idea fit?

Talk with the people it is meant to serve and check that the need is real.

We have checked this

Who can say yes?

Name the person or group that can approve the work, spending and any safety arrangements.

We have checked this

Are people protected?

Check privacy, consent and safety. Collect only the information you genuinely need.

We have checked this

Can everyone take part?

Check the language, format, place, technology and cost for barriers.

We have checked this

Are the facts and permissions right?

Check names, claims, images, quotations, partner references and Rotary branding.

We have checked this

How will we learn?

Note where things stand now, check in at 30, 60 and 90 days, and decide what to do next.

We have checked this