Social Innovation Community Policy Masterclasses The Policy Masterclass Partner Report is intended to guide partners in producing a short and concise write up of each of the Masterclasses they deliver (4-5 pages max). Please share your completed report with Nesta no later than Friday the 15th of December. This template is divided into 3 sections: Section 1. Aims and learning objectives of your Masterclass Section 2. Policy Findings
Section 1. Aims and learning objectives of your Masterclass a. Please add date and location of your Policy Masterclass The event took place at the Technology Park Zagreb on the 12th of December 2017. SIL partnered with the Croatian Association of Cities and organized two Policy Masterclasses as a one day policy workshop/conference event called ˝City Lab˝. The event took place from 09.00 am till 18.00 pm. Partner organizations were the City of Zagreb and Technology Park Zagreb. Detailed agenda: 1st block: Deepening public-social relationships 09.00 – 09.30 networking coffee 09.30 – 09.45 introduction, event goal and outcomes, introduction to SIC project and social innovation methods (Mirna Karzen, SIL) 09.45 – 10.15 presentation of URBACT project and possibilities for city collaborations on urban and social innovations (Marko Ercegović, Croatian Association of Cities) 10.15 – 10.45 Lecture on ROCK project: spacial and collaborative approach for regeneration of historic cities (Valentina Gianfrante, University of Bologna) 10.45 – 11.30 Lecture on Bologna collaborative city: policies and experiences (Giovanni Ginnochini, Urban center Bologna) 11:45 – 13:00 Panel discussion: which public policies do we need to stimulate urban social innovation and how to implement them in existing structures? (Mirna Karzen, SIL; Petra Počanić, independent service designer; Matea Brajko, City of Zagreb, Valentina Gianfrante, UNIBO; Giovanni Ginnochini, Urban Center Bologna, Marko Ercegović, Association of Cities; Dubravko Muzur, Ministry of regional development and EU funds) 2nd block: Moving to Action 14:00 – 15.00 Exercise 1: detecting key urban & social challenges for cities that are a priorty issue for local decision makers 15.00 – 16.00 Exercise 2: generating ideas on new policies 16.00 – 17.00 Exercise 3: refiningn policy proposal
17.00 – 17.30 Exercise 4: presenting policy proposals 17.30 – 18.00 Follow up and next steps
b. What was focus and objective of your Masterclass? Include details of any actions taken (e.g. interviews) you held with participants or other stakeholders that helped clarify participants’ priorities in terms of the theme / topic / focus of Masterclass. Specify which of the Masterclass options you went for. In their work, city institutions and departments often encounter administrative and bureaucratic obstacles that significantly impede the development and implementation of new services for citizens. In addition, numerous limitations that affect flexibility and adaptability to current, but also future urban trends and changes, increase the need for new, creative approaches that address city problems and stimulate innovation in designing city policies. Inclusion of citizens, creative industries, researchers, innovators, academic communities and the business sector in the early process of defining city challenges and then solving them is the key element of every modern city's development. Although the solutions may seem relatively simple, processes that demand involvement of different city stakeholders are often proved to be problematic, conflicting and therefore, require structured methodology and facilitation. Policy Masterclass was designed as a practical and interactive event for employees of city departments and city institutions, policy makers and creators, and social innovators. Designed in two methodologically separate blocks, Policy Masterclass has included lectures, carefully structured discussions, and dynamic workplace problem solving methods and SMART goals set for incorporating social innovations into local city policies. The Masterclass's main goal was to inform participants about the importance and
impact that local policies and support systems have on developing innovative practices in the city. Also, the Policy Masterclass aimed at designing the so-called. "Manifesto for Social Innovation" that could serve as an universal guide (an action plan) for local governments and cities in creating their own policies and new, innovative practices in designing and providing more effective and sustainable city services and policies.
Specific goals of the event: To introduce city representatives with examples of best practice in the domains of creating a safe space for experimentation, testing new policies and co-creating policies with relevant stakeholders, including citizens. Examples from Urban Center Bologna, ROCK project and SIC host center Zagreb showcased the process, possible models and results of implementing social innovation processes and capacity building on a local level.
To introduce the process and methods used to redefine and improve the quality of city services and policies according to the specific user needs and to recognize the realistic challenges and opportunities social innovators are facing when dealing with urban innovation. The process and methodologies were presented through an authentic experience of the City of Zagreb, involved in SIC experimentation process, which implemented design thinking methodology in practice and developed new social innovations targeted at diverse groups of citizens. Also, example of Zagreb showcased shifts in collaboration among city departments and changing perceptions on how to approach urban issues.
