Hi Shan, Yes this is an area I am passionate about. The use of smart phones or phones is high and digital literacy may be surpassing LLN. Digital tools can be engaging, and children and people love them - when they work. Sometimes technology and connectivity is challenging in remote parts of the country. Digital tools are particularly good for younger people and children or vulnerable clients. However it is just another tool or method - and is not a "methodology". You need to think about WHY you want to go digital. The use of audio and visual stimulus should be aimed at reducing the cognitive load of the task or activity - making it easier/less burden. This is important for people who may have PTSD or suffering trauma, or have low LLN for example who find surveys tiring. Examples I have seen being used within the program administration: JCU working with Indigenous inmates as they record their coming down from gunja using ladders and other pictorial scales. Griffith University has developed a tool to measure health and wellbeing changes in children using an avatar. Menzies have developed an app to help the practitioner work with clients to record their safety plans and wellbeing plans. Yirrkala have developed an APP for CDP participants to record participation and activity. The best way to use mobile phone apps is "in the moment". I believe that more creativity in this area would result in capturing behaviour and reasoning in a less intrusive way than a post survey/feedback form. The best way to capture behavioural data for evaluation or social research is "in the moment". So it can be a great way to capture real behaviour rather than recalled behaviour in a survey which can be prone to error. At Ipsos we have used Mobile "in the moment" apps to help us capture more accurate behavioural data for research and evaluation. The more passive and less intrusive the design can be, helps with response rates. Yes - I have had evaluations where the results have demonstrated real "program failure" or "design failure". In one case the "program failure" of the Indigenous organisation saw them be defunded. However, they used this constructively, and addressed all the recommendations in the report to change the way they were working and reapplied for funding 12 months later. When they were refunded they felt more confident that they "actually" knew what this program was about what it was trying to achieve - because the community had told them in the evaluation results, not government in the program design. So the "program failure" was really a result of "design failure". Often communities or organisations apply or get funded for services, before they really understand what this means (values) for the community and what are the real "behaviours" that need to change. The evaluation - even if done at the end of funding, can be a great way of the community doing self examination and reflection to help with visioning for the future. I have also worked in locations of community conflict where you need to ensure that all opposing parties have a chance to be heard. Again reflect on your values and world view but making sure that all opposing parties are represented in the evaluation team. Even if it is not safe for them to be in the same room at the same time. So you work with this...separate trainings and reviews etc. Then when you bring it all together it should reflect all views and be accepted. This may take some work, but if all parties agree the "truth" needs to be told then there can be consensus. I think there is three issues with the uptake of evaluation recommendations and findings. 1. Some have faced all the challenges we discussed in the webinar - and as such they give some but not all the answers. So the evidence hasn't been there to better inform future policy. 2. There is a lot of evaluation findings out there that helped one program - but without sharing with other similar programs we see a lot of repeated mistakes. There are transferrable learning's that need to be collated and disseminated within departments, and more broadly across agency and jurisdiction. This AIFS website is a great initiative for sharing and learning. 3. Government / NGOs thinks it knows best and will often dismiss findings or evidence because their "values and worldview". Changing the way government/NGOs see "partnership" and "ownership" of Aboriginal and/Torres Strait Islander people and their communities in evaluation needs some more work. I know there are some real advocates pushing for this in Gov. so I am optimistic!