URBANITE General

The open debate was intended to take place in three parts.

The first, based on the analysis of previous experiences in other sectors (coming up from the D2.1) and the motivation of end-users in the various examples, was intended to delve into what such practices can entail in democratic policy governance.  In addition, it was intended to link with the value that tools such as URBANITE platform can bring to the dynamization of citizen participation.

The insights concluded here were that not only digitization of the public processing is needed, but the real achievement is also to focus on the knowledge of citizenship. It is not only about collaboration but the deployment of tools that allow information flowing in both directions. Involving the citizen from the very beginning, designing human-centered services can improve the welcoming these services will have in the implementation. Moreover, URBANITE Virtual Space can allow those neighborhood districts to be somehow universalized. The City Council adds that if they have an accessible tool, in which everyone can participate there can be a qualitative leap here. 

The main challenges identified here was “How can we make the implication for co-creation and not go into a debate of individual interests in the URBANITE Platform?”

The second slot of the session was to reflect on the need of data for decision-making. 

• Sometimes Administration initiatives do not go ahead because the way of reporting is not good enough and user focused. 
• It is necessary to indicate the return of the data, put it in value and show clearly the benefit of that data request.
• There is an absence of knowledge of the privacy policy that will protect the user. 
• The Administration always has an audition role and then users are afraid of being audited, this makes the user lose confidence. 
• Within the Administration there has been a knowledge of the data based on the audit and know the exact data that can be of interest in certain issues. However, other sources are not valued in terms of the general situation of traffic that perhaps allows a more general and not so focused view. Technicians need to consider what data they need to monitor and which to manage.
• Administrations take minimal data. Even though the data is anonymized, certain personal data is necessary for the typing of users.

The challenges identified here was that “It is not only about the anonymization of sensitive data but how we show the users that they are only a number in all that data?” The awareness of anonymization.

The last part of the debate focused on Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS) and the value that these services can contribute to end-users. The main questions here were: which is the value of these kind of services? Which are the motivations for using them? The main goal was to know how it could improve the trust and subsequent use of the services that require the transfer of data, as well as to dig deeper into the level of knowledge that municipalities have on technologies for the implementation of these services.

• The data that exist between the different departments of the Administrations are unknown. This entails that users do not understand the need for the Administrations to gather more data. It is necessary to know which data is available in each department and even data that still had another purpose, with the integration of new technologies other purposes may arise. 
• From the Administrations there must be a comprehensive knowledge and technologies must help them to do so and, above all, be more agile in the generation of these policies.
• It is necessary a change of mindset, it is still not necessary to know in detail the technology itself, but the way to operate. This implies an accompaniment to the Administrations, people who manage services based on disruptive technologies need to be trained in the usage of them.
• Administrations need to professionalize public services in terms of quality for citizens to perceive them in this way. 

Another important issue here is technological gap. An increasing segment of the population is considered digital native. However, another important part has difficulties or is reluctant in the use of new technologies. It is necessary to design hybrid services, which consider the different audiences. As the technological gap decreases, the penetration of these technologies will increase. In addition, factors such as context or culture play a key role. 

Apart from the technological gap, other motivation aspects were identified:

•  For the city the use of disruptive technologies could allow to measure very global components and in a continuous way. There are solutions that are being oriented not to need physical supports. This deployment needs less infrastructure which can reduce considerably cost structure.
• Private services are oriented to the defined user segment. However, the big challenge in service design for public services is that they must respond to different user segments. For this reason, implementing a service that meets the needs and requirements of different user profiles means that many users do not see the direct benefit or value of the service. Moreover, the service not only has to offer a differential value for the end user, but the user experience must be satisfying so that the user does not abandon it in the middle of the process. Here is highlighted the importance of involucrate users from the initial phases, so the services proposed can be tested, before finding after a real inversion in the deployment, that the service is not used. For example, last mile distribution operators indicated that the solution deployed for loading and unloading spaces do not meet suppliers’ real needs which consequently makes that this solution is not used by the number of users expected.

The session was held on the 27th of January 2021 at 10.00 a.m (CET) and it last for three hours. It was carried out through Microsoft Teams videoconference service and 24 people attended.