1. Topics?
1.1. CG92 Vision
1.1.1. Productive territories
1.1.2. Sharing territories
1.1.3. Territories as Commons
2. GOVERNMENT Actions
2.1. - call for projects (ex: Region Ile-De-France for coworking, makerspaces, local currencies, sharing economy)
2.2. - research / research-action (ex: Brittany, Nord-pas-de-calais)
2.3. MAPS - mapping the ecosystem (ex: Barcelona for the maker ecosystem)
2.4. - communicating about the projects (advertising them on their website?)
2.5. - communication booklet (ex: Sidney Sharing City)
2.6. - overall territorial marketing strategy (ex: Seoul, soon Amsterdam + maybe Barcelona ?)
2.7. - citizen participation / commons (Bologna + see Naples for water, Capannori for waste, etc)
2.8. PROCUREMENT POLICIES FAVORING THE COLLECO
2.9. Challenge Prizes
2.10. PROGRAMS to share/unlock IDLE Assets
2.10.1. Spaces
2.10.2. cars
2.10.3. knowledge
3. Basics
3.1. Why
3.1.1. Just avoid being Too Technical
3.1.2. Should be good for anyone: not only for the ones which know the topic
3.1.3. Tools Are available: would be stupid not to use
3.2. How
3.2.1. Engagement is key
3.2.1.1. Participation
3.2.1.2. Transparency
3.2.2. Learning by doing?
3.2.2.1. Experiment in a given direction
4. NARRATIVE
4.1. Solution to Existing Problem
4.1.1. Not a new THING
4.1.2. a new TOOL to do things and achieve existing objectives
4.1.3. AVOID THE FEELING OF CHANGE
4.1.4. Existing long term committmenrs
4.1.4.1. CO2 reduction
4.1.4.2. energy efficiency
4.2. Goverment as a Platform - Enabling
4.2.1. Govs can Experiment by enabling others to take Risk (eg: companies/associations) push risk at the boundaries
4.3. Economic Interests
4.3.1. Saving Money - Doing More with Less
4.3.1.1. Coproduction of public functions and services
4.3.1.2. Example: cost of Wikipedia vs Cost of something local
4.3.2. Extract money from informal economy / hidden economy
4.4. Enabling new sources of income for citizens
4.4.1. Monetizing assets and Skills
4.4.2. Save Money from cheaper/shared services + access over ownership
4.4.3. More opportunities for entrepreneurship, personal business
4.5. METAPHORES
4.5.1. Using Collaborative Glasses metaphore
4.5.1.1. Don't build new roads, squeeze more people in the same car
4.6. IMPORTANCE OF EXAMPLES
4.6.1. Everything should be attached with examples
4.7. BET ON THE "ME TOO" APPROACH
4.7.1. Frame it as something which is a MUST PARTICIPATE:
4.7.1.1. for example as they did with "smart" cities (what's the alternative?>>> being a "dumb city"
5. Tools
5.1. Create connection with Local Governments
5.1.1. Cup of Coffee :)
5.1.2. Put the energy were there's energy already
5.1.2.1. Passionate persons or teams
5.1.2.2. empowering them
5.2. Dissemination and Awareness
5.2.1. Fact Sheet
5.2.2. Booklet
5.2.3. 40 hours guides
5.2.4. Big Fair - OS Village
5.2.5. Awareness must be built in both sides (administration and citizenship)
5.3. Tools to understand the impact and the data
5.4. Understand who can do what
5.4.1. Stakeholder mapping / internal social network
5.4.2. Iit is important to look appropriately at the various layers of responsibility that exist in the national policy landscape ....local and national authorities may well work together, but there will always be one layer of decision-making ultimately responsible for the final decision.
6. What will be the deliverables in the TOOLKIT
6.1. Booklet for dissemination?
6.1.1. Narrative
6.1.2. Not a new thing! -- Solve existing
6.2. Reference to best practices
6.3. Process abstraction and guidelines
6.3.1. for each step of the process provide link to existing tools
6.4. Training
6.4.1. training addressed to local policy-makers and citizens
6.4.2. TRAIN THE TRAINERS (Scalable)
6.4.3. Awareness must be built in both sides (administration and citizenship)
7. Properties of the Toolkit
7.1. Should be "modular", made of smaller pieces / sub processes / etc...
8. REVIEWED TOOLKITS and referenceable resources
8.1. FROG CTT
8.1.1. Good for practical tools to use once a goal is set. It requires a “higher level” commitment to implement a sharing/collaborative initiative.
8.2. Waag make the future Toolkit
8.2.1. Train the trainers is a good format I think, especially when wanting to implement change in a whole organisation. This mean for us to train someone to be able to use the toolkit him or herself. Rapid Prototyping could maybe also be a good way for approaching problems in specific areas, like transport or waste management. In that case you could set it up as to invite actors from the collaborative economy to a workshop together with public administrators. It is a bit more advanced than only awareness raising, but more in a step-by-step process.
