Deliverables

D5.4 - Report on Dissemination Activities - Y3

  • OPR coordinator... profile
    OPR coordinator...
    16 January 2019 - updated 2 years ago
  • 6 comments
    Total votes: 4
Closed since 17/02/19
Document(s): 
PDF icon ogi_d5.4_report_on_dissemination_activities_y3_v1.pdf
Year of publication: 
2019

This is a draft version of the deliverable “D5.4 - Report on Dissemination Activities – Y3” that covers the dissemination activities of the third year of the OpenGovIntelligence (OGI) project. This deliverable builds upon the corresponding report of the first and second years, and outlines the activities conducted in the third year. The report details the dissemination activities from all partners of the OGI Consortium. It covers the promotional materials, online and electronic activities (including social media); events and networking and publications (both academic and industrial).


In the first year, seven target groups for dissemination have been identified, namely: 1) the public sector; 2) software developers; 3) statistical data publishers; 4) standardization bodies; 5) data scientists; 6) researchers and academics; and, 7) civil society, including businesses, citizens and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Each pilot involved two partners and identified a number of the above target groups. In the second year, a graphical identity for the project was create, i.e. an agreed upon logo, which was used for branding in leaflets, banners and all social media to create cohesion across the project. Project partners also created an online presence through the project website, Twitter, Medium blogging platform, GitHub, Slideshare and Mendeley and have sent out newsletters about the project. Document materials were also created to communicate research results in the form of scientific publications, reports etc.. Events and Networking opportunities in the second year were extensive, with project partners attending more than five planned international conferences; over thirty further events and meetings and more than five planned workshops. In the third year, planed dissemination and exploitation activities to reach the targeted groups were performed. Second year showed some indicators had more progress and a few showed slower progress, hence third year focused on them.

Comments

Log in to post comments
Tommaso Federici's picture
Tommaso Federici,
17/02/2019 23:39

The dissemination activity has been planned in a reasonable way, addressing several recipients and using different channels. Nevertheless, it should be questioned if the great effort spent in this activity has produced a real impact to exploit the project contents and results. The targets on different channels were not so high, they have been not fully achieved, and most probably recipients of different channels highly overlap. And nobody that I know interested in the topic of Open Data, has been reached by any information about OGI.

I do think it should be more creative with dissemination activity to get out of the bubble of the subjects involved in EU funded projects. But this is a more general problem, common to most projects, not only of this specific one.

Total votes: 0
Antonio DE NICOLA's picture
Antonio DE NICOLA,
13/02/2019 16:56

The report on dissemination activities is well done. It identifies the different target groups and provides figures to estimate the success of the activities. Dissemination results are satisfactory.

Scientific publications include good indexed journals (as Journal of Web Semantics and Government Information Quaterly) and conference proceedings.

Total votes: 0
Gemma Molero's picture
Gemma Molero,
12/02/2019 17:40
  • This is a well disseminated project although it would be reommendable to separate between dissemination and communication actions, measuring 2 different indexes, one for dissemination and another one for communication.
  • Some formal issues should be corrected as the numbering of tables and the order of references.
Total votes: 1
Francisco Santarremigia's picture
Francisco Santa...,
11/02/2019 12:54
  • The edition of leaflets and brochures to be delivered during the workshops is not included in the deliverable. No pictures about them have been displayed. Has OGI issued any physical dissemination material?
  • Please review the link of Mendeley in the page 32.This website is not found.
  • It would be very appreciated to generate 2 separate KPI for the number of members of the Mendeley group and the Researchgate milestones, which have not been defined. Both dissemination channels are completly different.
  • A performance description of the Dissemination index (Di) per each year (Y1, 2 and 3) would be higly recomendable, and to include the Di in conclussions is also a suggestion.
  • The Figure 3 should be replaced by “Formula 1”. This is not a figure.
  • Please review the number of some tables. For example: Table 17 in the text (pg. 35) is in fact linked with the table 16 (Pg. 36).
  • References should be ordered alphabetically
Total votes: 1
Antonio OPROMOLLA's picture
Antonio OPROMOLLA,
06/02/2019 07:56

The deliverable presents a structured dissemination plan. Very appreciated are some visual elements, for example Figure 2 which summarizes all the involved stakeholders and the employed tools.

By identifying the target of the dissemination activities only a generic description is provided; probably more specific analysis (for example through interviews, questionnaire, ets.) would help to better identify their needs and provide more specific information.

The identification of a specific objective for the different actors is useful (Table 1). Also the identification of specific KPIs is important and it should be present in all the dissemination deliverables, since it gives a measure of the achievement of the objectives.

However, for each dissemination tool the deliverable only indicates the obtained results, but not the specific carried out activities; so, it is not clear the specific contents produced and diffused through the different tools.

Finally more advanced tools could have been used (for example, interctive worskhops, etc.).

Total votes: 0
Eva KASPAROVA's picture
Eva KASPAROVA,
03/02/2019 12:49

 

The project presents a coherent, clear and logically structured report on ensuring dissemination activities. The project identifies target groups that the outputs are designed to. Selected target groups fully correspond to the objectives and purpose of the project. The project choices the appropriate way of communication ensured by suitable communication channels proposed communication activities included. All identified key elements planned for covering by project dissemination are clear and correspond to the main goals of the project. The project describes and explains choice of communication channels intended for specific target groups, where target groups find relevant information. However, the information useful for a civil society, namely for citizens, could be specifically targeted and tailored to the possibilities and needs of specific groups of this target audience. Different end-users need to understand enough and make practical use of the outputs of the project. Project contains relevant measurement criteria of planned dissemination activities.  However, there is a quantitative way of measuring with a relatively small possibility of obtaining qualitative feedback, how effective dissemination activities are.

Total votes: 0