Toolkit for Mutual Learning_English by EUROCITIES

EUROCITIES

Toolkit for mutual learning

Table of contents Section 1 Conducting effective Working Group meetings Section 2 Organising peer reviews Section 3 Tools for online collaboration

This publication is supported under the European Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity 2007–2013 – PROGRESS. This programme was established to financially support the implementation of the objectives of the European Union in the employment and social affairs area, as set out in the Social Agenda. To that effect, PROGRESS aims to: ■■ provide analysis and policy advice on employment, social solidarity and gender equality policy areas; ■■ monitor and report on the implementation of EU legislation and policies in employment, social solidarity and gender equality policy areas; ■■ promote policy transfer, learning and support among Member States on EU objectives and priorities; and ■■ relay the views of the stakeholders and society at large. For more information see: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=327&langId=en The information contained in this publication does not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission.

Introduction Events to which people come from all across Europe to exchange their experience and views, such as EUROCITIES Working Groups meetings, can be exciting and inspiring, but success doesn’t come by itself. Organising a meeting is not an easy task: participants cultural backgrounds, linguistic competences and managing diverse expectations are but a few challenges. Nonetheless, there are many ideas and tools available to facilitate group work and the organisation of effective meetings which deliver concrete results. This toolkit, by providing insights into methods for developing and running events, outlines how this can be done. All of the techniques and ideas presented on the following pages are based on the experience of EUROCITIES’ Working Groups and have been tested on various occasions. This toolkit is particularly intended for chairs and vice-chairs of EUROCITIES’ Working Groups and for the hosts of Working Group and Forum meetings. The methods detailed here range from facilitating small, short meetings to designing whole strategies for exchange visits. We also present some tools for virtual communication and online collaboration. Finding new techniques for the facilitation of transnational learning is an ongoing task. New ideas will come up; some tools might be revised and improved. Therefore, this document is a living document. At the Inclusive Cities’ website (www.inclusivecities.eu) we will continue to present more tools and suggestions. We are also happy to learn from your experience. Please send all feedback and comments to info@eurocities.eu. This toolkit was brought to you by: Simon Guentner, EUROCITIES Senior Policy Officer – Social Affairs Dirk Gebhardt, EUROCITIES Programme Officer – Migration and Integration and Caroline Greene, EUROCITIES Communications Officer – Inclusive Cities together with the invaluable support of the EUROCITIES policy and project teams.

Planning and moderating effective working sessions The following “ten golden rules” are for people who organise Working Group and other meetings, in which the participants present their cities and case studies – usually referred to as “sharing expertise and information”. However straightforward this may appear, finding engaging speakers and ensuring that everyone can make a meaningful contribution is often difficult. Here are some small tricks that can make a huge difference.

Make life easy for the participants – When organising a meeting (after making sure it’s really necessary and that a phone conference is not a plausible alternative), choose a location which is easily accessible for all participants. Send the most important information as soon as possible so that participants can reserve transport and accommodation at a reasonable price (advice about cheap transport and hotel offers is always welcome). The meeting venue should be close to public transport and/or to the recommended hotels. The contact details of the person responsible for the event should be provided in case of an emergency or last-minute problem. Above all, this person should be available before, during and after the meeting.

Ensure a smooth run-up to the meeting – If more than one person is responsible for organising the meeting, the division of tasks between them should be clear. Regardless of how many people are working behind the scenes, have only one contact person for the participants. Certain information, like mailing lists, should be centralised to avoid confusion. It is also useful to consider the background of the participants so as to have a balanced representation of all interested parties in the discussion. Send participants the working documents and an agenda well in advance so that they can prepare, but don’t be excessive with these.

Prepare the content – Have a well-developed script of the meeting in mind (e.g. ask for abstracts or presentations from speakers; if it is envisaged that the meeting will end with conclusions, distribute a set of draft conclusions in advance).

