Ideation & Visioning

Required materials

• White board(s)
• A0 poster(s)
• Markers
• Post-it(s)

Tips and Limitations

• In case of large group of participants, it is suggested to divide the group into smaller sub-groups, and assign one moderator per sub-group to lead the discussion (timing should be adjusted accordingly).

Instructions

1. The participants are asked to bring into discussion their ideas for the selected topic/issue, collecting them all on the whiteboard(s). It is important that all the participants are encouraged to be actively engaged, expressing their own ideas and suggestions. 
2. A group discussion for a final reflection upon the collected ideas and consensus among the findings follows.                                                                                                                                        

Sources and References

City Alliance: City Development Strategy

Required Materials

• White boards
• A0 posters
• markers
• post-its

Tips and limitations

This tool can be facilitated also in a 4-3-2 format (4 rounds - 3 minutes per round - 2 ideas per round).

Instructions

1. For the first round, the participants are asked to individually come up with 3 ideas/options of their preference for the selected topic/issue.
2. After the first round, participants are asked to pass their papers to someone else  (clockwise). Participants are asked to read what is on it and then write  3 more ideas/options of their preference, which can be new ideas or additions to what has already been written.
3. Each of the previous steps lasts for 5 minutes and the procedure is repeated for 6 rounds in total.  
4. Once all the rounds are finished, all the ideas are gathered by the facilitator and duplicates are removed.                                                                                                                                                    5. A final discussion/reflection follows, asking the participants to reflect upon the gathered selections, keeping the options for which there is consensus among all the participants.

Supporting files

(Stakeholder) Importance/Influence Matrix template.

Required Materials

• A0 posters for the station
• markers of various colors
• post-its

Tips and limitations

It is suggested to allocate 20min/station (topic) and at least 20-30min for  final reflection

Instructions

1. The participants are divided into working groups and the stations are defined, based on the topics intended to be discussed. Divide the participants in groups and define the same number of stations (topics).                                                                                                                                  2. Each working group is asked to work on a station, writing their ideas regarding the station's topic                                                                                                                                                            3. When groups are changing stations, they can question or build upon previously developed ideas,  listing their own ideas beneath them.                                                                                          4.  As the activity continues, it may become difficult for the working groups to add new points, so the time per station can be decreased.                                                                                            5. Once participants return to the station they started at, a group discussion/reflection follows, where the participants are requested to report on what other groups have added to their points.                                                                                                                                                             Sources and references

• Biodiversa

Supporting files

CoCo Cosmos Playing Board and corresponding materials included in the toolkit

Tips and limitations

This tool needs to be used with a facilitator. You can get in touch with the tool developers to hire a trained facilitator for your session.

Instructions

1 Prepare a scenario which will be tackled in the workshop. 
2. Prepare the playing board and position the cards in their respective groups. 
3. Ask the participants to define the stakeholders involved in the activity 
4. With the use of Action and Behaviour cards, start outlining the process. Define where the process would happen and what the result of the process would be.

Sources and references

• Unalab

Supporting files

(Stakeholder) Importance/Influence Matrix template.

Required Materials

• Canvas
• Markers
• Pencils
• Prints
• Photographs
• Magazines
• Glue
• Scissors
• For digital collage: Photoshop or Miro

Tips and limitations

This method is time consuming, but it can be connected to other methods, such as story board making, narrative, etc. 
The process of making the collage might not necesarily give a cohesive understanding of the story. If the collage is complex, it will require a textual narrative for better explanation. Better collages would need more skills and time

Instructions

1. Determine the purpose
2. Collect data related to the topic and note down important observations
3. Acquire a collection of imagery for composition and structure
4. Create a storyboard/theme/vision in the way the narrative must be presented
5. Paste the collage on the software art of on a canvas, add text and make it appealing
6. Present the collage to the team and adjust. Consider the collage's contribution to the final communication for the project and with aspect of the narrative it supports.

Sources and references

• Boeijen, A., & Daalhuizen, J. (2010). Delft design guide. Delft: TU Delft

Supporting files

Community Canvas template (Plus: guidebook and summary)

Required Materials

• Community canvas template in A0 or online version
• markers
• post-its

Tips and limitations

It is suggested to use this tool with 6 people.

Instructions

1. The group is asked to work into each section separately. The first section is related to the Identity, focusing on questions on belief.
2. The group is then asked to work on the second section of the Canvas: Experience. The experience is referred to the participants' perspective regarding the situation that is really taking place in the community and how this is perceived and translated into activities.
3. The group is finally asked to work on the third section, which is focused on the operational elements of running a community. Those elements are often neglected, and the necessary structures aren’t in place to deal with challenging situations. 

