call - doodle
so, are we going to have a call?
call - doodle
so, are we going to have a call?
Hi @costantino ! So far we only have 3 answers: yours, Alberto’s and Guy’s.
sorry for late reply …
I filled the doodle right now and I’m available in the afternoon, even though I would have liked to involve @Matteo Matteini in the call, but unfortunatly he’s the whole week not in office
thank you for participating
Hello @Rossana, thank you for participating ! I hope @Matteo is doing well in Senegal. If he wishes to keep up with the on-going topic of our meeting with Loretta, he can have a look at the following link: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1KUb0T2M7iTzc1YaKh5ijo8ncHfQEt8R5etzSeXTVLNM
No problem.We’ll add any remaining stuff before the deadline.
More info on the review meeting
Make sure you can be at meeting prior to its start at 9:30am, and make sure you do not leave before the end 5:00pm. I personally will have to arrive the evening before (and I might have to leave the next morning …)
— I am assuming all partners representatives (you all) and for most WP leaders will attend. You may also invite collaborators you feel can usefully answer questions we may have, or are a better fit to give an oral presentation. It’s up to you.
— You do not need to replicate the written report in your presentation. It’s actually a pretty bad way of putting forward the work done, and probably not the best way to catch the reviewer’s attention. I would suggest to highlight a realisation, or event held, for instance, that better demonstrate the work done, the methodology followed, the objectives reached, the emerging innovation etc.
Agenda (will prepare a doc and circulate it soon)
Each of us won’t get much time anyway. The meeting spreads over about 6 hours, of which we have about 4.5 - 5 hours (there might be coffee breaks). Each partners will probably (I will confirm) have a 30 min including questions (total = 3 hours), to which we may had a 30 min overall introduction, a 30 min conclusion, and time for interaction with reviewers.
Can ER help find a place where to hold the meeting?
Our officer Loretta Anania asked whether our Brussels’ partner could provide a room to host the meeting. (This was a condition to allow the meeting to happen on March 10.)
Tell me whether ER can help. If not, we (UBx) will try to solve this remotely.
Review meeting March 10 – Found a venue
The Aquitaine region is quite happy to host our review meeting in their Brussels office (located at 21 rue Montoyer, 1000 Bruxelles).
@LuceChiodelliUB and I are waiting for a confirmation with all related info. Will keep you posted.
Acknowledged with thanks
Venue confirmed for technical review
Dear opencare team,
I hereby confirm you that the technical review will be hosted by the Région Nouvelle-Aquitaine delegation in Brussels on March 10th.
Reharsing our speech before the Review would be very useful…
Why don’t we organize an half day meeting in Brussels to do that?
Could we meet in the afternoon on Thursday 9th March? Maybe @alberto can host this meeting somewhere?
What do you think?
It is necessary
in my opinion it is necessary, at least to feel if partners’ presentations go on seamlessly and within the determined time-frame.
Unfortunately I cannot rehearse. I won’t even in Belgium on the 9th. I will make it to the meeting, but that’s all I can do.
I can commit to prepare a presentation. In fact, most of us will have to present. This requires a script: a sort of agenda, so that we can all prepare our presentations accordingly. The tradition is for the principal investigator to deliver the first presentation, for an overview of the project. Then, individual researchers can be asked to “zoom in” into issues they wish to bring to the attention of the reviewers. We need instructions in the form of:
Guy was saying that it is not necessarily a good idea to organise the meeting by work package. This means giving some thought about how else to organise the presentation. One formula that I like is to look at outstanding issues, where we think we are making headway. In our case, we are proud of our engagement model and of the exciting methodological developments in ethnography + networks. The Monaco-Manzini-Hassoun-Salantiu paper might also be super-interesing, though I doubt it will anywhere closed to being finished. The data model is also an advancement with respecto to the state of the art.
Tell a story, showcase your work
I agree with Alberto,
a good format is to develop your presentation around a result that best illustrates the work done, the goal that was pursued.
