Right Time, Right Format, Right Target Group: Designing Policy Events that Work for Policymakers

Key features in a nutshell

• There’s no single ‘right’ length or format for a policy event. The right choice depends on your goal, your resources, your target group, and how well policymakers already know you
• Senior decision makers and junior policy staff behave very differently as event guests; plan accordingly
• Time of day matters as much as duration: breakfast, lunch, and evening events each come with different trade-offs for policymakers’ schedules
• Beyond the clock, check the parliamentary calendar too; sitting weeks and recesses can make or break attendance
• Virtual and in-person formats aren’t just a logistics choice; they change what kind of event actually works

How does the format work?

From informal one-hour meetings in small groups to large, multi-day conferences and policy events can take many shapes and formats. When planning policy events, researchers and research managers often ask fundamental questions:

• Target audience: Whom should we invite – junior or mid-level policy professionals, or senior decision makers?
• Duration & balance: How long should an event be? How do we balance the need to convey academic expertise thoroughly with the necessity of allowing time for networking while respecting the tight schedules of policymakers?
• Format selection: Which event format works best for which target group?
• Delivery mode: Should we organise virtual, hybrid, or in-person events?

To identify the right event structure, start by answering four guiding questions:

1. Objectives: What do you want to achieve? (e.g., direct policy change, raising visibility, building trust, expanding networks, mutual learning, gaining research insights, or informing policymakers)?
2. Resources: What time, budget, and administrative support are available?
3. Familiarity: Do policymakers already know you, your institution, or your research project?
4. Format Expertise: Are you familiar with interactive formats (e.g., World Cafés, breakout sessions, panel discussions)? Can you organise them on your own or do you need support (e.g., moderators)?

Who do you invite? Understanding policy target groups

Different groups within policymaking institutions have distinct motivations, knowledge levels, and availability. Effective event design requires tailoring the depth of discussion to the right audience:

1. Members of Parliament, heads of institutions & senior policymakers

• Working reality: Extremely packed schedules and high political visibility; they frequently have to leave events immediately after delivering their opening remarks
• Motivations for attending: Access to high-level evidence, strategic networking, and public/social media visibility (e.g., demonstrating active engagement on a panel with scientists and industry and NGO leaders)
• Typical roles: Delivering welcome addresses or keynotes, serving as high-profile panellists
• Level of knowledge & scope: Broad thematic overview; they are the right contacts for discussing fundamental policy questions:
  • How can we accelerate the market adoption of energy-efficient technologies?
  • Should smartphones be banned in primary schools?
  • Should hard drugs be legalised?

2. Staffers, parliamentary advisers, junior & mid-level policy professionals

• Working reality: Demanding schedules, but far more likely to attend multi-hour workshops or roundtables than senior politicians
• Motivations for attending: Gathering solid technical evidence, acquiring background information to brief their superiors, and building subject-matter networks
• Typical roles: Panellists, presenters, active participants in breakout sessions, World Cafés, or technical workshops
• Level of knowledge & scope: Specialist or deep technical expertise (civil servants) or strong generalist knowledge (parliamentary staffers); they are the right contacts for discussing technical and regulatory implementation details:
  • Which technical purity standards must existing pipelines meet to transport hydrogen safely?
  • How can water toxicity thresholds be standardised across municipal monitoring systems? 

Delivery ode: Virtual, in-person, or hybrid?

Selecting the right delivery mode directly impacts attendance and engagement depth:

• Virtual events (45–120 minutes): Ideal for rapid briefings or busy policy professionals spread across different regions; they significantly lower the threshold for attendance and incur no costs for venue rental or catering but only offer limited opportunities for informal networking; virtual events lasting longer than two to three hours should generally be avoided because digital screen fatigue sets in quickly and participant engagement drops sharply
• In-person events: Essential for building personal trust, exchanging implicit policy knowledge, and long-term networking; but they require higher costs and a greater time commitment from participants
• Hybrid events: Offer broad reach but require substantial technical support and active moderation to prevent virtual attendees from feeling like passive observers

Matching event duration with objectives

Short events (60–90 Minutes)

