urbact summer university 2013 - labs - mixed use of city centers - session 4
DESCRIPTION
Materials from the URBACT Summer University Lab "Mixed Use of City Centers", managed by Nils SchefferTRANSCRIPT
Final Check
URBACT LAB Mixed Use of City Centers SESSION 4
2
ACTION PLANNING MODEL
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 1 2
Problems
Stakeholders
Evidence
Results
Ideas
Actions
Resources
Check
Consultation
Launch
ProblemsStakeholdersEvidenceResultsIdeasActionsResourcesCheckConsultationLaunch
Lab 1: Getting started
Lab 2: Preparing well
Lab 3: Action planning
Lab 4: Final check
Lab 5: Dragons Den
LAB 4 – FINAL CHECK
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 3
1. Feedback from the ULSG @ work 3
2. Checking coherence of the LAP
3. Thinking ahead about monitoring
4. Introducing the URBACT self-assessment tool
5. Explaining the “Dragons den”
LAB 4 – FINAL CHECK
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 4
1. Feedback from the ULSG @ work 3
2. Checking coherence of the LAP
3. Thinking ahead about monitoring
4. Introducing the URBACT self-assessment tool
5. Explaining the “Dragons den”
COHERENCE OF LAP• WHY check?
• WHEN check?
• HOW to check…
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 5
COHERENCE OF LAP
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 6
1. Logical coherence check
2. 360 degree coherence check
LOGICAL COHERENCE OF LAP
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 7
1.
2.
3.
Problems – Needs – OpportunitiesCheck: All stakeholder problems addressed?
ActionsCheck: Actions support achievement of results?
Final check: Actions contribute to solve problems/address stakeholder needs?
Check: Intended results corresponds to problems?
Intended results
LOGICAL COHERENCE OF LAP
360 DEGREE COHERENCE OF LAP
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 9
Check Results Actions
Sustainable and integrated
social are there …? are there …?
environmental are there …? are there …?
economic are there …? are there …?
cross-sectoral cross-thematic
are there …? are there …?
11 avril 2023 10
Result 1 Result 2 Result 3Objectives
Actions
conflicts?synergies?
conflicts?synergies?
Action 1 Action 2 Action 3
conflicts?synergies?
conflicts?synergies?
360 DEGREE COHERENCE OF LAP
COHERENCE OF LAP1. Example where coherence was improved after checkingIntended results: Expansion of space capacity for mayor functions• Housing by 10.000 m²• Hotels by 5.000 m²• Social infrastructure by 3.000 m²
Conflict: Through checking it was realized that only 15.000 m² are available.
Solution: Definition of a process to coordinate which function at which location is to be realized best and monitoring that the intended results per function are not exceeded.
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 11
COHERENCE OF LAPExercise: 30 minutes
In ULSG groups (staying in this lab room) check yourAction Table and portfolio using the 2 tools.
Deliverable: adjust plan if necessary
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 12
LAB 4 – FINAL CHECK
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 13
1. Feedback from the ULSG @ work 3
2. Checking coherence of the LAP
3. Thinking ahead about monitoring
4. Introducing the URBACT self-assessment tool
5. Explaining the “Dragons den”
PROJECT MONITORING
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 14
GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF MONITORING1. Observing and analysing
2. Reviewing the performance- output achievement
3. Providing information to the general public and giving advisory services
4. Supporting evidence based decision making and taking corrective actions
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 15
EXAMPLE OF MONITORING: HERO
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 16
Monitoring
1. Data collection
2. Data analysis
3. Discussion of results4. Monitoring report
5. Update LAP
• by responsible institutions according to your work/organisation structure
• based on the target setting• Draft and communication of
monitoring report
• Monitoring meeting to discuss monitoring report (reasons for developments, actions to be taken, etc.)
• Communication of final monitoring and action report
• Taking corrective actions
SCHEME OF INDICATOR TABLE
Objective Indicator Explanation Target setting Availability Responsibility Verification date
Communication of cultural heritage values
Number of visitors of the cultural heritage information center
Number including not-paying children above 4
number > year before
number < year before
number < 1 and 2 years before
Annual year book of statistics
Operator of information center
01.02 for whole year; reporting 01.03.
LAB 4 – FINAL CHECK
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 20
1. Feedback from the ULSG @ work 3
2. Checking coherence of the LAP
3. Thinking ahead about monitoring
4. Introducing the URBACT self-assessment tool
5. Explaining the “Dragons den”
THE URBACT SELF ASSESSMENT TOOLS
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 21
THE URBACT SELF ASSESSMENT TOOLS: ULSGULSG
Main Headings:
• Frequency of meetings• Organisation of ULSG• Diversity of members• Participation of residents, users, business…• Empowerment of users, citizens• Other voices• Involvement of managing Authorities• Leadership• Animation and structure of meetings
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 22
THE URBACT SELF ASSESSMENT TOOL: ULSGULSG Example of questions for self assessment:
Frequency of meetingsscore 1: LSG has few meetings (e.g. one per year)score 3: Regular meetings, medium level of participationscore 5: Regular and frequent meetings with high level of participation, links to
meeting notes
Diversity of membersscore 1: ULSG dominated by public officials from municipalityscore 3: ULSG mostly public officials but other agencies involvedscore 5: Involvement of all three sectors, (public, private, civil society)
Animation and structure of meetingsscore 1: All meetings are organised in traditional 'committee' formatsscore 3: some efforts to introduce new formatsscore 5: Innovative techniques have been deployed for meeting animation and
shared decision makingURBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 23
THE URBACT SELF ASSESSMENT TOOL: LAP
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 25
LAB 4 – FINAL CHECK
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 26
1. Feedback from the ULSG @ work 3
2. Checking coherence of the LAP
3. Thinking ahead about monitoring
4. Introducing the URBACT self-assessment tool
5. Explaining the “Dragons den”
PITCHING THE LOCAL ACTION PLANS IN LAB 5
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 27
THE PRESENTATION• Each ULSG @work group selects 1-2 people to present the
LAP in 5 minutes• The presenters can use 3 pp slides, flipchart, other media• The presentation focuses on the action table developed in
Lab 3, and makes use of/reference to all portfolio materials• The presentation will be delivered to a panel of 4
representatives (1 from each of the other ULSG @work groups) and the Deputy Mayor in front of all Lab members
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 28
THE LAP PORTFOLIO• Lab 1 Problem Tree
Validated Stakeholder List• Lab 2 Expected Results
Evidence Enhancement Table• Lab 3 Action table• Lab 4 Presentation
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 29
CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS(SCORE EACH CRITERION FROM 1 TO 5)
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 30
Criteria Score1. Coherence between problem, actions and results
2. Addressing the deputy mayor’s challenge
3. Feasibility
4. Integrated approach
5. Quality of presentation
Total
THE PANEL• Each ULSG @work group selects one panel member
(different to the LAP presenters)• Each panel member is given a role (managing authorities,
private enterprises/funders, local residents...)• They listen to the presentation (5 min)• They ask questions (5 min) from the perspective of their
particular role• Questions can be asked from the floor (whole Lab group)
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 31
ULSG@WORK 4• Time: 11.00 – 13.00• Tasks: to prepare to pitch• Tool: Portfolio• Deliverables: 3 slides or flipcharts• Dragons Den pitch• 1 slide Unique Selling Proposition at lunchtime
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 32
FINAL REFLECTIONS• What have you learnt?• What will you do differently in future?
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 33
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 34