Take time to select and brief the speakers – Investigate the speakers’ backgrounds and communication skills before deciding on them and try to have some diversity (professional backgrounds, geography, gender, age). Get in touch with them well in advance and give them two or three questions that they should answer so that they understand the goals of the meeting. To make things easier on the day, speakers should also be briefed on time available and/or maximum number of slides of their presentation. Finally, inform all speakers as to the contents of the other speakers’ interventions to avoid overlap. Always have a “Plan B” in case one or more speakers cancel their intervention at the last minute.

Ensure the room is ready in advance – Last minute logistical problems can undermine the success of a meeting. Be at the venue well in advance and check the seating arrangements, the temperature of the room, the refreshments, the technical equipment (laptops, beamers, microphones), welcome packs, etc.

Plan for participants’ introductions – Don’t tackle the agenda immediately; ask the participants to introduce themselves so that everyone knows who else is in the room. This will make it easier for interventions and networking later in the day. With small groups, simply ask people to briefly introduce themselves (double-sided name plates can facilitate this). In large groups, where not everyone may know the other participants or where it may be difficult to keep track of everyone, consider using name badges and participants lists.

Share the goals for the meeting – start the meeting by introducing the topic of the meeting and going over the agenda. This is the opportunity to make sure that all participants have a good understanding of the meeting’s purpose and specifically, what is expected of them. By doing this, the participants can clarify expectations and agree on what is to be achieved. Take account of the participants’ working cultures (some might be more pragmatic, others more idealistic) and play the role of peace-maker if necessary. Finally, keep to the agreed agenda and time plan.

Keep it simple – Keep in mind that not all participants will be equally competent (or comfortable) in English. Set an example by using simple, clear language, demonstrating points with concrete examples. Presentations should be clear and succinct.

Promote interaction – Don’t assume participants will be comfortable with speaking in public or that they will be eager to contribute. Use innovative and participative techniques to get participants engaged and leave adequate time at the end for questions and discussion. Site visits, for example, are a good way to get people talking either to each other or about, but remember that these require additional organisation. Finally, leave enough time in the agenda for informal networking (e.g. coffee breaks).

Focus on conclusions – Conclusions should be concise, clear and outcome-driven. Soon after the event, distribute a summary of the minutes to all participants, including the results of the meeting and details of follow-up actions. If necessary, highlight the contribution of specific individuals (e.g. politicians, officials) to sustain good working relationships.

Organising meaningful site visits and study tours Visiting projects and seeing how they really operate is an integral part of learning from each other. The success of a site visit, however, is not measured by the quality of the pictures the participants take, but by how relevant it is to their work and how it inspires them regarding their own projects or programmes. The following tips will help deliver site visits that people will remember, not because of the evening reception, but for how their experience changed the nature of their work.

The basics 1 Stay local! 2 Timing matters: provide adequate time to get there (provide transport if necessary), for the visit itself and for members to explore on their own; 3 Make sure there is a project representative there who will show the participants around, present the project, facilitate the visit, answer questions, etc.; 4 The project representative is of key importance: they should have a sound knowledge of the working language of the meeting, be focused on city perspectives, be briefed on the participants and their expectations and be dynamic; 5 Refreshments and seating are always welcome.

Prepare the visit in advance 6 Provide information on the place/objectives of the visit on the agenda; 7 Brief hosts about the purpose of the meeting and on members’ expectations.

Link the visit to the theme of the meeting 8 Link visits to participants’ interests; 9 Avoid visits with a “leisure” dimension.

Make the visit interactive 10 Involve participants and give them a clear role and task (split the participants into groups and let them report to each other on certain aspects of the site and visited projects); 11 Use interactive tools when possible (discussion with local groups and experts; if relevant, testing of instruments or objects); 12 Allow enough time for questions/answers with the experts on site; 13 Try to avoid PowerPoint presentations.

Provide a real analysis

Toolkit for mutual learning

Section 1 Conducting effective Working Group meetings Regular meetings are at the heart of EUROCITIES’

14 Do not try to give the impression of a “perfect world” but show the local reality; 15 Present conflicting/opposing views; 16 Use techniques that help the participants to see and understand projects from different perspectives.