Sources and references

• Unalab

Supporting files

(Stakeholder) Importance/Influence Matrix template.

Required Materials

• Papers
• pens 
• post-its

Tips and limitations

It is important to follow the process step by step, making a clear division between the causes and the symptoms of the problem. Encourage your participants to focus on long-term solutions, without rushing also into a presumed root cause. 

Instructions

1. Together with the participants, agree upon  once core problem (effect) and write it at the center right of the flipchart or whiteboard. After that, mark the statement into a box, drawing horizontal arrows runnint to it, simulating an actual fishbone.  
2. Once the problem statement is agreed upon, the participants are asked to brainstorm upon the major causes (thematice categories of causes) and place them in the graph as headings. 
3. Then, the participants are asked to brainstorm and come up with specific causes under each category of causes, writing them as branches from the main arrow. It is important for this step to encourage the participants to brainstorm about all the possible causes of the problem, askig "why does this happen?".  As each idea is given, the facilitator writes it as a branch from the appropriate category. There is a chance that a cause is relevant to more than one category of causes. In that case, such a cause can be placed in several places in the graph. 
4. The participants are encourage to continue with the process, and keep asking "Why does this happen?", delving deeper into the level of causes. Multiple layers of branches indicate causal relationships.
5. When the participants have no further ideas about the causes of the problem, the group can focus on the places on the graph where ideas are few, and try to see if there are any more to add.

Sources and references

• Unalab

Supporting files

(Stakeholder) Importance/Influence Matrix template.

Required Materials

• Metacards
• Labels for the tables (with the question/topic) 
• pens 
• post-its

Tips and limitations

It is suggested to keep the working groups relatively small (up to 5 people).

Instructions

1. Arrange the setting for the participants based on the size of the group, so that they all can see each other during the discussion.  
2. In case of a large group of participants, divide the group into sub-groups, and assign one moderator per sub-group to lead the discussion.
3. Prepare beforehand any templates that might be needed for the discussion. 
4. Ask participants to discuss upon the given issue, encouraging all participants to be actively engaged in the discussion.                                                                                                                        5. Keep track of timing, ensuring that the matrix will be filled out on time. 
6. Allocate time for the participants to observe and reflect upon the main findings after the end of the group discussion.                                                                                  

Sources and references

• Engage 2020

Supporting files

Idea Dashboard Template

Required Materials

• Idea Dashboard template
• Markers
• A0 posters
• White board
• Post-its

Tips and limitations

It is suggested to allocate 30-40min for facilitating this tool.
The given template can be used as it is, or as inspiration for the facilitator(s) to create their own template.

Instructions

1. Based on a selected topic/issue, a dashboard is prepared for the participants, including some key questions/categories . Those questions/categories should be related to the predefined topic issue and can inlcude, among others: "What is your idea about that topic/issue?", “How could this idea work/be implemented?”, “Why do you think this idea is better/should be selected among others?”, “What would be the benefits of implementing/realizing this idea?”.  
2. The participants are asked to provide their answers to those questions. It is important that all participants are encouraged to be actively engaged, expressing their own ideas and suggestions.
3. A final discussion/reflection upon the collected asnwers follows. Ask participants specific questions on their ideas, such as “What is your idea about?”, etc. 
4. The final ideas are collected on an new dashboard, ensuring consensus from all the participants upon the final results.                                                                                        

Sources and references

• Unalab Toolkit

Supporting files

Game: Legos (kit)

Required Materials

• Presentation slides
• Pens 
• Post-its
• Timer

Tips and limitations

It is suggested to use this tool with 5 people and allocate 45min for facilitating this tool 

Instructions

1. First  a short introductory presentation explaining idea of Lego Serious Play should be held, followed by a series of skill-building exercises. Throughout the skills-building exercises, participants are introduced to the flow of the methodology, while building up crucial skills needed to foster the seriousness of the game.
2. Once participants are feeling comfortable with the methodology, the posing of the serious questions can begin. The first question is presented on the slides, to which each participant is given 3-5 minutes to build their answer to. At this stage, each participant builds their own model. 
3. Once the models are built from all the participants, an alarm rings to signify the end of the building time. At this moment, the table facilitators start with the first person to their left, by asking the participant to share their model. The participant tells the story of their model in 2-5 minutes, while the rest of the group listens. 
4. The facilitator is trained to ask targeted follow-up questions, in order to dig deeper and to uncover further potentially hidden ideas that the model signifies. 
5. After the first person has shared their model and follow-up questions are answered, the facilitator moves on to the next person, and the process is repeated. 
6. In the end, the models are broken up and pieces are returned back in the middle of the table for the next question, and the same process is repeated.

