d1.1 kick-off meeting report - urbandata2decide€¦ · d1.1 kick-off meeting report project...

D1.1 KICK-OFF MEETING REPORT

PROJECT

Acronym: UrbanData2Decide

Title: Data Visualisation and Decision Making Solutions to Forecast and Manage Complex

Urban Challenges

Coordinator: SYNYO GmbH

Reference: 847511

Type: Joint Programme Initiative

Programme: Urban Europe

Start: September 2014

Duration: 26 months

Website: http://www.urbandata2decide.eu

E-Mail: [email protected]

Consortium: SYNYO GmbH, Research & Development Department, Austria (SYNYO)

University of Oxford, Oxford Internet Institute, UK (OXFORD)

Malmö University, Department of Urban Studies, Sweden (MU)

Open Data Institute, Research Department, UK (ODI)

IT University of Copenhagen, Software Development Group, Denmark (ITU)

ZSI Centre for Social Innovation, Department of Knowledge and Technology, Austria (ZSI)


© 2014 UrbanData2Decide | Urban Europe 2

DELIVERABLE

Number: D1.1

Title: Kick-Off Meeting Report

Lead partner: SYNYO

Work package: WP1: Project Management and Coordination

Date: October 2014

Authors: Julia Neuschmid, SYNYO

The UrbanData2Decide project is co-funded under the Joint Programming Initiative, 2nd

call Urban Europe.



TABLE OF CONTENT

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4

2 Participants .......................................................................................................................... 5

3 Agenda ................................................................................................................................. 6

4 Minutes ................................................................................................................................ 8

5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 17



1 INTRODUCTION

The UrbanData2Decide kick-off meeting took place at Hotel Kummer (Vienna) on September 29nd and

30th 2014. Its objective was to establish the project into more detail as well as all involved partners.

Figure 1: Meeting Venue Vienna

Representatives from all project partners participated at the meeting and discussed the concept as

well as the steps necessary to implement it. Thus, day 1 focused on the project vision, objectives, and

outcomes as well as the partners’ individual expectations through workshops based on their previous

experiences. Furthermore, the work packages were presented and discussed among all partners. On

the second day the tasks of the initial work packages were discussed in depth and further developed

in brainstorming sessions. One of the meeting’s highlights was a presentation by Winn Nielsen and

Line Jensen Buch who presented highly interesting use cases from their city of Copenhagen as well as

by Steve Turner who presented current urban challenges in the city of Manchester. In sum, we could

elaborate a common understanding of tasks, defined roles, responsibilities, and concrete next steps.



2 PARTICIPANTS

All consortium partners attended the kickoff meeting with a total number of 16 participants listed in

the table below.

NO. NAME ORGANISATION COUNTRY

1 Jonathan Bright OXFORD United Kingdom

2 Johannes Bockstefl FFG Austria

3 Line Jensen Buch City of Copenhagen Denmark

4 Joshua Ddamba Kibuuka ITU Denmark

5 Yvonne Dittrich ITU Denmark

6 Susanne Dobner ZSI Austria

7 Nicklas Guldåker MU Sweden

8 Per-Olof Hallin MU Sweden

9 Tom Heath ODI United Kingdom

10 Peter Leitner SYNYO Austria

11 Julia Neuschmid SYNYO Austria

12 Winn Nielsen City of Copenhagen Denmark

13 Markus Rasmusson MU Sweden

14 Steve Turner Manchester City Council United Kingdom

15 Christian Voigt ZSI Austria

16 Norbert Weidlinger Major Cities of Europe -



3 AGENDA

Day 1 September 29, 2014 09:30 – 17:00

09:30 – 10:00 Get together

10:00 – 10:15 Welcome and introduction of the agenda (SYNYO)

10:15 – 11:15 Introduction round of organisations and key staff members (ALL)

11:15 – 11:30 Coffee break

11:30 – 12:00 JPI Urban Europe, Requirements, Reporting, Networking (Johannes Bockstefl, Austrian Research Promotion Agency Programme Manager)

12:00 – 12:30

Project presentation (SYNYO) - Facts and figures - Background and concept - Project goals and timeline, state of the art and challenges

12:30 – 13:45 Lunch

13:45 – 14:45 Insights on specific cases and challenges in decision-making from network and city partners

- Major Cities of Europe and e-Government and OGD Initiative in the City of Vienna (Norbert Weidinger)

- Integrated urban renewal and open data initiatives in Copenhagen (Line Jensen Buch and Winn Nielsen)

- City of Manchester (Steve Turner) - Urban Safety and Security in the City of Malmö (MU)

14:45 – 15:45

Consortium expectations workshop (ALL) - Experiences from previous projects - Which outcomes of UD2D are most relevant for each project partner