Working Groups and every Working Group has its own

End of the visit and follow-up

are some ideas that can be used by Working Group

17 Have a summary session at the end of the visit; 18 Provide participants with information material to bring back home; 19 Have informal snack and/or drinks on site after the visit (ideally with local products!); 20 Gather feedback from the participants on the visit.

style. Some meet every half year for one or two days while others meet less frequently for a few hours. Here Chairs and host cities to make these events lively and inspiring.

Tools for collective brainstorming

Brainstorming is a valuable tool that can be used to stimulate debate and creativity, whether to develop a joint position or to collect ideas for a new project. Unfortunately, sometimes individuals dominate discussions, or time constraints don’t permit the further development of an idea. Good facilitation and moderation are essential to avoid this. Some basic tools can help run such sessions and make participants think in new ways. Out of a range of techniques available, we have chosen two which are both useful and fun to work with!

Reverse brainstorming The reverse brainstorming technique, also called “negative brainstorming”, reverses the question being asked, so that participants see the problem from a different perspective. This can help generate more ideas about the problem and its possible solution. Example: instead of asking: ‘How can I make my presentation more interesting and useful?’ ask: ‘How can I make my presentation boring and useless?’ The technique is helpful when new solutions to difficult problems are called for, or when ideas have run out. It can be used individually or in small groups. How to run a reverse brainstorming session: 1 Introduce a problem (for example: presentations are often boring and do not provide useful information to the audience); 2 Reverse the problem or challenge (“How can we make the presentation boring and useless?”); 3 Brainstorm on the ‘reversed question’ to generate ‘reverse solutions’ (for example ‘use too much jargon’ or ‘speak too long’); 4 Map the results of the brainstorming (a dry-wipe board or flipchart); 5 Turn the ‘reverse solutions’ into possible responses to the original problem (each negative statement is turned into a positive one, for example ‘speaking too fast’ into ‘speaking slowly’); 6 Evaluate the responses and identify potential solutions to the problem.

Collective brainwriting The collective brainwriting technique is a tool to really get everyone involved in thinking about an issue and ensuring that no single person or small group dominates the situation. All that’s needed is paper, pens, and a question or issue which the participants should think about. Start by giving every participant a sheet of paper, at the top of which is written the question they should address (the same question for everyone). Each participant writes answers to the question, and then passes the sheet on to the next person. The process then continues with each person taking inspiration from previous responses to develop new and innovative ideas. Using this method, the participants will come up with many ideas in a very short period of time. How to run a collective brainwriting session: 1 Each participant receives a sheet of paper with the selected question and is asked to write three responses; 2 After three minutes, the sheets are passed to the person sitting to the left, who writes three new responses; 3 This process continues until all participants have contributed to each sheet of paper. For example, if there are four participants, after twelve minutes there will be four sheets with twelve answers each; 4 Then, the sheets are collected and the answers are written up on a flip-chart so that everyone can see them and discuss their responses. Results can be clustered into similar-themed groups. The participants can then discuss the responses.

Analysing good practices together

“Good practice” is a term that underpins most exercises of transnational exchange – few tools are more powerful than real-life examples of success which can be applied in a new context to deliver concrete results. Discussions about what is “good” or “best”, and what makes up a “practice” often seem redundant when a project has clear practical value. Questioning this however often highlights the valuable lesson of learning from experience. Quite often, what is presented as a “good practice” is simply a good idea which has still to be applied. Or maybe a one-off exercise which didn’t get enough backing to be sustained. Or the project could depend heavily on a specific element particular to the locality it was carried out in and cannot be easily reproduced elsewhere. Analysing good practices is a valuable learning exercise, not only for the participants but also for the presenters. Despite this, techniques to question and analyse good practices are surprisingly rare. Below are some methods that could prove useful. Just remember that good moderation is essential!

