Mid-term report -- final stretch

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. :slight_smile:

@Alberto @Noemi @Costantino @zoescope @markomanka @lakomaa @tino_sananhaji @Rossana_Torri @Luciascopelliti @melancon @Matteo


Reharsing our speech before the Review would be very useful…

@lucia; @matteo

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?

@Alberto @Noemi @Costantino @zoescope @markomanka @lakomaa @tino_sananhaji @melancon; @LuceChiodelliUB

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.

Not happening

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:

  • working titles of the presentations
  • duration
  • order in which they will be delivered. 

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.

  • You show what you have,
  • you emphasize how this was in line with our objectives,
  • and how much you reached them

And only after showing and explaining that you reached your goal or are in the good diretion, you explain the technical details

  • You then take a critical look at your work, undeline its limitations,
  • and most of all give future directions (we still have a year ahead of us).

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):

  • "ordered" online ethnography via data structure => social semantic networks => extending the reach of ethnography and transforming it into a collaborative, data-driven discipline
  • hacker documentation culture + non-extractive ethics => sustainable engagement 
  • participant observation of collaboration that is starting right now within opencare => understanding the nexus between online interaction ("collective intelligence") and social innovation initiatives in the field

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

Hi @melancon; @alberto; @erik; @costantino; @markomanka ; @lucia; @matteo

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.

Rehearsing on March 9 (afternoon)

To all WP leaders and/or consortium contact person @markomanka (Marco), @Costantino (Costantino), @Rossana_Torri (Rossana), @Lakomaa (Erik)

and @Alberto – will ER send someone, a person who would be with us on March 10 in the morning? I suspect you might be with us only late in the morning or at lunchtime – I will suggest a start at 10am, but Loretta might prefer to trigger the meetign at 9:30am.

The room at the Aquitaine region offices has been booked for us March 9 all day. I suggest we have lunch nearby (for those arriving in the morning) and rehearse afterwards starting at 1pm or 2pm (depending on arrival times). Let us know about your respective schedules.

I’ll look into it



I’ll  be in Brussels Thursday as well

Rehearsal: GOOD!

Good idea to meet for lunch and then rehearse.

We’ll try to book our fly accordingly to this shedule