Secondary School Enkplatz 7
Hauffgasse No. 37-47
Lorystraße 54-60
Herbortgasse 43

Citizen & Stakeholder Engagement Munich

Munich Citizen & Stakeholder Engagement

General facts

Description & main goal

Citizen and Stakeholder Engagement process – with co-creation workshops and design thinking workshops

Category
Citizen engagement
Deployment area
Neuaubing-Westkreuz / Freiham
Involved actors and their role

MGS 
Coordinator of citizen and stakeholder engagement process and development of new citizen engagement formats // 
district management – local support in events 
www.mgs-muenchen.de 

TUM – MCTS 
design & organization of Co-creation workshops
https://www.mcts.tum.de/en/

Project partners  (bettervest, Fraunhofer IBP, G5 Partners, MVG, Securitas, Siemens, Stattauto München – Carsharing, Stadtwerke München) – support the development of citizen engagement formats and provide prototypes and material; WEG Radolfzeller Str. 40-46; WEG Wiesenthauerstr. 16.

Local business people, representatives of local institutions, representatives of local social and cultural groups / initiatives, 

Key-contact person
Florian Mandel

Specific facts

Citizen engagement processes in the project area prior to Smarter Together

There has been a citizen engagement process for the Integrated District Development Concept (IDDC) in 2012 and following years. During this previous process multipliers and networks were addressed and gained as support. The participation was relatively low in the IDDC citizen engagement process. This was probably due to the fact that the area’s residents are very diverse (see target groups).

Target groups

The citizen and stakeholder engagement process was designed for the following target groups:

  • Residents of the project area - some are rather young, socially deprived and of many different ethnic backgrounds and some are elderly, German, middle class residents that have been there already for decades
  • Other interested citizens
  • Local businesspeople, social and cultural communities / initiatives and representatives of institutions in the project area
  • Owners of real estate in the project area (mostly owner communities [WEGs])
  • Local policy makers
  • Local opinion leaders
Citizen and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy

The citizen and stakeholder engagement process needs to start before tenderings for the smart solutions are issued, because they should incorporate the results of the process.
The Munich Strategy is divided into three different lines: mobility (e-mobility), technology (smart data) and energy (holistic refurbishment and District Heating & Renewable energy). 
In each of the three lines there is a sensitisation phase in which basic knowledge is transferred to the target group, by making it interesting and a Workshop phase, where the smart solutions should be co-created with citizens and stakeholders

Comm target groups
Residents of the project area - some are rather young, socially deprived and of many different ethnic backgrounds and some are elderly, German, middle class residents that have been there already for decades
Other interested citizens
Local businesspeople, social and cultural communities / initiatives and representatives of institutions in the project area
Owners of real estate in the project area (mostly owner communities [WEGs])
Local policy makers
Local opinion leaders
Implementation status

In which phase is the project?
Operation phase

What is the current implementation status/ what is the current activity step?    

  • Residents of the local community have been scouted as “multipliers” and local lobbyist groups and associations have been addressed.
  • A local stakeholder group was formed for regular interaction and exchange.
  • Strong cooperation partners were won for cultural projects and neighbourhood initiatives 
  • Co-creation workshop mobility implemented and recommendations developed 
  • Special formats of citizen and stakeholder engagement developed 
     
Complete 50%

Risk and challenges

Which risks & challenges is the project currently facing?
  • Lack of identification with and lack of broad interest in smart city topics amongst local people; lack of leeway due to strict planning regulations is leading to a lack of ownership; expectation management for the co-creation process: not all local problems can be solved with the smart city project, which can lead to frustrations of residents.
  • Insufficient manpower to sustain broad engagement and involvement of multiple stakeholder groups (schools, home owners, investors, etc.)
  • Engaging with and activating broader stakeholder groups beyond the “usual (active citizens) suspects” and activating large numbers of residents.
  • lack of time to generate deep understanding of citizens’ needs, to develop visualisations and to consult on prototypes 
Which are critical or seem invincible? Please provide a detailed description