• Focus: Presenting concise new evidence, exchanging initial viewpoints, or pitching key findings
• Typical formats: Short presentations, roundtables, or panel discussions followed by Q&A
• Networking: Very limited informal networking during the session itself
• Active roles: 1–5 active speakers/presenters
• Catering costs: Minimal (coffee, water, light refreshments)
• Organisational effort (FTE): Hours to days

Medium-length events (2–5 Hours)

• Focus: Deepening thematic exchange and fostering connections between researchers and policymakers
• Typical formats: A sequence of short presentations, thematic roundtables, interactive workshops, or panel discussions
• Networking: Good opportunities during coffee breaks, joint lunches, or evening receptions, or small-group breakout sessions.
• Active roles: 4–10 active speakers/presenters.
• Catering costs: Moderate to high (coffee breaks and light meals, e.g., finger food or buffet lunch).
• Organisational effort (FTE): Days to weeks

Full-day events (5+ Hours)

• Focus: Comprehensive thematic exploration and establishing long-term networks
• Typical formats: Several speeches and presentations, parallel breakout sessions, interactive World Cafés, or panel discussions
• Networking: Excellent networking during structured breaks, communal meals, and evening receptions
• Active roles: 10+ active speakers/presenters.
• Catering costs: High (full catering including morning/afternoon coffee, lunch, and potentially a reception)
• Organisational effort (FTE): Weeks to months

For what time of day should you organise the event?

• Timing & duration: Depending on the country, breakfast events typically start between 7:00 and 9:00 and run for 60–90 minutes
• Format & catering: Attendees enjoy a light breakfast while listening to concise presentations; high-quality moderation and strict timekeeping are essential
• Pros & Cons:
• Advantage: Particularly popular with Members of Parliament (MPs) whose core legislative schedule often begins later in the morning; high attendance rates because political emergencies rarely erupt early in the morning; participants start their working day with fresh insights
• Disadvantage: Limited time for informal networking

Lunch events

• Timing & duration: Depending on the country, they start between 11:00 and 13:00 and run for 90–120 minutes
• Format & catering: Combines short inputs with structured discussion over a light lunch or standing buffet
• Pros & cons:
  • Advantage: Provides a productive break in the workday with sufficient time for Q&A and networking;
  • Disadvantage: Interrupts the daily workflow; unforeseen political priorities or urgent meetings during the morning can lead to last-minute cancellations

Evening events

• Timing & duration: Depending on the country, they start between 17:30 and 20:00 and run for 2–4 hours
• Format & catering: Keynotes, presentations or panel discussions followed by an extended networking reception with food and drinks
• Pros & cons:
  • Advantage: Offers the best atmosphere for building personal trust and long-term relationships
  • Disadvantage: Competing demands that piled up earlier in the day, simple tiredness, or family obligations can all keep policymakers from attending

Tasks and resources

Researchers

• Clarify what they want to achieve with the event and communicate this early to the organising team
• Prepare content appropriate to the chosen format, duration, and target group (e.g., a tight elevator-pitch style talk for a breakfast event with senior policymakers vs a fuller technical presentation for a full-day workshop with policy officers)
• Be available for informal networking during breaks wherever the format allows for it

Research managers and knowledge mobilisers

• Help match the event’s goal, target audience, and available resources to the right format and duration, using the framework above
• Handle logistics: venue, catering, invitations, and – especially for short events – a realistic buffer for no-shows or late arrivals
• Check the parliamentary calendar (sitting weeks, recesses, election periods) before fixing a date

Policymakers

• Decide whether to attend and in what capacity (e.g., keynote speaker, panellist, or audience member)
• Where their own schedule doesn’t allow attendance, suggest a staffer or colleague who could attend instead
• Share relevant current priorities or policy questions in advance so that the event can be tailored to what’s actually useful to them
• Indicate format preferences when invited – for example, whether a breakfast slot or a longer in-person session fits better into their schedule
• Flag known scheduling conflicts early (e.g., sitting weeks, election periods, other competing commitments) to help organisers pick a workable date
• Give brief feedback afterwards on whether the format, length, and timing actually worked well for them

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de