To apply practical exercises that will enable participants (policy makers coming from different Croatian cities) to detect important urban social challenges. Based on the identified challenges, to create a fertile ground for co-creation of new policy recommendations that could be integrated and build upon existing policies and structures in a period of up to three years.
To improve co-operation between the cities of Croatia and link decision-makers to practitioners, innovators, researchers and representatives of the civil sector. That will encourage the creation of an ecosystem that stimulates the development of urban innovations and revitalizes the city from its foundation. Panel discussion was organized to gather different stakeholders important for efficiency of social innovation ecosystem in urban areas.
The City Lab conference was designed in two blocks. First block followed the approach Deepening public-social relationships. Aim of the approach was to educate and inform participants on the opportunities for engaging in urban social innovation and how can their cities benefit from it. Therefore, several projects were presented as a showcase of good practice that ecourages new innovative models for collaboration, implementing innovation and overall, ensures funding. Co-host, Association of cities presented the opportunities for social and urban innovation regarding URBACT project and demonstrated best practice examples in Croatia
(participatory budgeting developed in the City of Pazin and active citizenship model in designing urban areas of Zagreb called ˝Zagreb za mene˝). BoostInno was presented as an opportunity network for city administration to play a new role as public booster and brokers/facilitators of social innovation activities/projects/policies, by driving social innovation in, through and out the public sector. Opportunities for collaboration, implementing already developed practices into a new ecosystem and capacity building were key motivators for cities to engage in URBACT project and develop urban social innovations on a city scale. Keynote speakers from Bologna, presented participatory models of collaboration regarding the challenges of city regeneration (Horizon 2020 ROCK project and Urban center Bologna). Both cases demonstrated the need for engaging adademia, citizens, public and private sector in new collaborarative city management modes for revitalization and public service design. Giovanni Ginnochini, director of Urban center Bologna, presented how to establish an open ˝urban lab˝ model that serves as a one stop shop for citizen initiatives, research and policy reccomendation hub. Both cases were picked out by SIL to pursue city officials from Croatian cities that establishing a living lab; an experimentation model for design and management of public goods is a necessity for the development of urban and social innovation ecosystem. The role of structured facilitation of dialogues among public officials and citizens is seen as crucial for developing efficient and sustainable public policies. The first block ended with an open panel discussion where important stakeholders coming from local level authorities (City of Zagreb), national level (Ministry for regional development and EU funds), intermediary organizations (SIL), NGO's (Croatian Association of Cities) and independent professionals (freelance service designers) presented their perspective on what is needed to design effective urban innovation policies and what is preventing cities to be innovative and socially responsive. The topic of incompatibilty among policies on national and local level, constant changes in regulations and national directives and misconceptions due to lack of communication on these levels prevent local authorities to properly implement national directives and/or demand constant revisions of what needs to be done. Another issue preventing innovative services development and new innovation policies is a general lack of trust in the society. That, among all, prevents an open dialogue, transparency in policy implementations and creates obstacles for participatory policy making processes. Investing in soft skills, capacity building programmes and new facilitation models were detected as a priority actions to open the doors for innovative practices and collaboration on all levels in the ecosystem. Relying on the example of Zagreb as an Experimentation center for social innovation (within SIC project) discussion redirected towards what local authorities need to implement ˝lab˝models as an integrative part of their everyday operations. Lack of flexibility, overburdening regulations, directives and rigid city department structures prevent cooperation among different offices and the ability to experiment and possibly fail. New impact measurement models need to be developed and added value of social innovation programmes in public sector should be properly measured and presented.