Role play To engage a discussion about a project, and to find out how it works in practice, it is important to understand the various dimensions of it and how it is perceived by the different parties involved. To this end, a useful and stimulating exercise can be to employ role play. This helps colleagues to think creatively and ensures that the analysis happens in a structured way. At the beginning of this exercise, the moderator or presenter should explain what is going to happen and what is expected of the participants. They should then distribute the roles that are typically involved in the project. These could be: service user/customer, front line officer, resident, local politician, media, etc. During the exercise, each participant plays one of these roles. The project is then presented, either visually (slides, photos, a guided tour if it is a site visit, etc.) or orally. Ideally, the presentations take the different perspectives of each of the roles into account and the participants should observe them with the ears, eyes and minds of the role they are playing. The presentations are followed by questions and answers. Finally, the participants report on what they have learned and give feedback to the project leaders.

Six Thinking Hats Developed by Edward de Bono, one of the world’s leading authors on creative thinking and management techniques, ‘Six Thinking Hats’ is a method often used in group work to make collective thinking more effective and explore unusual viewpoints. It is similar to role play, with participants not expressing their personal opinion, but a specific, clearly defined position. This helps avoid confrontation and reduce the possibility of individual biases determining the outcome of a group exercise. The basic principle of the method is to assess a good practice from different perspectives. In this exercise, the perspectives do not represent interests or roles, but different dimensions of thinking. Each participant is attributed a ‘coloured hat’ that determines the specific opinion that they will advance (or defend) during the exercise: Six distinct positions are identified: ■■ Neutrality (white): This position presents the “white paper”. It focuses on facts and available information; ■■ Feeling (red): This position presents fire and heat. It expresses instinctive emotions and statements of emotional feeling, but does not offer any explanation; ■■ Negative judgement (black): This critical and cautious perspective is concerned with what could go wrong, with problems and their prevention; ■■ Positive judgement (yellow): Sunshine and optimism see the potential benefits of a project, how it could grow and be further developed; ■■ Creative thinking (green): Green is for creativity, it is all about new ideas, originality and alternative possibilities; ■■ Process control (blue): This “bird’s eye view” is about objectivity. It provides orientation and looks for priorities. Playing the role of mediator, it summaries what has been discussed and invites other hats to comment. To start the session, the different colours/hats are distributed amongst participants and the good practice is presented. Then the different viewpoints are exchanged. An opening contribution could be expected from the person with the blue hat. It is best to wait until a few participants have aired

their views before hearing from the person with the black hat. Consider exchanging hats during the discussion. This can be either done after specific intervals (e.g.: 10min), after each contribution or according to any other rule which has been agreed upon at the outset. Once the exchange of views has taken place, the discussion should be concluded, either with a final statement from each participant or a summery by the person with the blue hat. Like role play, the “Six Thinking Hats” method will lead to a more thorough understanding of a project or practice than a question and answers session. This is a valuable tool for the hosts and practitioners as it raises important questions about the functioning of a project while triggering fresh ideas. This method, however, demands a well-explained introduction and good moderation throughout. In order to make useful contributions, the participants must have already gained a sound basis of knowledge about the project, such as through a detailed report or a site visit.

360 Degree Project Analysis The basic idea behind this method is that in order to fully understand a project in its context, five key dimensions of it must be understood: ■■ User (citizen/customer) dimension: What is the role, experience and perception of the users and beneficiaries of the service? ■■ Horizontal dimension: Which partners are involved in delivering and managing the service and which actors are not? What is their role and experience? ■■ Vertical partnership dimension: How is the project financed and controlled, which levels of government are involved? ■■ Internal teamwork: How is the team composed and how does it work together? ■■ Time: How has the project evolved over time? Have the goals remained the same or have they changed? What are its future prospects?

According to the 360 Degree Project Analysis method, the representatives of one city or project (project A) present their “story” on based on these five dimensions. The participants from another city/project (project B) then reflect on how this relates to their experience and provide feedback. This exercise becomes particularly useful when the participants work together over a prolonged period, gaining a good understanding of each others’ projects.

Tools for collective brainstorming

Analysing good practices together

Tools for collective brainstorming

Analysing good practices together

Prepare the visit in advance 6 Provide information on the place/objectives of the visit on the agenda; 7 Brief hosts about the purpose of the meeting and on members’ expectations.

Link the visit to the theme of the meeting 8 Link visits to participants’ interests; 9 Avoid visits with a “leisure” dimension.