And only after showing and explaining that you reached your goal or are in the good diretion, you explain the technical details
Some stories may concern more than one partner, depending on what is emphasized.
Alberto already mentioned a story ER can put under the spotlight.
What is your story, please share it here so we can discuss and figure out whether this format pleases everyone.
“Slow hunches and impact”
I guess my prez will be around “slow hunches”: hi-risk, hi-reward research paths that take many years of gnawing at the problem. I think opencare has three (well, three that I have played a part in. You guys will likely have other stuff):
I imagine a presentation in which I walk through these research threads as we have seen them in opencare. Kind of “lessons being learned” (not quite “learned” yet).
Great idea – Should be included in report part A (section 1.2)
Great, I like the perspective,
I would – if I were to review – appreciate getting this type of input to develop a view on what has been goign on in the project, where it leads, what impacts it has (and how it helps reach its goals).
In my opinion, this is what is expected in part A of the report – not on a WP per WP basis but for the project as a whole.
Can each partner try to come up with a similar comment/post?
Are you sure it’s not section 1.3?
See this post for an explanation.
input for Review - a “tentative narrative” by CdM
I like the idea to frame the project through “chapters” or “keywords”, instead of using a WPs sequence.
I’m also convinced that, at the end, somone should take the lead and try to compose in an overall interpretative framework all the contribution that will come from this first round of inputs…
This is our grain of sand.
City of Milan presentation likely would “zoom in” and focus on the role of the public administration, given the scenario, where social innovation is boosted by collective intelligence and technology.
The current paradigm of Cities Administrations that provides “standardised services to standardised needs” will no longer be sustainable. Citizens’ needs are changing faster and to a wider extent than the capacity of City’s Administrations to understand them, not mentioning to tackle them. Cities’ Administrations today can opt for a different approach creating a frame able to mobilize the “most and diverse energies” of the cities. This frame would allow hearing and learning from citizens, social innovators, companies, non-profit and grant making foundations. This form of collective intelligence would reassess the way to deploy common resources to face undetected and unknown needs. Indeed, it is a “lesson being learned” where Open Care represents an opportunity (to):
- Monitoring community-driven care services. This contemporarily provides information on citizens needs and on how solutions can be arranged with new players’ resources and capacities;
- Creating “spaces”, both online and offline, where citizens can meet social and technology’ innovators as an opportunity for “everything” to happen. Everything means there is not any pre-designed outcome and all the interactions are meaningful and potentially productive.
- Taking part in collective intelligences. On one hand, the City of Milan is promoting individuals’ participation in the Edgeryders community when citizens’ ideas are consistent with the platform goals. On the other hand, it engages directly with the Community. Doing so, the City of Milan has implicitly accepted the rules of the Community, repositioning as a single “knot in the network,” leaving aside its institutional central position.
This reporting would enlighten both layers of the Open Care experience, the vast mobilization and participation to collective intelligences and the co-design experiences in the local communities. This narrative would also provide answers to what the commission is currently focusing on, trials, impact and ethics (what we have got from the Minutes of the Conversation wit Loretta at the DSI Rome).
Trials: the production of a “well documented” and usable prototype would be recommendable (In Pe’). It also testifies the co-design process that incorporates a benefit itself (@costantino, we make could go into depth on this…)
Impact: the capacity of being part of a collective intelligence, where proved, would have a positive impact on public administrations in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.
Ethics: the approach to care will shift from, designing care solutions for citizens, to providing “spaces” for all subjects involved in care solutions. This would include needs still undetected, capacities still unknown as well as solutions indeed innovative.
This sounds reasonable, @Rossana_Torri .
For the purpose of the periodical report, we should probably emphasize what we did, rather than what we intend to do. This is my only comment.
I sent yesterday to Guy a new version of Tech reports, both part A and part B. Part A is heavily modified. Part B is only lightly modified and commented.
Will circulate an updated version soon
I am working on the integration of Alberto’s latest addition and edits. I will circulate an updated version soon (today).
That will likely be the last opportunity you will have to amend the document before we submit it on the EC platform.