Second block followed the appoach of Moving to Action. Within this block participants gathered in small groups and were working on developing their policy proposals for local level authorities. More concretely, all groups recognized lack of participatory acitivities and citizen engagement as an essential barrier for sustainable policy making processes. However, some ˝unusual suspects˝ were detected. Both city districs and local commitees (as the lowest level of local government) were recognized as a bridging local city agents among the City and its citizens. The role of these institutions should be completely restructured following a higher level of their involvment in facilitation processes, mapping urban city challenges and innovations occuring in the community and including more responsibility into taking actions on a city district level. City districs and local comitees are described as slow, inefficient organizations, closed for co-creation and cooperation. Policy recommendations that were designed by participants dwere mostly oriented towards restructuring local comittes to serve their citizens by remodeling their services, putting more effort in communication (using digitalization tools like e-citizen, e-advise, e-voting) and renewing their relationships with existing City departments. However, capacity building programmes need to be put first in order to achieve all mentioned above. It was interesting to follow how participants detected new players and crucial agents for building an urban innovation ecosystem. Also, the flexibility of operations allow these agents to perform fast, more independent and to reach more citizens. General reccomendation were: To invest in capacity budiling programmes on all city levels, with a specific emphasis on local commitees and city district officials To co-create new mechanisms for easier implementation of urban practices coming from citizen initiatives (e.g. vouchers for reusing empty public spaces) To put more effort in participatory activities that engage citizes (quote: ˝a legally required panel forum is not a participatory activity˝) To focus on the importance of quality facilitation processes that generate new smart solutions and social innovations (e.g. public tenders for facilitatio of the
activities and processes) To transform local commitees into ˝community hubs˝ models (to build trust and cooperation, to create safe space for experimenting) To coordinate and harmonize national and local directives (to avoid misconceptions and ensure local policy efficiency)
In the follow up all participants agreed that a Manifesto (an action plan) for encouraging urban social innovation should be developed and for the facilitators to create a document that will be disseminated among Croatian Cities and officies.
c. Who participated in your Masterclass? (Please specify total participant number, and breakdown in terms of gender, sectors, roles, and institutions)
Štefančić
Head of finance department
City of Velika Gorica
Marija
Šarić
Director of the Pleternica Entrepreneurial Center
City of Pleternica
Jasna
Hoffmann
Assistant in the City Pleternica
City of Pleternica
Vlatka
Berlan
Department for EU programs and projects
City of Ivanić Grad
Matko
Šutalo
Mayor of Valpovo
City of Valpovo
Rajković
Director of Quantum – company for IT equipment and systems management
Žaneta
Ivan
Marina
Grčić
Snježana Turalija
Head of the EU Funds Department
Administrative Department for Development of Town, Economy and EU Funds, City of Karlovac
head of the administrative department for city
Administrative Department for Development of
development, economy and EU funds,
Town, Economy and EU Funds, City of Karlovac
Head of Department for Resource Economics, Environmental Protection and Regional Development
Institute for Development and International Relations IRMO
Sanja
Maleković
Jelena
Senior Associate for Mužar Cultural and Cultural Smenderovac Heritage
Nikolina
Pahanić Lugar
Senior associate for associations,sports, and technical culture City of Karlovac
Irena
Borovina
NGO Vestigium (community hub)
Zagreb
Nenad
Maljković
ECOLISE network (SIC network for climate change)
zagreb
Marina
Popijač
Director of Nature park Medvednica
Zagreb
Kovačić
Senior advisor, capacity building expert Nature park Medvednica Zagreb
Denis
Gordana Ćorić
University of VERN
Mateo
Professional Associate Oikon d.o.o. Institute for Applied Ecology
Gudić
City of Karlovac
Zagreb
Dubravko Bilić
Mayor of City of Ludbreg
City of Ludbreg
Petra
Međimurec
Senior Associate for Development Projects
City of Ludbreg
Branimir
Bence
Director of Apptime.today and cofounder of blockchain startup company Revive - early prototype decentralized autonomous management of urban projects of social interest
Marina
Petrović
co-operative for ethical financing
Dubajić
Scientific novice at the Department of Administrative Science, Faculty of Law in Zagreb
Štrk
director of the Agency for Development and Investment of the City of Vinkovci City of Vinkovci
Daria
Mirta
Nikolić Popović
President of Croatian cluster for cultural and creative industries
Slipčević
project manager of the Agency for Development and Investment of the City of Vinkovci
Vučić
project manager of the Agency for Development and Investment of the City of Vinkovci
Vedran
Horvat
Managing director, Institute for Political Ecology
Monika
Kovaljesko
Ivana
Nikčević
Kristina
Miloš
Ivana
Danijela
Katarina
CIVIL SOCIETY PROTECTION OFFICE Grad Zagreb
Ana Irena
Haudi
Cakum-Pakum d.o.o. translation & interpreting business
Petra
Počanić
Independent service designer
Ana
Pandža Kunčević
Head of deparment for tourism
Ivković
Expert advisor in the department for tourism City of Zagreb
Latica
City of Zagreb
Section 2. Outcomes of the Masterclass a. Learning objectives: Please briefly include any evidence (e.g. survey feedback/quotes) which illustrate that your Masterclass achieved the learning objectives below:* “Create awareness of key social innovation policy principles (e.g. experimentation, prototyping, co-design, etc), and prompt reflection about where and how they could be applied to support the development of (local) solutions.”