Provide a real analysis

Toolkit for mutual learning

Section 1 Conducting effective Working Group meetings Regular meetings are at the heart of EUROCITIES’

Working Groups and every Working Group has its own

End of the visit and follow-up

are some ideas that can be used by Working Group

style. Some meet every half year for one or two days while others meet less frequently for a few hours. Here Chairs and host cities to make these events lively and inspiring.

Prepare the visit in advance 6 Provide information on the place/objectives of the visit on the agenda; 7 Brief hosts about the purpose of the meeting and on members’ expectations.

Link the visit to the theme of the meeting 8 Link visits to participants’ interests; 9 Avoid visits with a “leisure” dimension.

Provide a real analysis

Toolkit for mutual learning

Section 1 Conducting effective Working Group meetings Regular meetings are at the heart of EUROCITIES’

Working Groups and every Working Group has its own

End of the visit and follow-up

are some ideas that can be used by Working Group

style. Some meet every half year for one or two days while others meet less frequently for a few hours. Here Chairs and host cities to make these events lively and inspiring.

Step 4 Desk review

Step 6 Feedback report

On the basis of the self-assessment report, the peers carry out a desk review. They compare the information in the report with the benchmark that was agreed (step 2). The host city can then prepare the actual review visit on basis of these comments. This step is important as it helps clarify any misunderstandings ahead of the visit, so that the visit itself can run smoothly.

After the visit, the peers compare and agree on their findings and compile a feedback report on the city’s performance against the benchmark, highlighting good practices and making recommendations for areas of improvement. This report should then be presented to the host city (not too long after the visit), ideally in a follow-up visit by a member of the team. It is then up to the city to act on the recommendations.

Example: Peers comment: “Although the city administration is performing well on guidance and informal measures, it can perform better on formal regulations, like obligations and formal conditions on equality and diversity in contracts. While some evidence demonstrates that the city administration is meeting this benchmark, there is a need to further analyse the Contractor Code of Conduct, as a minimum standard of acceptable behaviour is not specified on equality principles and the diversity focus is not clear.”

Step 5 Peer review visit The peer review visit is at the heart of the whole exercise. The peers visit the city and meet stakeholders to get a full picture of the project or policy under review. These can include the local administration, the city council, and partner organisations. At the beginning of the visit, the peers come together to form teams to prepare interviews (which questions to ask to which interviewee?) and to define the roles within each team (who poses the questions, who records the answers etc.). To collect information and to test their initial hypotheses, the participants carry out interviews, but it is possible to use more experimental techniques such as situation testing (where peers pretend to be customers), shadowing of customers or observing. Ideally the city visit lasts between two and four days. The participants should ensure that the data gathered is sufficient and includes the whole spectrum of opinions. This enables them to get an in-depth overview of the city’s performance. Organisers should make sure that there is enough time at the end of the visit for all the peers to come together and exchange the information that was collected during the interviews, discuss remaining questions and give initial feedback to the hosts.

Example: Teams assessment after the visit: “In the promotion of equality and diversity principles to contractors, the city administration is performing very well and peers found that the procurement unit had faced very little resistance from contractors in integrating these principles as requirements in both the tendering specifications and the contract monitoring process. Peers would encourage the administration to be bolder in obliging contractors to respect higher standards and not just minimum standards in equality and diversity. Peers consider that these efforts should be particularly focused on contractors who are working with diverse communities or when they are delivering culturally-sensitive services.” Assessing a city’s performance against the agreed benchmark gives practitioners the chance to identify strengths and weaknesses in current practices and measure improvements over time, ultimately leading to changes in (or adaptations to) implementation.

Section 2 Organising peer reviews Peer reviews are a powerful analytical tool. Their logic is rather simple and straightforward: colleagues who work on similar subjects but in different cities or contexts meet and evaluate one another’s projects or policies. In doing so, they learn about how others are tackling the situation and can see their own work in a new light. Peer review is common practice in the field of research, where academics comment on each other’s articles before they are published in a journal. Over the last years, this practice has extended to and become popular in the field of public policy. Regardless of scope, the basis of the exercise is that the analysis is done by people with similar backgrounds who are able to apply relevant knowledge and experience to the evaluation.

