Community priorities and satisfaction	Research with residents, including non-users of particular services, to inform planning and performance measurement.
Service and visitor experience	Research with service users or visitors to understand their interactions, needs and experiences.
Concept and demand research	Research with prospective audiences to test ideas, barriers, demand and pricing questions.
Evaluation and public value	Research with participants and relevant communities to assess experiences and outcomes, using a design suited to the evaluation question.
Continuous monitoring	Repeatable collection and reporting over time, with defined populations, measures and review periods.

Each application needs its own sampling and measurement design. Service-user feedback does not automatically represent all residents, and visitor satisfaction does not establish the views of non-visitors.

Define: Agree the decisions, population, reporting periods and useful subgroup detail before selecting methods.
Recruit: Choose appropriate sample sources and selection rules. Use telephone interviews, intercepts, SMS invitations, email, web, paper or assisted participation where suited to the audience and scope.
Include: Monitor demographic and geographic coverage; agree language, accessibility and targeted follow-up measures where needed.
Check: Review eligibility, duplicate responses, non-response and channel effects. Explain quotas, weighting, effective sample sizes and remaining limitations as applicable.
Interpret: Distinguish recruited estimates from open participation, and keep different populations or collection streams separate unless a defensible integration method is agreed.

SMS can make invitations and reminders convenient, but it is not a sampling frame. Where visitors leave no contact record, systematic on-site recruitment may be the better starting point. Quotas, multiple channels and weighting do not eliminate all selection bias.

Identify: Review ratings, response distributions and changes over time alongside sample bases and relevant uncertainty.
Understand: Explore optional comments linked to each rated item, with demographic and geographic context where sample sizes permit.
Interpret: Review themes and statistical associations with the underlying evidence and analytical limitations.
Act: Use findings to agree priorities, responsibilities and next steps with your team.
Review: Track subsequent experience using comparable measures and an agreed reporting schedule.

We configure reporting rules for sample bases, uncertain comparisons and disclosure protection as part of the research plan. Service evaluations and unique respondents are reported distinctly where people contribute more than once.

Illustrative example: A service may receive positive ratings for staff courtesy but weaker ratings for updates. Linked comments and subgroup analysis can help officers investigate communication delays before agreeing and reviewing an improvement.

Ratings and comments: Analyse distributions and themes together, with de-identification and disclosure controls.
Driver analysis: Explore attributes associated with satisfaction or trust. Associations do not establish that changing an attribute will cause a particular outcome.
Predictive analysis: Use only where data and validation support the task; report assumptions, uncertainty and limits. Models need adequate samples and an agreed refresh schedule.
Within-organisation trends: Compare equivalent questions, populations and periods, documenting any changes to collection methods.
Peer comparisons: Agree relevant datasets and document their sources, dates, questions, scales, populations and methods. International datasets, including LG Inform Plus where applicable, provide context only where comparisons are appropriate.
Historical data: Import existing datasets where suitable. Check comparability before joining trend lines; a parallel run or calibration may be needed when methods change.

The reporting plan specifies sample-size rules, uncertainty estimates and any multiple-comparison adjustments. Response diversity describes how answers are distributed; it is not, by itself, a measure of polarisation or a guarantee of representative participation.

PlacePulse can support a new research program or complement an existing provider. We agree responsibilities for research design, recruitment, analysis and sign-off at the start.

Bring suitable historical or third-party data into an agreed reporting structure.
Scope interfaces with existing survey, customer relationship management and reporting systems before committing to deployment.
Your proposal sets out export formats, data dictionaries, ownership, reuse rights and access after the engagement.
Use a demonstration and sample report to confirm the functions and outputs relevant to your project.

City of Cockburn: The program collected more than 3,200 service evaluations from over 1,000 customers across 22 services, using phone, SMS, email, QR and in-person outreach. Dashboards and reporting supported annual planning and service priorities.

Bega Valley Shire Council: Engagement and analysis supported water and sewer strategy development, highlighting community concerns about quality and reliability.

We can discuss relevant project examples, methods and reference arrangements against your brief.

AI is integrated into PlacePulse dashboards and reporting, supporting comment coding, draft summaries and candidate actions from the collected evidence. Analysts and your team review the findings before they inform decisions or publication.

AI-assisted processing forms part of the research and reporting workflow. Its use is governed by agreed data-handling arrangements and project requirements. Findings remain subject to analytical checking and human review.

AgileFlow AI can help turn approved findings into draft reports, plans and community updates. Human reviewers remain responsible for checking sources, recommendations and applicable requirements.

Before collection, we document the agreed hosting, AI providers, subprocessors, access controls, retention and deletion arrangements. We identify the assurance evidence available for the proposed systems and distinguish certification from standards alignment.

Indicative annual platform packages are shown in AUD. Research projects and managed fieldwork are scoped separately in a proposal; the proposal confirms included volumes, channels, analysis and support. Equivalent currency pricing and partner delivery arrangements can be discussed.

Entry	From $15,000/yr — up to 5 services, core dashboard, core reporting and local hosting.
Standard	From $30,000/yr — 6–20 services, multi-channel deployment, advanced analytics and priority support.
Enterprise	From $55,000/yr — organisation-wide or consortium programs, advanced integrations, participatory modules and dedicated support; services and usage agreed in the proposal.

