Deliverables

D4.3 - Final Outcomes of Validation Trials

  • OPR coordinator... profile
    OPR coordinator...
    16 January 2019 - updated 2 years ago
  • 7 comments
    Total votes: 3
Closed since 17/02/19
Document(s): 
PDF icon wegovnow_d4.3_oprp.pdf
Year of publication: 
2019

Throughout its final project phase, the WeGovNow project is piloting a publicly accessible online service engaging citizens in participatory policy and community development. To this end, the WeGovNow pilot platform is operated under day-to-day conditions by three pilot municipalities, namely the City of Turin, the London Borough of Southwark and the municipality of San Donà di Piave near Venice.

This document (D4.3) presents the outcomes of the evaluation work strand of the overall WeGovNow project. Based on evaluation data available from the three pilot municipalities participating in the project, the current report sheds light on the extent to which the WeGovNow pilot service has yet been utilised and impacts observed so far. Preliminary evaluation data suggest that the local pilots attract the interest of broader sections of the population, independent of age and gender. Almost 10.000 users have yet registered to the pilot service across the three pilot municipalities, and 16.965 single usage events have yet occurred.

Please note: This report has been generated for the purposes of the Open Public Review Pilot on the basis of information collated until October 2018. Further information is currently analysed and will be presented in the final version of this report due by the end of the project duration.

Tags: 
WeGovNow pilot servicepilot municipalitiesplatform monitoringstakeholder feedback

Comments

Log in to post comments
Jūratė Imbrasaitė's picture
Jūratė Imbrasaitė,
17/02/2019 21:16

The report is  well structured  with a clear description of stakeholder feedback. However, it lacks a comprehensive assessment  of the impact of  use case scenarios in relation to the expected results. Besides, the user registration and validation process is described in detail in two Italian sites , but there are no  details  regarding the user  registration  and validation process in London Borough of Southwark.

Total votes: 1
Giorgia NESTI's picture
Giorgia NESTI,
15/02/2019 12:45

I agree with the other comments. The report is well structured but it's too generic and more quantitative information are required.

Total votes: 0
Juan REIG REDONDO's picture
Juan REIG REDONDO,
14/02/2019 18:34

Interesting but generic report lacking quantified assesments. The project provides a good opportunity to validate improvements in close-to-the-citizen policy actions but it is needed quantitative information to support the findings. It would have been interesting to test stakeholders performance against the use cases. 

Total votes: 0
Francisco Santarremigia's picture
Francisco Santa...,
11/02/2019 12:43
  • It would be good to detail impacts per use case and not only per stakeholder group.
  • These impacts per use case should be quantified.
  • Some KPIs per each use case should be defined and monitored during the validation trials.
Total votes: 1
Gemma Molero's picture
Gemma Molero,
08/02/2019 20:06
  • Well structured document but lacking of KPIs and quantified impacts per each use case scenario.
Total votes: 2
Antonio OPROMOLLA's picture
Antonio OPROMOLLA,
01/02/2019 17:52

The main positive aspect of this report is the analysis of stakeholder feedbacks. It is a useful part which allows to identify (also by better analyse the Annex I) the positive and negative evaluations of the involved stakeholders. However, the other paragraphs present some weaknesses.

For example, the paragraph 3 only present a description of functions and some quantitative data on specific events occurred on the platform. There is not a specific evaluation of these data (for example, it is not clear if they are many or few, etc.).On the other hand, the paragraph 5 is limited to a description of the policy use cases and a real assessment is not provided. Generally, the (social, institutional, environmental, economic, etc.) impacts of the carried out actions are not totally clear and it is not clear how the actions to perform in order to improve the platform.  

Total votes: 0
Adriano Noli's picture
Adriano Noli,
29/01/2019 10:59

This report is very well conceived and written, with a clear flow of information and a detailed description of the whole process of the activities. The author takes great attention to clear identification and description of participant citizenship. Stakeholders feedbacks are clear and they give a clear evidence of the impact of the project on their communities. On the other hand, all these collected data should lead to more detailed conclusions, especially on before-after side, giving a better idea of the relation between initially expected results (if any) and actual data, and an overview of foreseen activities beyond the project to boost the involved communities.

Total votes: 0