URBACT Summer University 2013 - Labs - Attractive cities for young people - Session 4

URBACT LAB
SESSION 4
Final Check

LAB 4 – FINAL CHECK
URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 2
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”

COHERENCE OF LAP
• WHY check?
• WHEN check?
• HOW to check…

COHERENCE OF LAP

VERTICAL COHERENCE OF LAP
1.
2.
Actions
Problems – Needs - Opportunities
3.Results
Check:
Objective corresponds
to problem?
Check:
Action supports
achievement of objective?
Check:
Action contributes to
achievement of results?
Check:
Result contributes
to solve problem/
address stakeholder needs?

360 DEGREE COHERENCE OF LAP
Check Objectives 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 …?

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.

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

PROJECT MONITORING

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

EXAMPLE OF MONITORING: HERO
Monitoring
1. Data collection
2. Data analysis
3. Discussion of results4. Monitoring report
5. Update CHIMP
• 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

THE URBACT SELF ASSESSMENT TOOLS

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

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, no info on 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 making

THE URBACT SELF ASSESSMENT TOOL: LAP
Photo of a LAP

THE URBACT SELF ASSESSMENT TOOL: LAP
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Process and governance
Content of action plan
Integrated approachFinance and project planning
EU and URBACT added
value

PITCHING THE LOCAL ACTION PLANS IN LAB 5

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

THE LAP PORTFOLIO
• Lab 1 Problem Tree
Validated Stakeholder List
• Lab 2 Expected Results
Evidence Enhancement Table
• Lab 3 Action table
• Lab 4 Presentation

CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS
(SCORE EACH CRITERION FROM 1 TO 5)
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

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)

ULSG@WORK 4
• Time
• Objective: Prepare pitch
• Tasks: to prepare to pitch
• Tool: Portfolio+ 3 slides (written) + ????
• Deliverables:
• Dragons Den pitch
• 1 slide Unique Selling Proposition at lunchtime

FINAL REFLECTIONS
• What have you learnt?
• What will you do differently in future?

URBACT Summer University 2013 - Labs - Attractive cities for young people - Session 4

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (6)

Similaire à URBACT Summer University 2013 - Labs - Attractive cities for young people - Session 4

Similaire à URBACT Summer University 2013 - Labs - Attractive cities for young people - Session 4 (20)

Plus de URBACT

Plus de URBACT (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

URBACT Summer University 2013 - Labs - Attractive cities for young people - Session 4