All tiers include onboarding, training and ongoing support within the agreed scope. Your written quote identifies included fieldwork, telecoms, translation, integrations, analysis and presentations, along with any additional or exit charges and GST treatment. Research design, approvals and integration requirements determine the deployment schedule.

Can this replace our annual survey?

It depends on the population and decisions being measured. Continuous service feedback can complement an annual resident survey. Replacing that survey requires a design that covers the relevant resident population, including non-users, and checks continuity of established measures.

How do you reach people who are often missed?

We agree recruitment sources, channels and targeted follow-up for the audience. Coverage monitoring, accessible participation and weighting where appropriate help address known gaps; remaining limitations are reported.

Can we keep our existing provider and historical measures?

Yes. We can agree complementary fieldwork, analysis or reporting. Historical data can be imported where suitable, with comparability checked rather than assumed.

What will our team receive?

The proposal specifies the research plan, technical documentation, reports, dashboard access, exports, presentations and advisory support. Ask to see a demonstration and a relevant sample output.

How is AI used?

AI is built into the dashboard and reporting approach, helping analyse comments, synthesise findings and draft reports for human review. Processing locations, providers and permitted data use are agreed as part of project governance.

How quickly can a project start?

We agree a schedule after confirming scope, recruitment, permissions, data access and integrations. A straightforward platform setup and a full research program have different timelines.

Best for	Australian councils, public agencies and community organisations; international delivery is scoped for local requirements and partner arrangements
Common council uses	Council reports, committee reports, compliance reviews, DA pre-assessments, risk management plans, policy drafts, project plans, public notices, minutes, action logs and community engagement digests
Input methods	Email, web form, attachments, links, spreadsheets, policy drafts, correspondence, images and audio uploads
Primary trigger	Email a specialised AgileFlow AI address, use a structured web form or connect an automated CRM/DMS workflow
Example addresses	council@agileflow.ai, comply@agileflow.ai, da@agileflow.ai, policy@agileflow.ai and research@agileflow.ai
AI engine	InterplAI™ with Generator, Critic, Synthesiser and Risk Assessor roles
Output standard	Structured drafts with source references, review notes and risk prompts for checking and approval
Security	Hosting, AI providers, subprocessors, access controls, retention and deletion are documented for the project, with the scope of available security assurance identified.

Assignment	What you provide	What your team reviews
Council or committee report	Background, evidence, template, options and proposed recommendation	Structured report draft, source references and unresolved questions
Compliance review	Current document and the requirements to assess	Draft comparison and potential gaps for a responsible officer to verify
Meeting outputs	Recording or notes, agenda and relevant papers	Draft minutes and actions checked against the meeting record
Public communication	Approved findings, intended audience and preferred format	Draft update, translation or easy-read version for audience review
Research synthesis	Relevant sources and a defined question	Draft synthesis with references and limitations for checking

Starter	From $5,000/yr — one team, up to 25 documents per month
Professional	From $10,000/yr — up to 5 teams, up to 100 documents per month, custom templates, priority support
Enterprise	From $18,000/yr — organisation-wide deployment, custom workflows, white-label options and dedicated support; team access and document volumes agreed in the proposal
Bundle	Special pricing available for PlacePulse AI users

Assignment	Typical outputs	Scope agreed at briefing
Strategic planning	Evidence summary, draft plan and performance measures	Population, planning framework, engagement and approval milestones
Service review	Current-state assessment, options and improvement roadmap	Services, data, assessment criteria and implementation support
Inclusion planning	Engagement findings, draft inclusion plan and action register	Communities, access needs, cultural protocols and review arrangements
Infrastructure engagement	Research findings, options feedback and decision evidence	Affected groups, recruitment, trade-offs and technical inputs
Implementation	Responsibilities, milestones and progress measures	Ownership, resources, dependencies and follow-up review

PlacePulse AI

Meet the Team

Research & Innovation

Advisory

AgileFlow AI

CommunitiesThrive: community research, service improvement, document automation and advisory

PlacePulse AI — Community & Service Insights

Research that connects evidence to action

One approach, different research needs

How we design reliable research

From a rating to a practical decision

Analysis, benchmarks and continuity

Work with your existing research and systems

Experience informing the approach

Reporting with human review

Pricing and project scope

FAQs

AgileFlow AI — Public Sector Document Drafting & Review

What you get

At a glance

How AgileFlow AI works

Built-in strengths

Document types

Built for council workflows

Inputs, outputs and review

Why councils choose it

Better together with PlacePulse AI

Pricing

FAQs

Advisory — Public Sector Strategy, Community Engagement and Transformation

What an assignment delivers

Consulting expertise

Assignments and practical outputs

Selected project experience

FAQs

Research & Innovation — Responsible AI, Civic Technology and Sector Intelligence

What we build

Innovation detail

InterplAI™

Participatory budgeting

Cultural and creative technology

Local Government Research Hub — In development

How we innovate

Meet the Team — Public Sector, Research and Responsible AI

Who we are

Leadership

Dr Chris Budhan — Founder & Managing Director

Extended team

Experience and partnerships

What we value