Example: Peer comment on evidence extracted from interview: “There is strong evidence that diversity and equality principles are promoted to contractors, e.g. Contractor Code of Conduct, articles from newsletter. Procurement unit did not face much resistance in promoting diversity to contractors and contractors were not reluctant in integrating equality and diversity principles.”

Toolkit for mutual learning

More details on the EUROCITIES peer review projects DIVE and INTI-Cities, as well as the INTI-CITIES final publication with a step-bystep guide on peer reviewing can be found at www.inticities.eu

Introduction In order to be successful and lead to new insights, a peer review needs to be well facilitated. It will not work if the colleagues simply meet and talk about their experience: they must be prepared and the exchange needs to be carefully structured. It needs to have a clear focus so that the right questions can be put to the right people – who can actually answer them. If accurate recommendations are to be made, it is essential that the exercise focuses on a specific element of, what is likely to be, a wider policy problem, for example: cost-effectiveness, the outcomes of a practice or on the governance structures and common vision of an administration. In EUROCITIES, several peer review projects have been held. These were successful as commonly agreed benchmarks to guide the process were established from the outset. At the beginning of a series of peer reviews, the group agrees to focus on a specific area for the review sessions and develops a set of issues they are particularly interested in. For each they set a hypothetical ideal standard – the benchmark – and indicators that could show how close the practice under review is to this ideal. The aim however, is never to criticize one another, but rather to identify which features contribute to the success of a project. These identified features may be used to inspire some improvements in similar projects in the participants localities. The following model proposes six steps that can assist in developing a peer review. Keep in mind that a clear set of projects or policies to be assessed should be agreed upon at the outset. Enlist the right colleagues – those who are motivated to be involved as both peer reviewers and to being reviewed themselves. Include a preparation phase ahead of each visit in which primary information is shared, a well structured visit is organised and a report is provided which records the findings of the exchange in a way that they can be shared with other colleagues and actors that might be interested, such as local politicians. Single peer reviews held in one city or peer reviews of whole process in which similar projects in different cities are put under review are possible. In this latter case, leave enough time between the meetings so that the participants have time to prepare. All examples are taken from DIVE projects.

Step 1 Agree on focus and find the right participants (peers)

Step 2 Use a benchmark for assessment

Step 3 Self-assessment by the city under review

A peer review must look at a concrete, identifiable project or policy. It is not possible to try to review a whole city or administration. Once the focus area is identified, make sure that the best-placed people from each city participates. They must be experts in their field so that they can ask the right questions and they should also have a certain level of seniority in their organisations, so that they can apply some of the lessons they learn in the process back home. At each peer review visit, the host city must identify and involve the people that can actually answer the questions of the participants. This may include frontline staff, service users, residents and maybe also local politicians. Political backing for the exercise can be important, both for the preparation of the visit and for ensuring follow up after the review.

The peer review team agrees on a common benchmark against which to measure performance. Think of the benchmark as an ‘ideal’ to which all cities aspire and against which performance can be measured in a structured way. This step is essential for two reasons: first, it helps to define the scope of the assessment thereby avoiding the risk of a general, inconclusive review. Second, it ensures that the whole team (both the peers who are reviewers and the peers whose city is under review) agrees on the same principles and standards. If the benchmark is not discussed and developed by the whole team, there is a risk that the review itself will not be valid and applicable to the exercise.

Before hosting a peer review meeting, the host representatives should take a critical look at their own projects’ practices and assess its performance. This self-assessment is submitted to the peers in the form of a report, for which the same template, based on the benchmark, is provided for each city. The report also explains the local framework conditions such as decision-making structures, implementation or strategies and plans in place. This is essential for the peers to understand the economic, political, and social context in which the municipality operates.