Sources and references

• UNALAB

Required Materials

• Pin boards
• markers
• pens 
• post-its

Tips and limitations

The end summary of the key issues identified provides potential for further elaboration, that can be used to structure subsequent group activities.

Instructions

1. Each participants receives 2-3 post-it packs/cards and is asked to write down their ideas on paper (one idea/piece).                                                                                                                               2. The participants are asked to place their papers on the pin board/wall, grouping identical, similar or linked ideas together.                                                                                                                3. A group discussion/reflection follows, with the facilitator providing an overview of the occured groups of ideas. Consent among the participants should be ensured with regards to the final result. Changes can be made if necessary, before naming at the end the occured groups of ideas. The moderator summarizes the occurred groups of ideas, confirming all participants' consent about the final result (make changes, if needed), and finalizing groups of ideas and their content. 

Sources and references

• Biodiversa

Required Materials

• pens 
• post-its
• papres

Tips and limitations

Systematize the data collection and analysis: use case studies from similar contexts, from reliable sources (journals, descriptive case studies), and if possible based on quantitative evidence that allow for explanation of complex conditions. 
Triangulate the study with other methods to validate the process.
Find several case studies to support your hypothesis, one alone can not provide a generalising conclusion. Integrate more than one researcher into the process so there is no individual perspective bias for the conclusions of the analysis
It can be a time consuming process, and sometimes difficult and with irrelevant information.

Instructions

1. Find "keywords" which relate to problem statement, conclusions, context or even similarities in methodology of research
2. Limit case studies to the most relevant for the research
3. Study a reference project briefly and make notes of relevant topics which is related to your research
4. Create a tabular data explaining different options and solutions extracting from the analysed case studies
5. Structure the conclusions in a way that it can be used as an easy reference to your research

Sources and references

• Zainal, Z. (2007). Case study as a research method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan. 

Required Materials

• Whiteboards
• markers
• A0 posters
• post-its

Tips and limitations

In case of large group of participants, it is suggested to divide the group into smaller sub-groups, and assign one moderator per sub-group to lead the discussion (timing should be adjusted accordingly). 
It is also suggested that a second brainstorming round can be facilitated, assigning new roles to the partiicipants.

Instructions

1. The roles that will be used for the session, can be predefined from the facilitator(s), so it is easier for the participants to get an overview of the roles to be used. Those roles can be either individual (person) or collective (e.g., organization). The facilitator(s) can decide beforehand whether the roles will be assigned by them to the participants (ensuring that differ from their real identity) or the participants will choose among the given options in the beginning of the session.  2. The participants are then asked to spend some time thinking about their role. The following questions can be suggested/used: What could be the personality of this character? How does this character view societ? How would this character solve problems? What are the strengths and weaknesses of this character.                                       
3. The brainstorming session then starts, and the participants are asked to express their ideas in their own roles, collecting them all on the whiteboard(s).                                     

Sources and references

• Tools Hero

Tips and limitations

It is suggested to keep the working groups relatively small (up to 5 people) and allocate 20 minutes/round (category) and 30-40 min for group reflection.

Instructions

1.  For this method,  the group is divided into working groups that are asked to work on a specific topic or question (that was predefined, based on the desired output of this co-creation process). 
2. Each topic/questions acts as the starting point for each round of discussions. To begin, the groups are seated around a table and one moderator per working group is assigned.
3. After the first round, all the members of the working groups is asked to move to another table. One person will have to stay in the same group, to be the table host for the next round, explaining to the new group what was previously discussed. 
4. Before starting the next round, the table host is asked to write down the main points derived from the group discussion as an input for the final reflection. Based on the number of questions intended to explore, the discussion rounds continue. 
5. Once all question are covered, the working groups jointly discuss the findings and reflect upon them.

Sources and references

• Socialtables

Required Materials

• Markers
• White boards
• Post-its

Tips and limitations

The "5" in 5 Whys is really just a "rule of thumb". There might be cases, where you would neeed to dig deeper with your participants to get into the root of the problem. In other cases, you may reach this point before you ask your fifth "Why?" , In this situation, make sure that you haven't stopped too soon, and that you're not simply accepting responses.
You can stop asking "Why" when you are no longer getting  useful responses from your participants. 

