Updates from WP5

@evdoxia.kouraki please feel free to use this WP5 section to create new threads/post updates about the open data forum, results from the survey, and reference docs about living labs. it’s all yours!

Hej there,

Please let me introduce you to @merit.kaal Merit is going to work with us at Johanneberg Science Park once per week until the end of June and assist us with WP5 activities (D5.1, D5.2).

Before our meeting at Aarhus in April, we would like to have a call with the leaders of the solution working groups to discuss how would each group would like to use living labs for demonstrating their solutions.

We have already booked calls with some of you on the Wednesday the 27th.

We are looking forward to talking with you and start to forming the guidelines for testing in living labs!

All the best,
Eva & Merit

@HD_Hamburg @SBK_Hamburg could you get back to us with a date for a short call about “GeoNetBake” ?

Best
/Eva&Merit

@evdoxia.kouraki
Bradford Council has an interest in Living Labs as applied to the Water based solutions as we have already been involved with citizen groups as part of Bradford University’s consultations for the Citizen as Sensor work and have good connections with other relevant stakeholders.
I would be very happy to be part of a call. 25th and 29th are best dates for me.

@sydsimpson great to hear that!
@merit.kaal who will work with us for this, is here at office on the 26th. I will be available on the 29th but most probably not Merit. In any case, we can have the call on Friday, 29th.
Does 9:00 am (UK time) fit you?

Hei!
Thank you very much Eva for introducing me! I am really looking forward to have a contact with different solution groups and learn more about your projects!

@evdoxia.kouraki Friday, 29th, 9:00 am (UK time) fits also for me to call.

Best,
Merit.

Hi @evdoxia.kouraki and welcome @merit.kaal

9 a.m. on 29th is perfect for me, but I’d like to involve one of my non-SCORE colleagues. Kirsty has some useful experience working with schools and community groups, but can’t make the call until 9:30. Perhaps we can start the call then?

Hopefully @dhaval or @Bhupesh can be involved as well, and I’ll invite @Adrian and @phezoj

Are doing this via Skype?

Regards,
Syd.

Hi again!

We just booked a meeting with @dhaval from Bradford University on the 29th at 15:00 (UK time). Would it be more convenient if you all join this call then?
It would be easier for us also to get an overall view from Bradford City and University

If the time is OK, just let me know so I can share with you the link for the meeting.

Hi,

I can manage 15:00 but unfortunately Kirsty can’t.
I do think a joint meeting would be better though, so unless there’s any chance of a morning call, we will make it 15:00 (UK).

Hi @sydsimpson 9am call is fine with us. Lets go for it if you and Eva are still fine. Thanks

Yes, @dhaval 9a.m. is still good with me.
Perhaps if it’s okay with @evdoxia.kouraki she can update the meeting request? otherwise we’ll stick to 3 p.m.

Here’s an e-mail sent today where I reflect on Living Labs testing & validation and the current working groups with Digipolis Ghent involvement.

Environmental multimedia citizen reporting system – Open311 working group

For me this is the SCORE working group with the most potential for Living Lab testing & validation. Citizens, their perspective, their contributions, their perceived value should be at the heart of this working group, and there are multiple partners involved with co-development intentions. The current challenge of this working group is to define the common domain (which kind of reporting?) or common solution to build, that has value for each partner involved and the current state of their citizen reporting. Ghent has put this group proposal forward so we are now in the process of creating a solution proposal based on where we stand with Open311 now. If however, through the WP3 workflow the concept of ‘citizen signals’ also becomes one of the formal common challenges in SCORE, I think it is good to merge with that challenge working group and follow the D3.1 guideline to develop a common solution (or it can also be a common reusable component). Part of the ideation and building (see ‘solution selection’ phase in the guideline), this could already integrate with WP5 Living Labs prototyping and validation activities.