Example:

City’s self assessment on the benchmark: “The Procurement Unit has produced a Contractor Code of Conduct that describes a minimum standard of acceptable behaviour that contractors, service providers and suppliers should adopt and which forms part of the contract terms and conditions. Various requirements are included in tender documentation. These can include complaints procedures, service user monitoring, staff training, recruitment and employment requirements, communication requirements, target setting, statistical reporting, performance monitoring and contract management. Production of a Community Benefits Charter to encourage all potential and existing contractors to look at providing some added benefit to the local community.”

Example: Area to be reviewed: a city’s approach to promoting ethnic diversity and equal opportunities for those with a migrant background in its recruitment policy. Possible relevant interviewees: politicians with responsibility for migration and integration, head of department/senior officers working on policy development, head of equality department, manager of city administration’s human resource department, officer dealing with issues/complaints regarding recruitment procedures, representatives from migrant associations.

Benchmark: Diversity and Equality principles in the implementation of procurement procedures: “Promotion of diversity and equality principles with contactors”. This benchmark helps to identify whether a city has a strategy in place to inform contractors about the integration of diversity and equality principles into their procedures or whether it obliges them, for example, to work with a diverse staff or to train frontline staff in intercultural awareness. It could also look at how these obligations are applied further down the supply chain.

Example:

Step 1 Agree on focus and find the right participants (peers)

Step 2 Use a benchmark for assessment

Step 3 Self-assessment by the city under review

Example:

Step 4 Desk review

Step 6 Feedback report

Toolkit for mutual learning

More details on the EUROCITIES peer review projects DIVE and INTI-Cities, as well as the INTI-CITIES final publication with a step-bystep guide on peer reviewing can be found at www.inticities.eu

Toolkit for mutual learning

Setting a meeting date In order to progress on a certain project or programme, eventually the participants will have to come together to discuss it. With people working in many organisations in many countries, it may be difficult to coordinate diaries. The internet has many useful tools such as on-line calendars through which participants can indicate which dates they are available, giving the meeting organiser an overview of people’s availability. The organiser can also propose dates which the participants can accept or reject, based on their own availability.

Main functions: ■■ Proposes dates in a simple online-form and allow others to (dis)agree by ticking boxes

Examples: ■■ www.doodle.com ■■ www.scheduleonce.com ■■ www.whenisgood.net

Online collaboration through social networking tools A broad range of social networking sites are available on the internet. The most well known of these is Facebook, where private groups can be set up. These sites can be used for online communication amongst project partners across the world. One less obvious example is Skype which can be used for realtime communication, video conferencing or phone conferences. There are also networks that have been developed especially for business and project management (such as Huddle which provides relatively simple online workspaces), but often involve a monthly fee. In general, it is worthwhile investigating the use of these tools and establishing if they fit the intended purpose. Remember that most of these networks are commercial undertakings and the users should be clear about which data should be shared and which not. Some of these networks might also be blocked by public administrations firewalls, for security reasons.

Main functions: ■■ Helps users maintain relations and contacts with others through the Internet; ■■ Profile management allows users to present themselves; ■■ Privacy settings allow users and groups to manage who sees what.

Examples: ■■ www.facebook.com ■■ www.skype.org ■■ www.huddle.net

Section 3 Tools for online collaboration There are many reasons for using online tools to facilitate discussions, develop ideas and draft documents together. These tools can help save time, money and ultimately reduce carbon footprints by avoiding face-to-face meetings. As with all tools, the crucial question is whether online tools are easy to use and fit for the actual purpose. This section describes some resources EUROCITIES has found particularly valuable for collaborative work. Bear in mind that there are a variety of tools available which may be just as useful as the ones presented here.

Collaborative online writing with wikis Wikis are online platforms that allow several people to work together concurrently on the same document, avoiding the creation of several redundant versions of a document. Instead of sending out a first draft to the team who then send comments and changes that have to be integrated, with a wiki, all team members can work online on the same text simultaneously, making changes with a simple text editor. If the text has several elements, the wiki can be divided into different sections and subsections. To make the collaborative writing process transparent, users have to log on to the wiki and identify themselves. Older versions of the text are stored online and it is possible to see which changes were made by whom. Wikis also allow users to post comments, for example to draw attention to a debatable issue. To ease the editing process, designate one person responsible for moderating the process, e.g.: to define tasks for the group members and identify persons to work on these tasks. Most wikis can be used as simple online platforms whilst others need to be installed on a local server. This requires a certain amount of technological capacity, but also usually comes with advanced features. People who have not previously used this tool may have some “teething problems” in getting used to editing text on line. Drafting and formatting complex documents where structure and format are important, such as project reports, may be done more easily on word processing programmes such as Open Office Writer or Microsoft Word.

