A partial archive of https://score.community/ as of Monday March 04, 2024.

D3.4 - Discussion of solutions. - Template for partners


Hey everyone!

In the 3.4 deliverable, we aim to capture all the information that comes from the different discussions of solutions with the end users in each partner city. Those discussion can be held online, in workshops, … The goal is to have at least 150 participants in over 9 different meetings (over all the different partner cities.).

In order to collect all this useful information, we ask all the partner cities who will organize (or already have organised) such a discussion to fill in a template with a few questions concerning the discussion.

How to fill in the template?
Each partner creates a new topic in this WP3 folder, with the name of the partner in the title.
–> D3.4 - Partner name

In this topic, each partners fills in the questions (see below).The questions should be put in bold, in order to keep a clear overview of the document. Once the template is filled in, other partners are free to comment on the output; give recommendations and feedback…

The template itself

1. Logistics

  • Date and place of the discussion?
  • Type of discussion (online, focus group, …)?
  • How long was this discussion (estimated)?
  • Who led the discussion? (Moderator?)
  • How many participants were present?
  • What is the background of these participants?

2. Discussion topic

  • Which solution(s) was/were discussed?
  • what was the general feeling about the solution(s) among the participants?
  • Did the participants

3. Discussion output

  • What are the main take-aways after this discussion? (in bullet points)
  • If possible, write a short conclusions of this discussion (What can we learn from this end-users, what are possible next steps, …)

4. Discussion evaluation

  • What was good about the discussion, what was less good?
  • In future discussions, would you deal with certain things differently?
  • Do you have any tips for the other partner cities when conducting these discussions?

If there are any questions concerning the methodology or the template, don’t hesitate to ask me!


Hi @JoranVD, thanks for this!

one comment - how about we ask partners to post the filled in ‘template’ here on the community? We can then take a screenshot/copy paste it into the drive to archive them as deliverables.

secondly - I know @pjppauwels at digipolis is already having some great workshops around the travel time solution - could we perhaps get an example of a filled in post?

@evdoxia.kouraki will you be discussing the score challenges/solutions during your event this week? if so, peraps you could also test run the template and provide feedback?


Hey claus,

To answer your first comment, it is indeed the goal that the differnet partners fill in the template in the community. In my opinion, only this way can fully stimulate the discussion internally between the different partners in this projects.

For the second, I’ll ask Pieter-Jan today!

Thank you for the feedback!


There you go:


I’m reopening this D3.4 topic as this will play a role in the D3.1 methodology to process new proposals.

@HD_Hamburg is now working on proposing new solutions/challenges and I’ve replied him the following which is relevant to all.

“I would suggest to use the template + immediately share your comments/suggestions/improvements about it. Then we can improve it in regard to the renewed challenge discovery method and workflow that is coming soon based on our discussions in Ghent. Check-your-house proposal is a relevant example to duplicate or you can duplicate the empty template as well.”

The folder where we are collecting new proposals for now is this one.

The idea behind this template is also discussed in depth in this project management thread.


We added a solution proposal for the GeoNetBake (intelligent road works vertical panels) on the GoogleDrive. You can find it here.

@timvanachte Does Is the solution a new project or does it concern an update / new feature(s) of an existing project within your organisation? mean, that we should not post existing solutions that we have in the City and that we won’t develop further within SCORE?


@HD_Hamburg Sorry for my late answer. These questions are not meant to stop proposals but rather to clarify the context of a proposal towards the other partners. I also think existing solutions should be shared so all partners are aware of them even if the originating city doesn’t have plans to develop them further within SCORE, other cities might build further on such existing projects. Let’s include that in the guidelines for new proposals.


we have just discovered the pending new workgroup proposals table on Google drive. As agreed, we had already replied to the Gent proposals inside each template. Apparently, Aarhus did the same. Though, our replies are not considered in the table that you have created. As we can not edit our pending reply status, please change it for us. For the Amsterdam proposals we are unsure where to reply as we can not find them inside the proposal file on Google drive.


Hi @SBK_Hamburg

We officially announced the table today, here:

Unless I got the permission settings wrong, you should check with @claus or @Boris to be given access to the full SCORE google drive shared folder, with a google account. Otherwise you will bump into this same problem (no editing rights) for almost all of SCORE’s files in the shared google drive folder. And you will need it anyway to be able to edit replies later directly in the sheet yourself.

We prefer each partner to be ‘owner’ of their own column in this sheet, to avoid confusion :slight_smile:



I have added the GeoNetBake (intelligent road works vertical panels) proposal by @HD_Hamburg to our new overview, together with all other pending solution based proposals.

Info about this sheet:


Hello Tim,
Can we please ask for an extra category in the ‘Response’ e.g. 'Need more information e.g.‘Clarification needed from the proposer’. The reason being that we would like others to know that we have read the proposal but need additional information.
We understand we may than need to separately ask the questions etc.


Hello @HD_Hamburg I hope you are keeping well. Apologies I think it might be our lack of understanding but we don’t understand the context of Vertical Panels and what they actually do. This could be something that we would like to pursue, can you please provide us with more information.


Thank you @Adrian, updates to sheet done, see Dashboard sheet for pending new workgroup proposals based on existing solutions

Ideally each proposed solution has a corresponding community topic in ‘Propose new Working Groups’ where clarifications can be shared with the whole community. Your question also points out the relevance and advantages of using the template we made. The template states: What does it do? and What does it solve?

I am presuming this might be part of the clarification you’re after :slight_smile:

Cc @HD_Hamburg


Thank you :slight_smile:


I’m being a pain today :slight_smile:
We believe this is working well.

I note your comment within “SCORE • Pending new workgroup proposals (based on existing solutions) • status dashboard” that you are the temporary owner. Our question would be Who will become the owner or should we all share ownership?


Hi Adrian,

attached some more Information on the project GeoNetBake.

181205_GNB-E_SCORE.pdf (1.2 MB)


Good question about ownership and responsibilities of the dashboard.
Let’s continue here: Dashboard sheet for pending new workgroup proposals based on existing solutions