Materials from the URBACT Summer University Lab "Mixed Use of City Centers", managed by Nils Scheffer

1. Final Check
URBACT LAB
Mixed Use of City Centers SESSION 4

2. 2
ACTION PLANNING MODEL
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 1 2
Problems
Stakeholders
Evidence
Results
Ideas
Actions
Resources
Check
Consultation
Launch
Problems
Stakeholders
Evidence
Results
Ideas
Actions
Resources
Check
Consultation
Launch
Lab 1: Getting started
Lab 2: Preparing well
Lab 3: Action planning
Lab 4: Final check
Lab 5: Dragons Den

3. LAB 4 – FINAL CHECK
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 3
1. Feedback from the ULSG @ work 3
2. Checking coherence of the LAP
3. Thinking ahead about monitoring
4. Introducing the URBACT self-assessment tool
5. Explaining the “Dragons den”

4. LAB 4 – FINAL CHECK
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 4
1. Feedback from the ULSG @ work 3
2. Checking coherence of the LAP
3. Thinking ahead about monitoring
4. Introducing the URBACT self-assessment tool
5. Explaining the “Dragons den”

5. COHERENCE OF LAP
• WHY check?
• WHEN check?
• HOW to check…
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 5

6. COHERENCE OF LAP
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 6
1. Logical coherence check
2. 360 degree coherence check

7. LOGICAL COHERENCE OF LAP
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 7
1.
2.
3.
Problems – Needs – Opportunities
Check:
All stakeholder problems addressed?
Actions
Check:
Actions support
achievement of results?
Final check:
Actions contribute
to solve problems/
address stakeholder needs?
Check:
Intended results corresponds
to problems?
Intended results

8. Problem
Result
1
Result
2
Action Action Action ActionAction
LOGICAL COHERENCE OF LAP

9. 360 DEGREE COHERENCE OF LAP
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 9
Check Results Actions
Sustainable
and integrated
social are there …? are there …?
environmental are there …? are there …?
economic are there …? are there …?
cross-sectoral
cross-thematic
are there …? are there …?

10. 9 septembre 2013 10
Result 1 Result 2 Result 3Objectives
Actions
conflicts?
synergies?
conflicts?
synergies?
Action 1 Action 2 Action 3
conflicts?
synergies?
conflicts?
synergies?
360 DEGREE COHERENCE OF LAP

11. COHERENCE OF LAP
1. Example where coherence was improved after checking
Intended results: Expansion of space capacity for mayor functions
• Housing by 10.000 m²
• Hotels by 5.000 m²
• Social infrastructure by 3.000 m²
Conflict: Through checking it was realized that only 15.000 m² are
available.
Solution: Definition of a process to coordinate which function at
which location is to be realized best and monitoring that the
intended results per function are not exceeded.
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 11

12. COHERENCE OF LAP
Exercise: 30 minutes
In ULSG groups (staying in this lab room) check your
Action Table and portfolio using the 2 tools.
Deliverable: adjust plan if necessary
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 12

13. LAB 4 – FINAL CHECK
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 13
1. Feedback from the ULSG @ work 3
2. Checking coherence of the LAP
3. Thinking ahead about monitoring
4. Introducing the URBACT self-assessment tool
5. Explaining the “Dragons den”

14. PROJECT MONITORING
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 14

15. GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF MONITORING
1. Observing and analysing
2. Reviewing the performance- output achievement
3. Providing information to the general public and giving advisory
services
4. Supporting evidence based decision making and taking
corrective actions
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 15

16. EXAMPLE OF MONITORING: HERO
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 16
Monitoring
1. Data collection
2. Data analysis
3. Discussion of results4. Monitoring report
5. Update LAP
• by responsible institutions according to your
work/organisation structure
• based on the target setting
• Draft and communication of
monitoring report
• Monitoring meeting to discuss monitoring
report (reasons for developments, actions to
be taken, etc.)
• Communication of final
monitoring and action report
• Taking corrective actions

17. SCHEME OF INDICATOR TABLE
Objective Indicator Explanation Target setting Availability Responsibility
Verificatio
n date
Communicatio
n of cultural
heritage
values
Number of
visitors of the
cultural
heritage
information
center
Number
including not-
paying
children above
4
number > year
before
number < year
before
number < 1 and 2
years before
Annual year
book of
statistics
Operator of
information
center
01.02 for
whole year;
reporting
01.03.