Main functions: ■■ Allows people to work together on a text without creating redundant copies; ■■ Tracks modifications to a text; ■■ Allows people to comment on changes made by others.

Examples: ■■ “EditMe” is a platform for hosting a light wiki that has basic applications such as user management, management of site restrictions and easy text editing. www.editme.com ■■ “MindTouch” is one of the leading collaborative platforms for hosting a wiki. Basic functions are free of charge, with advanced functions available for purchase. www.mindtouch.com ■■ www.wikipedia.org ■■ www.wikipreneurship.eu ■■ www.participedia.net

Document the project’s development in a blog

Develop and structure ideas online

Similar to wikis, blogs allow the user(s) to develop a text alone or in a group. In contrast to wikis which are either public or private, blogs usually address a broader public and can be seen and commented on by everybody, but edited by only a select number of people. Blogs can be a useful tool to disseminate information about a project while it is being developed. A blog is usually presented chronologically (showing the most recent entry on top), and allows the users to describe and find different entries through “tags”, simple user-generated keywords. It is easy to integrate photos, videos or sound files into a blog. Blogs can be a window for the outside world to the project or vice versa, but they are less useful for interaction and developing content together. Rather than being an essential tool for working together, a blog is an additional tool for dissemination and communication for people with the time to immediately share their ideas with others. A blog that is not regularly updated will soon lose its readership.

Online “mind mapping” tools can help develop and structure ideas as a team when it is not possible to meet face-toface. Such tools can be used, for example, to build a work programme or develop ideas for an application for funding. These tools are generally free to use and readily available. Mind mapping tools can also be used alongside “physical meetings” to enable the coordinator or chair person to draw together main points of the discussion, visualise them and share with other participants for further collaboration/work during a concluding session or after the physical meeting. Mind mapping tools are really easy to use, so they are definitely worth a try! A lot of people feel more comfortable meeting face-toface to brainstorm together. After all, brainstorming is about discussing issues in a group and scribbling down notes and diagrams without technical limitations. The better the members of the group know each other, the more likely it is that this tool will work in a virtual setting.

Main functions:

■■ Write and publish text online; ■■ Comment on texts.

■■ Creates mind maps jointly with other users; ■■ Shares and exports mindmaps.

Examples:

■■ The European Commission funded programme URBACT has developed its own blog (www.blog.urbact.eu) which shows how blogs can be used to showcase project outcomes. ■■ www.blogger.com ■■ www.blog.com

■■ One of the better mind mapping tools is www.bubbl.us. It is completely free. ■■ www.mindmeister.com is more sophisticated and costs approximately €5 per month.

Main functions: ■■ Allows people to work together on a text without creating redundant copies; ■■ Tracks modifications to a text; ■■ Allows people to comment on changes made by others.

Document the project’s development in a blog

Develop and structure ideas online

Main functions:

■■ Write and publish text online; ■■ Comment on texts.

■■ Creates mind maps jointly with other users; ■■ Shares and exports mindmaps.

Examples:

■■ One of the better mind mapping tools is www.bubbl.us. It is completely free. ■■ www.mindmeister.com is more sophisticated and costs approximately €5 per month.

Toolkit for mutual learning

Main functions: ■■ Proposes dates in a simple online-form and allow others to (dis)agree by ticking boxes

Examples: ■■ www.doodle.com ■■ www.scheduleonce.com ■■ www.whenisgood.net

Examples: ■■ www.facebook.com ■■ www.skype.org ■■ www.huddle.net

EUROCITIES

Toolkit for mutual learning

Table of contents Section 1 Conducting effective Working Group meetings Section 2 Organising peer reviews Section 3 Tools for online collaboration