Intelligent road works vertical panels – GeoNetBake (Hamburg) working group

Works on the concept of collecting in field information from road work “bakens”/beacons using location revealing sensors. Again, has quite an internal outreach to mobility/road work departments, in its current form it does not seem suitable for Living Labs to me. On the other hand “smart bakens” could be regarded as something visible and tangible on the public domain, so should a “reuse-case” in one of the cities shift to a variant with more citizen involvement, then Living Lab validation could be integrated. It depends if this working group will just follow & replicate or rather reuse the technology in other service delivery use cases.

Drukteradar/Congestion Radar working group

Works on a congestion monitoring platform that is intended to be first used internally by city services (mobility, traffic, events, emergency services…) It might at one point scale to citizen involvement (as I pointed out in this post – “We see this possibly evolve from a standalone application for the mobility department, then to a wider group of other city stakeholders related to large events, then to reach further into citizen communication uses, crowdedness metrics as open data, etc.” )

At that point validation in Living Lab(s) could be added, and I will keep you updated on such opportunities, but currently we are just taking initial steps in the replication of the original version in Amsterdam.

Challenge visualiser and explorer working group

Works on a SCORE tool that demonstrates new visual methods of defining common challenges in between smart city teams. Does not seem suitable for Living Labs to me.

Taxonomy Manager working group

Works on a management tool behind the scenes to facilitate the common taxonomies/ontologies (hierarchic trees of terms that a group of people agree to use, facilitating a common vocabulary) targeted at linking the data in between different city departments (perhaps on the long run in between smart cities). Stakeholders as we now see it are almost exclusively city personnel: data teams, smart city teams, open data developers, …

In general, there is not a lot of citizen involvement in the creation of such a taxonomy except maybe when it comes to defining taxonomies that relate to:

• How citizens can navigate through large sets of information, which terms make more sense for a citizen to remove barriers and find his/her way in information provided by the city
• How actual information can be personalized to citizens, which terms make sense to a citizen (when for instance indicating preferences in a profile) and which need (too much) explanation
• How information is organized in themes, which themes make sense to citizens and which are too much city organization oriented

I think to answer such questions a living lab would only work if it extends an existing effort of a city department that is working on improving information flows to and with citizens. Eg. to involve communication departments? However, this would be merely a virtual exercise and I guess you prefer Living Lab activities that relate to physical places, experiences etc.

Thank you so much for this valuable input Tim! We will go through this infromation with @merit.kaal and come back with our comments

@evdoxia.kouraki
For all of us looking at how we might design a Living Lab, I think this publication is very useful

Urban Living Labs - A living lab way of working

Thank you Syd! @merit.kaal
We will include material from this publication in the presentation in Århus.
Worth reading pages 12-17 where definition of ULLs and main characteristics are mentioned

The main characteristics of ULLs related to Goal, Activities, Participants and Context

Main%20characteristics%20of%20ULL835×1120 106 KB

@h.niesing @Jaccobrouwer @Avi_Amsterdam @timvanachte @Pepijnhofstede haval @HD_Hamburg @SBK_Hamburg and leaders of Solution Working Groups,

Merit and I want to get a better view of the potential that SCORE solutions have to be tested in existing Urban Living Labs. So we prepared some questions that we would like to be answered by the leader/co-developer of each solution working group during the meeting in Aarhus.

We suggest that each solution group discuss and try to answer the questions below:
ULL Questions for Solution Working Groups.docx (14.8 KB)

We will also try to incorporate the questions and your answers in the factsheets afterwards.

You can also find the questions under Google Drive WP5 folder - ULL questions for Solution Working Groups where you can fill them in for each solution.

Best
/Eva & Merit

Hi all,

Today we had a webinar informing about the Guidance report on integration & testing SCORE solutions in ULL context. Thank you for participating!

The PPT from today can be found below as well as on Drive under WP5 - ULL Guide folder.
The guidance report itself wil be finalized and shared with all of you in the beginning of July! We recommend that each working groups reads it and contact us for any questions!

Stay tuned

All the best,
Eva & MeritWP5_D5.1_Guidance Report on ULLs.pdf (1.9 MB)