Improve integration

As you know, we (CdM @Rossana_Torri and WeMake @Costantino) are developing local activities in Milan, already discussed here and here.

We are also looking towards the final conference and thinking about wrapping up our experience throughout Open care. Speculations at this stage should include “how can a Public Institution foster an Open caring ecosystem?”

At the same time, the “outcome of the Commission’s first review” provided some challenging remarks that are worth taking into consideration, such as:

“This consortium needs to be more integrated to achieve innovative results. Work more together (publish together) and develop a sustainable approach to the exploitation of joint results”.


“This results in a lack of integration and visibility for the entire project. For example, it is not clear how the results of the work of the City of Milano and WeMake communities in the city are taken into account in the economic analysis by EHFF”.

These remarks push us back to the Mid Term review discussions and the Geneva consortium meeting’s follow up, where we got over this subject again.

Having said that, we wonder if we can open a discussion with you all and especially EHFF, that might stems from D4.3 Research paper. Integrating community-driven care services in European welfare states and includes our (above-mentioned) speculations.

Although we do not have budget to use on this task, nor are directly involved in WP4 deliverables, we will be available to do some work and possibly engage some junior researcher with academic background in economics.

Whether or not our effort will result in a publication, it would be a sign of attention for the commission recommendations.

We could start from EHFF intermediate presentation and catch up with it. Questions we could start from are i.e.:

  • Is the list of Open care projects complete?
  • did you extend to a broader definition of Health or you stuck to classic?
  • have you proceeded with the evaluation of community-based projects?
  • have you added up to the preliminary policy implications?
  • Is the taxonomy you created usable?

From our perspective, we would be also interested in:

  • what makes the projects selected special?
  • are they scalable?
  • are they sustainable?
  • are they replicable?
  • can we assess their multilayered impact?
  • what was the role of PA if any?
  • Did you assess cases that didn’t work?
  • What was the role of PA if any?

These findings would enable us to compare to experiences going on in Milan and possibly add up to our investigation on how a PA can foster an Open caring ecosystem.

Of course, if you think of different or more empirical actions we can be involved in please let us know.

Please let us know if it make sense to you @Lakomaa @melancon @Alberto @LuceChiodelliUB @Costantino @markomanka

relation to opencare’s DoA

Hello Matteo,

Thank you for sharing information on your plans towards more exchanges between partners.

To me, opencare’s DoA meets what you just mention above, you are working in the right direction:

(p.4) Excellence in research:

Some activities in OpenCare will be directed towards its ultimate goal of contributing towards care provision reform. They consist of a study on what constitutes best practice in the field of community based collective intelligence projects in the field of care provision, and on how these solutions might be integrated in national social and health care systems. This poses a number of significant regulatory and management challenges that must not be swept under the rug. Carrying out these activities is expected to yield a groundbreaking contribution to the European care policy debate: one where new technological affordances and hacker culture make a constructive contribution to public policy, taking fully onboard the complexity of the existing system.

(p.26)  Ambition for the ICT call we participate in:

Achieving in the longer term the active citizen participation in decision making, collective governance (including global Internet governance), new democracy models self-regulation, new business and economic models. Collective awareness research is expected to demonstrate scalability, reusability of results and general applicability of proposed solutions at local or regional level.

Corresponding engagements taken by opencare:

By pursuing its Objective 1, OpenCare mobilizes citizens, and empowers them as designers of care services. By pursuing its Objective 2, it applies the collective smarts of its community to public policy, hence governance. As argued above, our main focus is on building a methodology for fostering online conversation as collective intelligence engine (Objective 1.1) and leading field tests in a way conducive to feeding back to that collective conversation (Objective 1.2). These outputs are explicitly meant for reusability across issues other than care. Rich documentation, open data and “working out loud” approach enable third parties to capitalize on our result. By supporting skilled communities of hackers in prototyping care services, we hope to lower the cost to many hackers to take a first step in the world of care. This will contribute to the development of an open source makers business model for care, in which businesses use open hardware platforms to provide personalized care solutions. 

1 Like

Who are your questions addressed to?

I refer to the first set of questions in the post.

1 Like

Questions to EHFF

mainly EHFF @Lakomaa

1 Like

Who are your questions addressed to?

I refer to the first set of questions in the post.

1 Like

Sorry - late reply

Missed the post.

  • We are collecting more cases but have a sizeable list. We are now converting them to wiki-format.

  • We are using a broad definition of care (not only health care)

  • The taxonomy is as far as I can tell usable  - it might not be de final version but we are using it.

  • We have found that some types of “open care” projects are likely to be scalable, some not. A special cathegory of projects is based on “scale” (i.e. online fora for rare deceases) and are obviosly scalable.

  • we have some preliminary policy implication (Tino showed some of them in Brussels)

-The question of projects that did not work is a very intreresting one. We have so far very few such examples, but it is nessessary to find them in order to complete the analysis.

  • Projects can be analyzed thorugh a political economy lens and we have found some features that makes them less likely to be cloesed down (large number of users is one example). the political economy of open care seems to be the opposite of the predictions in Olson 1962.


digging in the drive


I was looking for EHFF last documents updates @Tino_Sanandaji @Lakomaa slides during the last CM (or review): probably they are in ones of these folder

Google\ Drive/OpenCare/Tech\ review\ 2017\ (accessible\ with\ the\ link)/RP1_opencare_Deliverables/WP4_DesignHealthPolicies

Google\ Drive/OpenCare/OpenCare\ Admin/Deliverables/Submitted/WP4

Google\ Drive/OpenCare/Tech\ review\ 2017\ (accessible\ with\ the\ link)/RP1_Presentations/5_MidReviewPresentation\ EHFFpdf.pdf

so I have 3 question:

  1. is there an update of the WP4 deliverables?
  2. can you share the presentation containing the list of the current case studies? / frameework ?
  3. is there a docs / update / work in progress of the cases history that you're considering? 

As I already said in the in the Geneva CM seems to me that these is obvious theme that can connect all the dots:

online/offline conversation - ethnographics + network analysis - design framework - economical assestment - policies

so IMHO it’s probably necessary try to coordinate the different fields in order to connecting the dots of the vertical researches. @Alberto @melancon

btw @LuceChiodelliUB the Geneva CM documentation seems missing (#3 refer to Milano #4 refer to the next one in Bordeaux)

cc @Matteo @rossanatorri


WP4 and Geneva CM

Ciao @costantino,

The deliverables available within the  Google\ Drive/OpenCare/OpenCare\ Admin/Deliverables/Submitted/WP4 are all there, as EHFF had 2 deliverables planned for 2016. The folder, as well as EMDesk, is updated once a deliverable is sent to the EC, so that we archive copies. To retrieve @Tino_Sanandaji and @Lakomaa 's slides from the technical review, you can find them here:

As for the Geneva CM, I was sick and couldn’t attend so there are no minutes properly speaking, but I remember there had been notes taken via a Google Document. Here is the link:   (folder Consortium meeting 4, doc named Review debriefing and next steps)