18. LAB 4 – FINAL CHECK
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 20
1. Feedback from the ULSG @ work 3
2. Checking coherence of the LAP
3. Thinking ahead about monitoring
4. Introducing the URBACT self-assessment tool
5. Explaining the “Dragons den”

19. THE URBACT SELF ASSESSMENT TOOLS
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 21

20. THE URBACT SELF ASSESSMENT TOOLS: ULSG
ULSG
Main Headings:
• Frequency of meetings
• Organisation of ULSG
• Diversity of members
• Participation of residents, users, business…
• Empowerment of users, citizens
• Other voices
• Involvement of managing Authorities
• Leadership
• Animation and structure of meetings
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 22

21. THE URBACT SELF ASSESSMENT TOOL: ULSG
ULSG Example of questions for self assessment:
Frequency of meetings
score 1: LSG has few meetings (e.g. one per year)
score 3: Regular meetings, medium level of participation
score 5: Regular and frequent meetings with high level of participation, links to
meeting notes
Diversity of members
score 1: ULSG dominated by public officials from municipality
score 3: ULSG mostly public officials but other agencies involved
score 5: Involvement of all three sectors, (public, private, civil society)
Animation and structure of meetings
score 1: All meetings are organised in traditional 'committee' formats
score 3: some efforts to introduce new formats
score 5: Innovative techniques have been deployed for meeting animation and
shared decision makingURBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 23

22. THE URBACT SELF ASSESSMENT TOOL: LAP
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 25

23. LAB 4 – FINAL CHECK
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 26
1. Feedback from the ULSG @ work 3
2. Checking coherence of the LAP
3. Thinking ahead about monitoring
4. Introducing the URBACT self-assessment tool
5. Explaining the “Dragons den”

24. PITCHING THE LOCAL ACTION PLANS IN LAB 5
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 27

25. THE PRESENTATION
• Each ULSG @work group selects 1-2 people to present the
LAP in 5 minutes
• The presenters can use 3 pp slides, flipchart, other media
• The presentation focuses on the action table developed in
Lab 3, and makes use of/reference to all portfolio materials
• The presentation will be delivered to a panel of 4
representatives (1 from each of the other ULSG @work
groups) and the Deputy Mayor in front of all Lab members
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 28

26. THE LAP PORTFOLIO
• Lab 1 Problem Tree
Validated Stakeholder List
• Lab 2 Expected Results
Evidence Enhancement Table
• Lab 3 Action table
• Lab 4 Presentation
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 29

27. CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS
(SCORE EACH CRITERION FROM 1 TO 5)
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 30
Criteria Score
1. Coherence between problem, actions and results
2. Addressing the deputy mayor’s challenge
3. Feasibility
4. Integrated approach
5. Quality of presentation
Total

28. THE PANEL
• Each ULSG @work group selects one panel member
(different to the LAP presenters)
• Each panel member is given a role (managing
authorities, private enterprises/funders, local
residents...)
• They listen to the presentation (5 min)
• They ask questions (5 min) from the perspective of their
particular role
• Questions can be asked from the floor (whole Lab
group)
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 31

29. ULSG@WORK 4
• Time: 11.00 – 13.00
• Tasks: to prepare to pitch
• Tool: Portfolio
• Deliverables: 3 slides or flipcharts
• Dragons Den pitch
• 1 slide Unique Selling Proposition at lunchtime
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 32

30. FINAL REFLECTIONS
• What have you learnt?
• What will you do differently in future?
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 33

31. URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 34