- The study of the state of the art about papers and other interesting bibliography is very good, with a clear identification of bibliography linked to the project objectives and the identification of benefits and disadvantages of metadata usage. However, a literature review of previous projects linked to the proposal does not appear in the available information. This is a shortcoming.
- A very good analysis of barriers of open data-driven public service co-creation by a literature review and surveys has been done.
- Table 6 of D1.1. shows a very interesting overview of Requirements and Functionalities for Open Data Infrastructure, this analysis will help in further research studies and in the development of future Open Data tools.
- In D2.1. Stakeholders are well identified and some examples of current co-creation public services have been given. Moreover, OGI architecture is well defined in 6 different layers (Data provision, Data Platform, Process Layer, Service Design, Service Provision and Management).
- D2.1. and D4.1. have a very good definition of ICT tools for co-creation, study that can be very helpful in the development of future projects.
- D4.1. shows a very good list of methods to collect and evaluate Data in the different stages of development (co-initiation, co-design, co-implementation and co-evaluation), for the different stakeholders and in different dimensions (co-creation framework, ICT toolkit, acceptance and outcomes evaluation). However, the selection of the data collection or elicitation techniques (interviews, questionnaires, etc.) has been done without a previous evaluation of the different possibilities, recently a scientific paper [Carrizo, D., Dieste, O. and Juristo, N., 2014. Systematizing requirements elicitation technique selection. Information and Software Technology, 56(6), pp. 644-669] has develop a scientific methodology for the selection of the most appropriate elicitation technique in different scenarios.
- Current software for Data Analysis has been identified.
- The impact description is good. The dissemination and communication activities including social media activities, international conferences and other events (e.g. H2020 and EC events), together with planned workshops and webinars already done and those planned for the second year have been described and individual responsibilities per partner have been assigned. However: i.-\ KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) to monitor impacts have been identified only for the quantification of dissemination activities (number of followers, number of visits to the webpage, etc). KPIs to measure the usability of the developed tools by public authorities, citizens and businesses have not been defined; and ii.-\ a business plan of the OpenGovIntelligence (OGI) has not been introduced.
These are three shortcoming of the available information of the project.
- The identification and definition of project objectives is clear and pertinent and a methodology to verify the achievement of project results has been defined. However: i.-\the achievement of the objectives has not been linked with impacts of the project, and ii.-\ the relationship of these objectives with the scope of the topic is not described in the available information. These are two shortcomings.
- There is a very good description of the methodology in the deliverables, being appropriate to achieve this new co-creation approach, Agile development process, in the administration area.

- Executed dissemination and communication plan and planned activities for the second year have been described and individual responsibilities per partner have been assigned. The work is sufficiently disseminated (see deliverables D5.2.-Report on dissemination activities). However: i.-\ exploitation of project results is not clear yet, a business and exploitation plan has not been included in the available information. Exploitation plan should include Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) management and how the developed solutions will be brought to all the stakeholders and to all levels of administrations (regional, national and European). In addition, ii.-\ who will maintain the expenses of the developed platform and ICT tools after the development of the project has not been detailed in the available information; and iii.-\ a cost analysis of future maintenance of the tools has not been carried out. This is a weakness of the available information.
- It is indicated that public deliverables of the first 12 months are available on project website, but i.-\ or they are not there or cannot be easily found. In general project website right now is very basic, it needs to be further developed including more information about the aim of the project, the updates with already done tasks, access to project datasets and toolkits and links to social media.

- The objectives of the project are correctly addressed in OpenGovIntelligence work packages. However, project results could be improved with the following suggestions:
i.-\ Number of people (citizens, public authorities and businesses) involved in the evaluation phases, if they will be the same or not in the different evaluation stages, and how they are going to be involved should be defined.
ii.-\ Development of YouTube tutorials and webinars explaining how to use the developed ICT tools could be very useful. These tutorials should show to the stakeholders how they can introduce their standardized files and mine the data obtaining statistical information as has been done in the pilot experiences.
iii.-\ The availability and easy access to OGI ICT toolkits and to datasets should be improved to increase their visibility and usage between the interested users.