Inform and showcase best practice examples of innovative and participatory policy making
“Build relationships between public officials and social innovators that could be sustained in future”. What examples can you give which support that your Masterclass achieved this? (Consider # of people saying they wanted to stay in touch, # of participants saying they’d to continue working this way in future, etc.).* Participants asking
processes To introduce various models of managing and implementing participatory policy making processes and experimental methods To raise awareness for collaboration on all policy levels To introduce the importance of involving all stakeholders for creating an ecosystem for SI To use participatory exercises for networking, sharing ideas and creating a space of trust
relevant questions on how to create collaborative spaces for innovation within city administration Participants actively participatng in exerices, discussing relevant topics and sharing their experiences on barriers, innovation opportunities etc. Participants recognizing that collaborative policy making processes produce more efficient policies that are easier to implement in practice Participants closely collaborating with participants coming from different sectors and asking questions on how can they connect, merge resources and collaboratively produce new ideas Participants joining workshop sessions without throwbacks, openly discussing emerging issues, sharing ideas and experiences
b. Were there other specific aims your Masterclass set out to achieve? Please give examples which show your Masterclass supported this. Masterclass was designed not only to educate but to showcase the value of crosssectoral and participatory value of policy making. Workshops were designed to encourage participants coming from different sectors to engage in discussions, problem solving activities and collaboration. The underlying aim of the Masterclass was to change mindsets and showcase the value and importance of participatory policy making processes for the City and its citizens. Through several sucessful examples of collaboration models and funding opportunities, Cities had a chance to capture the way in which they can implement such methodologies and programmes with respect to their current focus and policy priorities. The aim was to build upon existing strategies and policies and esure proper fit of new practices and management models. The idea was not to reinvent public authority structures and mechanisms but to see where are theopportunities to make processes more adaptable, innovative and collaborative and how to achieve it. Although each City faces its own challenges, the aim of the Masterclasses (that later on showed as a workshop result) emphasized the same opportunities for all cities involved in the process. Masterclasses have presented new models of cooperation, stronger involvement of local commitees, structured facilitation and among all, investing in capacity builing programmes.
c. Please briefly highlight any future opportunities, challenges or learning gaps or needs (policy or other) identified by participants on the day. These were explained in detail in the section 1b). d. Please share any reflections you or others have had about how effective the Masterclass was, and any thoughts you may have about how the methodology could be improved in future. Interesting fact about the event is that it gathered officials from smaller Croatian cities that obviously have interest in building an urban social innovation ecosystem. Methodology was clear and all participants had a chance to take part in participatory activities and give their feedback on the topics discussed. Any other comments:
Section 3: SIC’s Policy Portal and Forum Strategy and ongoing engagement a. What were participants’ communication preferences regarding SIC’s Policy Forum and Policy Portal in terms of a) their preferred online platform: e.g. LinkedIn / Facebook / Disqus / SIC platform / other? b) the kinds of content and engagement they would find useful: peer support (online forum) / educational (blogs / webinars / reports) c) their willingness to contribute to the Policy Portal (as guest bloggers, etc.)? Participants expressed interest into joining Cities and region network and to be informed on the events happening regarding urban innovations in the region. More support is needed in the area of showcasing best practice models and seeing how they actually work in practice – work on concrete cases and analyize them step by step (what works and what does not work and why). Also, participants would like to recieve in house consultations and guidelines on how to transfer best practices and set up new models. Due to the fact that they are overburdened with work, face to face meetings, online discussions and participation at events is the best form for them to engage and learn more on the topic. b. Did your Master Class uncover any insights that could be relevant to our work on the Lisbon Declaration/social innovation policy principles work? This Masterclass built upon the Lisabon declaration because its aim was to design a national Manifesto for urban social innovation. Also, the areas for policy upgrade detected in Lisabon clearly correlated with areas detected in this Masterclass. Participatory policy making processes are needed in all policy levels, from EC to regional, national and local government. In order for the Croatian cities Manifesto to really take place and to be accepted at the
both national and local levels, there is a need to build also a greater support mechanisms among EU and national/local level actors. This is not done yet so our national and local governments lack information and most importantly motivation (or even a pressure) from the EC levels to participate at greater EU events or initiatives sucha as the Lisbon Manifesto.
Thank you!