16:00 – 17:00 Work package overview (WP LEADs – 10 min presentations – essential objectives and tasks in the WP, interlinkages and existing know-how)

- WP2: Basic Exploration, Stakeholder Studies and Requirement Analysis (MU) - WP3: Method Modeling, Visualisation Design and Framework Elaboration (ITU) - WP4: Proof of Concept and Demonstrator Implementation (SYNYO) - WP5: Demonstration and Validation (ZSI)



- WP6: Dissemination and Exploitation (OXFORD)

19:30 Dinner

Day 2 September 30, 2014 (main project partners) 09:00 – 16:00

09:00 – 09:30 Project planning (SYNYO) - Targets to fulfil (DOW) - Draft deliverable outlines (for the first project year) - Quality assurance

09:30 – 10:45 WP2: Basic exploration, stakeholder studies and requirements analysis (MU) Presentation, discussion and definition of initial steps and subtask deadlines for:

- Research methodology - Data collection - Data analysis


11:15 – 11:45 WP3: Concept design and framework development aspects (ITU) Presentation and discussion:

- Interdependencies between WPs and tasks - Detailed planning of WP and first steps

11:45 – 12:30

WP6: Dissemination activities (OXFORD) Presentation, discussion and definition of initial steps and subtask deadlines for:

- Newsletters, factsheet, poster, press releases, Social Media, Website, etc. - Upcoming events, call for papers etc. - Publication agenda

12:30 – 14:00 Lunch

14:00 – 15:00

WP1: Administrative tasks (SYNYO) - Signatures and forms - Financial aspects and reporting - File exchange, cloud storage, mailing list - Contact data and communication guidelines - Skype calls and next physical meetings incl. review meeting

15:00 – 16:00 Discussion of open questions and summary of next steps

16:00 Meeting closure



4 MINUTES

Day 1

Time: 10:00 – 17:30

Participants:

Project partners: Susanne, Christian, Nicklas, Markus, Per-Olof, Yvonne, Joshua, Tom, Jonathan,

Peter, Julia

City partners: Steve, Line, Winn

Network Partner: Norbert Weidlinger

FFG: Johannes Bockstefl

1) Welcome by Peter

Introduction of project and city partners (organisation profile and key staff members):

ZSI

OXFORD

ODI

MU

ITU

City of Copenhagen

FFG

City of Manchester

SYNYO

City of Vienna / Major Cities of Europe

2) JPI Urban Europe (Johannes Bockstefl, Project Officer)

The funding programme, future calls and key information about reporting are presented:

Joint Actions of the JPI Urban Europe (2010-2013)

Strategic future orientation of JPI Urban Europe (2014+): Research and Innovation agenda to

be completed in 2015

Future Call: ERA-NET 2014/15 Smart Cities, 30 Mio Euro (call opens in January 2015); but not

all countries are eligible

Future Call: ERA NET 2015/16 Smart Urban Futures

FFG: Role as “project observer” that monitors the overall progress of the UD2D project in

regards to content; information hub

Annual project report (template by the FFG) will be delivered by SYNYO to FFG (only content,

no financial issues). Content will be provided by SYNYO together with the project partners.

In addition, there will be individual partner/country reports according to respective

national/regional standards (including financial issues).

Networking activities, JPI Urban Europe Meeting in Brussels on October 14th



There might be an interim meeting with the project officer to present the interim results (but

there will not be a review meeting as e.g. in FP7 projects

There might be a final presentation with the FFG at the end of the project (has not been

clearly defined yet)

Urban Europe logo needs to be on all dissemination material/publications; as well as

additional national requirements (e.g. for Austria the FFG logo).

3) Project presentation

Peter gives an outline of the project which is then discussed:

Presentation of the background of the project, the overall concept as well as the overall WP

structure

ITU has already started to collaboration with the City of Copenhagen with a focus on urban

renewal

Data requirements depend on the cases. Therefore, in the first phase of the project the

specific cases need to be defined in a strong dialogue with city partners.

Data sources: in UD2D we will mainly use (open) data form municipalities and social media

data. What about private data (e.g. energy consumption) from companies? The issue of

engaging companies as data providers in the cases is discussed. ODI mentions to have good

connections to private companies/data providers that might be of relevance for UD2D.

Figure 2: Overall UrbanData2Decide Concept: UrbanDataVisualiser & UrbanDecisionMaker



The outcome of the project should be reusable; the challenge is to find the balance between

on the one hand a general solution that on the other hand also satisfies the specific cases

(end-user driven). The big benefit of the project should be the reusability of the results.

