MyUniversity project eParticipation: ICT empowering citizens 15 October 2013, Brussels

1. MyUniversity projecteParticipation: ICT empowering citizens15 October 2013, Brussels Gregory Liogaridis, Gov2u gregory@gov2u.org

2. MyUniversity purpose To equip 14 universities from Bulgaria, Lithuania, Spain, Slovakia and Sweden with a cutting edge e-Participation platform so they can actively participate in the higher education decision making process with valuable input towards future policies and legislation, both locally and at European level.

3. Objectives To provide an e-participation service that facilitates: • The interaction between the university members (students and academic, and administrative staff), university stakeholders (management staff) and National/European associations/unions • The communication on European level between the university members and stakeholders

4. Results • Trials execution • Trials teams were able to consistently create content according to the project objectives. • During the Trials execution a total of 280 eParticipation Initiatives have been launched, addressing a broad range of subjects related to the University life and Higher Education, at local, national and European levels. • Key stakeholders have been engaged: Students, Teachers, University staff, Administrative Units and University Management, as well as external groups, such as Bologna Process experts. • According to the achieved participation results, it was possible to generate relevant feedback concerning the status of the addressed policy, procedure or situation. In a considerable number of cases (30%) it was possible to effectively influence decision making.

5. Outcomes • MyUniversity has enabled eParticipation in decision-making processes among all trial universities. • Universities’ local level subjects were the most successful. • In some cases the project introduced completely new ways of thinking about decision-making processes, sharing of power and accountability. However, changing people’s attitudes and behaviour is always difficult and takes time.

6. Outcomes (continued) • The various technologies and tools of MyUniversity were used selectively among the trial universities. The most popular tools were the discussion Forum and the Quick poll. • Social Networks were used often as support channels and in some cases as the main participation channel. • A defined methodology was developed and progressively implemented to manage the eParticipation Initiatives.

7. Outcomes (Super Portal) • Useful feedback for decision-makers, especially when participation has been not only valuable but also high. • For example, helpful information on what foreign students are expecting to get when studying abroad or which are the main benefits they are looking for. • Discussion forums on topics that otherwise wouldn’t have been presented to the general university public, such as those related to funding, research, quality of education etc. • Collaboration among participant universities which have worked together to find topics of interest for their users. • For some initiatives, Bologna national experts have been aware oftopics under discussion and have positively evaluated the resultsas well as the initiative of opening cross-border discussion forums.

8. Lessons learnt • Step by step engagement, starting with community building • Creating opportunities for students to join and form communities that have a special common characteristic, empowering and shaping such communities. • Skipping the community building stage, addressing immediately decision making based on formal and regulated processes has proved to be ineffective. • Setup eParticipation in the spaces that targeted participants and decision makers use in their daily lives • Multi-channel approach to embed eParticipation in existing processes and organisations. • Requires modularity, integration capabilities and avoidance of a monolithic platform.

9. Lessons learnt (continued) • Teachers’ and Administrative Units’ engagement a critical success factor (proximity factor fosters trust) • University Management commitment (if possible as part of the eParticipation Team) • eParticipation management and conception/content related costs outweigh the technological cost

10. Lessons learnt (SP) • Participation at a cross-border level requires a significant effort at a local level to engage users. Otherwise, it’s very difficult to reach the final users, beyond contacting associations and other organisms. • As in the local portals, a higher commitment with decision makers to introduce users’ opinions would probably generate a higher participation and user’s engagement. • Due to different languages, in some countries, still it’s difficult to attract people to participate in English, because an additional effort it’s necessary and in many cases they don’t feel comfortable with their knowledge of English or are lazy to do it. Even in some general debates, some participants used their mother tongue to participate.

11. e-Participation Process Methodology • Stakeholders identification (participants, moderators, decision makers, etc.). • Participation area selection (Community Building, Consultation, Deliberation, etc.). • Goals setting (expected outcomes and results). • Schedule (milestones for each phase). Phase 1 eP Initiative Planning • Participatory process conception (method, stages, tools, promotion, results collection, results delivery, initiative assessment). • Content preparation (participatory process content, promotional content). Phase 2 eP Initiative Design • Launching and promotion. • Moderation and facilitation. • Participatory process closure. • Outputs gathering and delivery (proposal, report, survey result, voting result, etc.). Phase 3 eP Initiative Execution • Decision maker or Institution response. • Results reporting to participants. Phase 4 Institutional Response • Initiative assessment from key stakeholders. • Assessment results reporting. Phase 5 eP Initiative Evaluation

12. Successful Initiative 1 of UPC trial:Saló de l’Ensenyament (Local Education Fair) This initiative aimed to improve strategies and processes followed to promote the university among possible future students who visited the Local Education Fair in Barcelona. All students working at the Fair providing information were asked on different aspects to improve future strategies when approaching visitors. Relevant results achieved, and actual status from the ePInitiative • Stakeholders: Academic and Students Vice-Chancellor, PR and Marketing Office, Students working at the Fair. • Participation area: Consultation • Goals: To gather information from students who were informing possible new students to improve marketing strategies. • Goals: 18-03-2013 – 28-03-2013 Phase 1 eP Initiative Planning • Achieved Outcome • 98% (69/70) of targeted users answered the survey, which has been very useful to improve strategy. • Stakeholders Involved: Academic and Students Vice-Chancellor, PR and Marketing Office. • Participation Numbers: 69 • Actual/Potential Impact on Decision Making: Yes, new pro-cedures to improve service offe-red during the Education Fair. • Engagement of National Bologna Experts Group: Yes • eP impact assessment:5/5 “The survey results havebeen very useful for the pro-ject and the platform hasallowed them to get ina very short time” • Process conception: A restricted group was created to be sure only targeted students would access the eConsultation. • Content preparation: Editorial team worked with PR and Marketing service and the Academic and Students Vice-Chancellor to prepare the survey. Phase 2 eP Initiative Design • Launching and promotion: Targeted participants received an email about the eConsultation process. It was also published and announced at the portal. • Moderation and facilitation: Editorial team was in touch with targeted participants (email, phone…) to remind them the process and to help them with the tool. • When the process was closed, a report was sent to the Academic and Students Vice-Chancellor and the PR and Marketing Office. Phase 3 eP Initiative Execution Phase 4 Institutional Response • Decision maker or Institution response: Results had a high impact in the distribution of resources and activities organised. • Results reporting to participants: Participants were informed by email of the closing and results. Phase 5 Evaluation • Initiative assessment from key stakeholders: Highly satisfactory, from participation results and data collected. • Assessment results reporting: via email and portal.

13. Reusable outcomes/results • eParticipation platform, fully customizable • All tools used for participation • Lessons learnt and knowledge-sharing • eParticipation Process Methodology • Deliverables (i.e. content of portals)

14. Thank you for your attention Project website: www.myuniversity-project.eu