Instructions

1. A problem should be defined at the beginning, on which the group will work on with this tool. It is important to come up with an existing problem, and a clear problem statement that all the group agrees upon. 
2. The group is asked to write the final problem statement in the whiteboard, leaving enough space around it to add your answers to the repeated question. 
3 The group is asked to discuss upon the reasons why the problem is occurring (first time). 
4. The group is asked  "Why?" this problem is occurring four more times. For each of the answers  generated in Step 3,  four further "whys" should be asked in succession. Each time, the question should be framed in response to the recorded answer.
5. It is important for the group to be able to recognize when the process should stop, which will happen once the group stops producing useful responses when keeping being asked "why". At this point, the root cause of the problem is revealed.
6 Once at least one root cause of the problem is identified, the group is asked to discuss and agree upon the the counter-measures that will prevent the problem from recurring. 
7. At the last stage, it is important to monitor the measures. It is important to keep a close watch on how effectively your counter-measures eliminate or minimize the initial problem. There is a chance that some of those measures will need to be amended or even replaced. If this happens, it's a good idea to repeat the 5 Whys process to ensure that you've identified the correct root cause.

Sources and references

• UNALAB

Required Materials

• 6 hats of different colours
• markers
• pens 
• post-its

Tips and limitations

Walk through each question as a team.                                                                                                Modify or change approach accordingly if not working.

Instructions

1.A list of questions should be noted by the facilitator and the participants' input, representing each of the 6 Hats.  
2. The participants are asked as a group to go through all the questions, providing collective answers. For this tool and stage it is important for the participants to collaborate and provide their answers as a team. 
3. In case the approach is not working, it is suggested to be modified accordingly. This can be related with a question posed under a specific hat, that did not work, on the function of a hat itself. For this modification, it is suggested to ask participants' opinion regarding what worked well and what should be improved. 

Sources and references

• UNALAB Toolkit

Supporting files

Vision Development tool

Required Materials

• markers
• pens 
• posters
• person visualising the ideas

Tips and limitations

It is suggested to use this tool with 40-45 people and allocate 3 days for facilitating it.                Through out the whole process, the ideas are visualized from the person responsinble for the illustration (to be assigned from the facilitator(s)). 

Instructions

1.For the first step of this tool, the partifcipants are asked to identify drivers for change that may influence the future the city/area, noting them down in post-its. The Future Telling research method is an approach to create context-related possible future scenarios in a creative, imaginative way. Future Telling research consists of a structured method to map expertise and ideas of thought leaders from the Smart Cities domain. Through interviews and analysis leading to the Drivers for Change for liveable and smart cities. 
2.Afterwards, the scenario workshop is held. The participants (policy-makers, together with internal and external stakeholders) are asked to develop a rich, contextual scenario for the city/area. Local stakeholders (companies, citizens, public and private organisations and knowledge institutes) are also invited to take part in the workshops through the networks in the cities. 
3. Together, the participants define a rich desired future scenario which will be interactively build-up to a visualisation of the desired future scenario.                                                                    

Sources and references

• UNALAB Toolkit

Required Materials

• 3 sheets of A4 paper
• pens 
• post-its

Tips and limitations

It is suggested to use this tool with 8-11 people.                                                                                This method can also be  easily performed in a three-roll discussion at a table. Additional persons can debate and take the word in the sense of the three roles.

Instructions

1. For the first round, the participants are asked as a group to focus on the dreamer's perspective. This dreamer persona develops ideas and visions, without encountering any potential limitations; imagination is key. 
2. The second round follows, and the group is asked to focus on the maker's perspective. The team takes on the role of the maker. The realist persona keeps the way of thinking in pragmatic terms:  What needs to be done or said? What is needed for the implementation (material, people, resources, knowledge, techniques, etc.)? What do you think about this idea? Which basics are already available? Can the approach be tested?                                                                                    3. At the last point in the cycle, the participants are asked, as a group, to focus on the critic's perspective. As such, they are asked to think upon their task of dealing constructively with the results of the realist and to express criticism. 
4. Open questions are then handed back to the dreamer, who reintroduces the cycle based on the findings. The process is considered complete when the critic can no longer ask further relevant questions and when it is foreseeable that another run will not bring any optimization.

Sources and references

• UNALAB Tool

Required Materials

• Metacards
• Pens 
• Post-its
• Labels for tables (with the questions/topics)

Tips and limitations

It is suggested to keep the working groups relatively small (up to 5 people) and allocate 20 minutes/round (category) and 30-40 min for group reflection.

Instructions

1.  For this method,  the group is divided into working groups that are asked to work on a specific topic or question (that was predefined, based on the desired output of this co-creation process). 
2. Each topic/questions acts as the starting point for each round of discussions. To begin, the groups are seated around a table and one moderator per working group is assigned.
3. After the first round, all the members of the working groups is asked to move to another table. One person will have to stay in the same group, to be the table host for the next round, explaining to the new group what was previously discussed. 
4. Before starting the next round, the table host is asked to write down the main points derived from the group discussion as an input for the final reflection. Based on the number of questions intended to explore, the discussion rounds continue. 
5. Once all question are covered, the working groups jointly discuss the findings and reflect upon them.

Sources and references

• Engage2020