Data quality is mentioned as an important issue for decision-making

City partners underline that the implementation of open data in cities is a long process that

requires a lot of internal training and restructuring

City of Manchester: has already worked on 3D visualisations and the analysis of Twitter

streams

Pedestrian area/Shared Space in Mariahilferstraße is mentioned as a current example for

urban decision making in the City of Vienna. Could be a potential use case for Social Media

Analysis.

Figure 3: Cities as complex and highly dynamic systems

4) Insights on specific cases and challenges in decision-making from network and city partners

City partners provide information about their cities, present several cases and their processes in

decision-making:



Mr. Weidinger presents the Major Cities of Europe Network and the role in the UD2D project

as dissemination and networking partner: 0utlook on the Major Cities of Europe conference

in June 2015 in Hamburg as a potential event to disseminate UD2D.

Line speaks about integrated urban renewal and open data initiatives in the City of

Copenhagen. The different phases of the decision-making process and citizen engagement

are presented (from selection of the area, to application and funding, planning and

realisation of the project). Several forms of citizen involvement processes are used

(workshops, phone surveys, information meetings, etc.). Social media could especially be

useful to get the young generation involved in participatory processes.

Steve presents the City of Manchester and ongoing activities: Development of the city

throughout the last 10-15 years (from a city of population decline to a city of growth and

great diversity). Some challenges still remain such as poverty, low income, etc. of the

population in some parts of the city. The city is currently developing a long term strategy

(“Smart City Plan”). The city makes use of gaming technologies for citizen involvement.

Per-Olof presents an example for operative decision making, urban safety and security in the

City of Malmö: in the past years, especially between the years 2009-2011, there happened a

great number of intentional fires. Current questions or challenges are how to improve

people’s living conditions, to identify critical social environments and to identify hotspots.

Figure 4: Malmö use case on urban safety and security



Figure 5: Copenhagen use case on urban renewal

Figure 6: Presentation of the potentials and challenges of the City of Manchester



5) WP overview and involvement of city partners:

Identify in which WPs and tasks of UD2D city partners will be involved:

As the use cases and the city’s requirements are rather diverse, each partner will primarily

focus on one use case only. Several concepts of different use cases will be develop and finally

the most promising one(s) will be implemented (proof-of concept). Partners can suggest own

case studies together with the related cities, e.g. City of Copenhagen together with ITU on

urban renewal, etc.

As not all partners can be involved in both, the DataVisualizer and DataDesicionMaker, it is

proposed to split the development of these two parts between the partners.

The question in which WP/task we will have a general framework and in which WP/task we

will start the specialisation of the system in regard to the different cases comes up and is

discussed. Specialisation could already happen as part of WP3 (conceptual phase).

DAY 2

Time: 09:00 – 16:00

Participants: Susanne, Christian, Nicklas, Markus, Per-Olof, Yvonne, Joshua, Tom, Jonathan, Peter,

Julia

1) Introduction

Julia provides a short introduction to the workplan and deliverables:

Workplan and defined WP leaders

Tasks and defined tasks leaders (task leaders are organisations that are named in the first

place in the detailed WP description in the proposal)

Deliverables and quality control; proposal of reviewers for each deliverable.

2) WP2: Basic exploration, stakeholder studies and requirement analysis

Per-Olof moderates the discussion of WP2 and the individual tasks:

Terminology: Provide “decision-support” as the main objective of the project (rather than

“decision-making”)

Another key aspects is the data component: focus on a “data-driven decision support

system”

Discussion about different decision-making processes in cities (e.g. proactive vs. reactive

decision-making processes). As urban planning is a highly complex domain different cases

will have different decision-making processes.

Therefore it is helpful to define 3-4 use cases/domains and look at those into more detail.

The defined use cases are so far: (1) Urban renewal case study in the City of Copenhagen, (2)

urban safety case study in the City of Malmö, (3) Vienna Case to be specified (SYNYO; ZSI), (4)

Oxford/Manchester case to be specified (might be transport).

The question comes up if we also consider closed data? Primary open data should be used. In

case additional closed data is required for proper analysis and visualisation in the respective

domain, this should be pointed out to the cities. It is also helpful for the cities to see what



data is required to be open. So cities can better plan upcoming open data activities and new

releases of data.

When planning WP2 we should keep in mind what information/input from WP2 we will need

for WP3 (WP2 results as input of WP3)

Methodology and process: Task leaders (OXFORD, ITU, ZSI, MU) provide in coordination with

MU draft structures for the collection of required data and information. The draft will be

send to the project partners that are involved in the task so that they can comment on the

structure. After the final structure is send to all the partners that are involved in the

respective task, the partners fill the template with the required information, which is then

brought together by the task leader.

