Table 3 Comments associated with evaluative ratings

The concept map describes well the current and overall policymaking process used by our group

It’s a bit simplistic. In practice a wider range of contextual factors come into play including current state practices and capabilities. The descriptions of actors and processes are also highly generic

Under the AODA [Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act] we are legally required to integrate internal/external partners in the idea generation phase

The actors include more than internal and external partners. They also include stakeholders and citizens (who aren’t necessarily part of a partnership group)

The concept map is visually appealing. The format makes it easy to understand

The map would benefit from professional graphic design. The concepts are good

The image is not visually appealing, and it’s not immediately clear where to start

The concept map is usable in its present form

The elements work well but would benefit from a professional graphic designer. People like stuff that looks cool. This is not a criticism but professional designers can add weight through visual appeal

As noted previously, it’s quite generic and misses some key elements of what tends to inform real-world decision-making