8.3. IDEO
8.3.1. IDEO DESIGN KIT
8.3.1.1. Mindsets
8.3.1.1.1. A cool idea to explain you need new mindset to embrace change
8.3.1.2. Methods
8.3.1.2.1. Inspiration
8.3.1.2.2. Ideation
8.3.1.2.3. Implementation
8.3.2. IDEO HCD
8.3.2.1. Ideo HCD Toolkit We are free to use and remix the contents of this toolkit. Great feature to have “Scenarios of use”: depending on what time and resources are available, different parts can be applied. EX. if the commitment is one week, that could involve awareness raising tools but nothing strategic. If the commitment is 3 months, maybe one small project could be implemented.
9. TOOLS AND PROCESSES which are considered useful
9.1. Participative events
9.2. Co-creative session including citizens
9.3. Participative processes
10. Sensitive Problems
10.1. Platform Misuse (mossly citizens)
10.2. Over regulation (mostly entrepreneurs)
11. Ways to Group Stakeholders
11.1. Clusters
11.2. Roundtables
12. Personas (1 to 1 mapping with Stakeholders?)
12.1. Politician and Policymaker
12.2. Civil Servant
12.3. Citizen
12.4. Company representatives
12.5. ....
13. Stakeholders
13.1. ACTIVE TARGETS OF THE CTT
13.1.1. Local government
13.1.1.1. We don't have many links (See answers from the questionnaire)
13.1.2. Active citizens and Associations/Socent/Etc
13.1.2.1. Ciudadano Productor
13.1.2.2. Active Citizen / Cittadinanza attiva
13.1.2.3. Fab/makers
13.2. Other territorial stakeholders
13.2.1. (all) Citizenship - Larger Audience
13.2.1.1. Kids
13.2.1.2. ?
13.2.2. Industry/Businesses
13.2.2.1. Global
13.2.2.2. Local
13.2.2.3. Challenged
13.2.2.4. upstarts
13.2.3. Research
13.2.3.1. Independent
13.2.3.2. Academic
13.2.4. Institutions
13.2.4.1. Trade Unions
13.2.4.2. Consumer Groups
13.2.5. The Education System
13.2.5.1. Schools
13.2.6. marginalized groups?
13.2.7. Investors - Private Capital
14. Local Governments Positions/Stages of Development
14.1. Passive (better call it Learning PHASE?)
14.1.1. LEARN
14.1.1.1. EXTERNAL
14.1.1.1.1. trends
14.1.1.1.2. tools
14.1.1.1.3. taxonomies
14.1.1.2. INTERNAL
14.1.1.2.1. local specificities
14.1.1.2.2. local ecosystem
14.1.1.2.3. local actors
14.1.2. i.e. let organizations and citizens do their thing
14.1.3. Understand and assess the maturity of the regulating laws
14.1.4. collecting data
14.1.5. How this maps with existing objectives / development agenda?
14.2. Facilitator
14.2.1. FACILITATE
14.2.1.1. CONNECT
14.2.1.2. ENABLE
14.2.2. i.e. making it easier for them (funding, policies, communication)
14.2.3. Adopting or clarify existing policy applicability
14.2.4. Grow awareness into citizens
14.2.5. Link with stakeholders
14.3. Proactive/builder
14.3.1. BUILD
14.3.1.1. DESIGN
14.3.1.2. IMPLEMENT
14.3.2. Building new collaborative offering themselves
14.3.2.1. in partnership with existing players
14.3.2.2. more institutional
14.3.3. Engage with the community in co-creation
14.3.4. Create a new law/policy?
14.3.5. Transform the institution itself in a collaborative platform or asset
15. KEY ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT - TO BE CLARIFIED
15.1. OPENNESS AND LICENSING
15.1.1. Clarify that this is going to be released in Creative Commons
15.2. COMMUNITY
15.2.1. We must create a community around the project
15.2.2. We already have a lot of people (between registered ones and followers )
15.3. REPLICABILITY
15.3.1. We want this project to be replicable
16. HOW TO PARTICIPATE NEXt
16.1. Adopters
17. Resistance in Governments
17.1. Resistance to change as "if you change something you need to adapt everything else"
17.2. Limited inclination to Risk Taking
17.2.1. Lacking Sandboxes
17.2.2. No Zona Franca
17.2.3. No Laboratories
17.3. Scared of losing / sharing Power
17.3.1. Threat is to become irrelevant
17.3.1.1. counter argument >> PLATFORMS ARE RESILIENT AND IF YOU ENABLE YOU BECOME "MORE IMPORTANT"
17.4. Problems due to "horizontality" of the topic: having many departments involved
18. POLICYMAKING
18.1. Assess the maturity/applicability of the law
18.1.1. See NESTA UK
18.2. Don't Change the Law if it's not needed
18.2.1. First step: see if the law can be interpreted in an “evolved way” Second step: can the regulation/law be “stretched”? Third step: push to change the law (slow and difficult)
18.3. Regulations are important for driving investments
18.4. Data to back decision is still lacking
19. PROJECT SCALE
19.1. Nationawide
19.2. Region
19.3. City
19.4. Neighborhood
20. Cool Ideas to track
20.1. Erasmus program for Administration Workers:
20.1.1. OBJ: Enhancing Skillsharing
20.1.2. Enhancing communication
20.2. City Home Swapping
20.2.1. make people experience the sharing economy