Figure 7: Cities as social spaces

WP2 Tasks:

T2.1 (0XFORD) collection of relevant data sources and visualisation methods. OXFORD will

prepare a template for the collection and spread it among the partners



T2.2 (ITU) Collection of examples (good practices) on urban decision-making approaches and

tools; proposed structuring into: 1) General process, 2) planning and policy support, 3) data

& tools.

T2.3 (MU) stakeholder analysis; i.e. more domain specific and case specific than other tasks.

Start with Malmö and Copenhagen case to map the specific processes and stakeholder

requirements.

T2.4 (ZSI) social, ethical and legal aspects; legal aspects should be country specific; limit the

legal approach to the countries where we have cases. Legal aspects should also take into

consideration the handling of social media data.

T2.5 (MU): combination of results from T2.1-T2.4 and translation of results into clear

requirements for WP3.

3) WP3: Concept design and framework development aspect

Yvonne presents a draft concept, first framework development aspects, and the planned timeline.

Main points to consider are:

Develop one flexible system and infrastructure

Specify use case specific integration rules and different data input

Taxonomy is required, onthology

Development of a conceptual model

Link WP3 and WP2; Task 2.1. should also include research on relevant data standards

Task 3.3 will start together with tasks 3.2 and 3.1, they will go in parallel

Three main parts of the concept are suggested: (1) Data visualizer, (2) Decision maker, (3)

End user Analysis interface; the latter one might be proposed in the concept but might not

be implemented in WP4

Link to WP4: Proof of concept(s); both parts, the DecisionMaker as well as DataVisualiser

interface need to be implemented in the demonstrator

Information sharing is highlighted; proposal to build a library with interesting literature that

is structured according to the work packages.

4) WP6: Dissemination

Jonathan present planned dissemination activities:

Website to be launched in Oct/Nov with basic project information

Newsletters will be spread via the Major Cities of Europe network

Foldable factsheet

Twitter account: @data2decide

Google Calendar for interesting upcoming events

List of events where partners disseminated UD2D

Proposal to have a blog if partners can contribute on a regularly basis with new content; the

blog could be integrated in the website

5) WP1: Administrative



Julia presents the following administrative points:

Grant Agreement should be valid from 01.September 2014 – 31. October 2016

Consortium agreement; summary of final changes

Process of financial reporting and reporting of content

Summary of the responsibilities of WP leaders, task leaders, each organisation and the

coordinator

Proposal for the communication strategy (E-mail, Skype, Dropbox, google docs, physical

project meetings)

6) Next steps (Actions list)

WP6: Dissemination:

October 14th:

JPI Urban Europe Meeting in Brussels (OXFORD, SYNYO)

Poster and updated Factsheet (OXFORD)

October/November:

Launch of website (SYNYO)

Calendar for upcoming events (OXFORD) and communicate planned/interesting conferences

and events (ALL)

WP2: Basic exploration, stakeholder studies and requirement analysis

First proposal of cases in Vienna and/or Oxford/Manchester until mid of Dec. (SYNYO; ZSI;

OXFORD; ODI)

2.1. draft structure to collect information send until 20. Oct. (OXFORD)

2.2. draft structure to collect information send until 20. Oct. (ITU)

2.3. draft field report on Copenhagen case study by the end of this year (ITU)

2.3. Malmö: first interviews with the city in October/ November (MU)

2.4. draft structure until 20. Oct. (ZSI); focus on the countries of the case studies

Skype call on WP2 to discuss the draft structures and further timeline October/November

(ALL)

Draft reports 2.2-2.4, January

WP3: Concept design and framework development aspect

Starting in January

Skype call in middle of December (ALL)

Administrative issues:

In the upcoming week:

Consortium agreement will be send out by SYNYO to sign (ALL)



Template for deliverables will be provided as well as proposed reviewer list of deliverables

(SYNYO)

Kick-off ppts and minutes will be uploaded to the dropbox (SYNYO)

Check the Grant Agreement for the correct date 01.09.2014-31.10.2016 and send the

coordinator a confirmation and the signed page per E-mail when your GA is signed (ALL)

5 CONCLUSION

During the kick-off meeting we came one step further towards a common understanding of the

project. Members of all consortium partner organisations were present and were able to add

valuable input to the overall mandate, structure, and expectations of UrbanData2Decide. Questions

and uncertainties could have been addressed and decisions, findings, and next steps were

documented. Initial decisions concerning pertinent project planning and administrative issues were

made and a roadmap for the early project phase was laid out in the form of deliverable outlines.

d1.1 kick-off meeting report - urbandata2decide€¦ · d1.1 kick-off meeting report project...

Documents