No prior RAP · Reflect
Starting from nothing: a first Reflect RAP
Leadership had committed publicly to a RAP, but nobody internally had run one before and no relationships existed with local Aboriginal organisations. The work was mostly about slowing down.
State government agency · 600+ staff
Illustrative example. This describes what an engagement of this type typically involves, drawn from common patterns in RAP delivery. It is not an account of a specific client engagement, and no figures shown are measured client results.
The situation
- An executive commitment had been made publicly, creating a deadline before any groundwork existed
- No existing relationships with Traditional Owner groups or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations in the regions of operation
- An internal assumption that an Innovate RAP was achievable because a peer agency had one
- Cultural awareness training had reached a small pilot group only
- No baseline data on Indigenous employment or supplier spend
The approach
- 1
Readiness
The readiness assessment did not support an Innovate RAP. The recommendation was Reflect, with the reasoning documented so it could be taken to the executive as evidence rather than opinion. This conversation is often the hardest part of the engagement.
- 2
Foundation
A RAP Working Group was established with terms of reference, a named executive sponsor and a standing meeting in the governance calendar. Baseline workforce and procurement data was collected — which itself surfaced that Indigenous supplier spend had never been separately tracked.
- 3
Engagement
Traditional Owner groups and Aboriginal community organisations were identified for each region of operation and approached at a pace the relationships set, rather than to fit the drafting schedule. Several early conversations were introductory only, with no organisational ask attached.
- 4
Design
The draft was deliberately short. Around fifteen actions, each with a named owner and a defined measure, replaced an initial internal wish list of more than forty. Actions that nobody could explain how to deliver were removed rather than softened.
- 5
Endorsement
A pre-submission review against Reconciliation Australia’s expectations identified gaps in the governance section, which were closed before submitting rather than in response to feedback.
Where it landed
- A Reflect RAP developed and submitted, with a working group operating on a standing cadence
- Baseline data established for Indigenous employment and supplier spend where none previously existed
- Continuing relationships with named Aboriginal organisations, each with an agreed next contact
- A realistic path mapped toward an Innovate RAP at the end of the term
What this shape of engagement teaches
A public commitment made before any groundwork exists creates schedule pressure that pushes organisations toward the wrong RAP type.
Fifteen deliverable actions are worth more than forty aspirational ones, and are considerably easier to report on.
Baseline data collection is unglamorous and frequently deferred, but without it no future RAP can demonstrate progress.
Other examples
Recovering a stalled Innovate RAP
Eighteen months into a two-year Innovate RAP, the working group had stopped meeting and nobody could say what had been delivered. The first task was establishing what was actually true.
Read → Progressing · Innovate to StretchBuilding a procurement-led Stretch RAP
A firm with a well-delivered Innovate RAP needed to progress to Stretch, with Indigenous procurement as the centre of gravity ahead of the 2026 IPP threshold change.
Read →Recognise your situation?
If any of this sounds like where your organisation is, a free discovery call will tell you what the realistic next step looks like.