None

Which previously identified risks and challenges have you managed successfully and how

Residents’ expectation management: Creation of resident advisory board for continuous information and dialogue about solutions

Lessons Learned and Recommendations

Which lessons learned can be derived up to this point from the implementation process?
  • Project partners need to have a clear understanding of what co-creation means, what are suitable topics for co-creation, and to what extent recommendations.
  • Better exchange between city departments on co-creation experts.
  • The direct and personal dialogue between expert planners and local residents in the co-creation process is helpful to generate a deep understanding of local needs.
Next steps & To Do ́s

Are there additional steps planned due to occurred challenges? 

  • increased visibility of project managers in the district
  • testing of prototypes (e.g. e-trike; CityApp) with specific stakeholder groups to overcome knowledge gap and to generate better understanding for specific needs;
  • Increased focus on long-term citizen support for task “technology” (resident advisory board)
Implementation status

In which phase is the project?    
Operation phase

What is the current implementation status/ what is the current activity step?    

  • close cooperation with local  partners 
  • ongoing painting project with residents 
  • regular meetings of the resident advisory board to support further development of smart services and related data and security questions.
     
Complete 60%

Risk and challenges

Which risks & challenges is the project currently facing?

Problem related:

  • Lack of identification with and lack of broad interest in smart city topics amongst local people; lack of leeway due to strict planning regulations is leading to a lack of ownership; expectation management for the co-creation process: not all local problems can be solved with the smart city project, which can lead to frustrations of residents.

Involvement:

  • Engaging with and activating broader stakeholder groups beyond the “usual (active citizens) suspects” and activating large numbers of residents.
  • lack of time to generate deep understanding of citizens’ needs, to develop visualisations and to consult on prototypes
Which are critical or seem invincible? Please provide a detailed description

None

Which previously identified risks and challenges have you managed successfully and how

The general challenge of uneven distribution of expertise between planners and users was addressed with customized co-creation formats and events bringing together citizens and public experts.

Planning challenge:

  • The strict planning guidelines and formal processes leave little space for real co-creation: the developed co-creation formats (with groups of max. 40 people) produced narrow albeit in-depth qualitative input

Residents’ expectation management:

  • Creation of resident advisory board for continuous information and dialogue about solutions.

Lessons Learned and Recommendations

Which lessons learned can be derived up to this point from the implementation process?

Project partners need to have a clear understanding of what co-creation means, what are suitable topics for co-creation, and to what extent recommendations.

The direct and personal dialogue between expert planners and local residents in the co-creation process is helpful to generate a deep understanding of local needs.

Next steps & To Do ́s

Please shortly outline the next steps planned for the implementation of the project.    

  • Workshops for energy topic to be developed and implemented 

Are there additional steps planned due to occurred challenges?

  • testing of prototypes (e.g. e-trike; CityApp) with specific stakeholder groups  to overcome knowledge gap and to generate better understanding for specific needs
Implementation status

In which phase is the project ?    
Operation phase

What is the current implementation status/ what is the current activity step?    

  • close cooperation with local  partners 
  • Regular meetings of the resident advisory board 
Complete 60%

Risk and challenges

Which risks & challenges is the project currently facing?

Problem related:

  • Lack of identification with and lack of broad interest in smart city topics amongst local people; lack of leeway due to strict planning regulations is leading to a lack of ownership; expectation management for the co-creation process: not all local problems can be solved with the smart city project, which can lead to frustrations of residents.

Involvement:

  • Engaging with and activating broader stakeholder groups beyond the “usual (active citizens) suspects” and activating large numbers of residents.
  • lack of time to generate deep understanding of citizens’ needs, to develop visualisations and to consult on prototypes
Which are critical or seem invincible? Please provide a detailed description

None

Which previously identified risks and challenges have you managed successfully and how

The general challenge of uneven distribution of expertise between planners and users was addressed with customized co-creation formats and events bringing together citizens and public experts.

Planning challenge:

  • The strict planning guidelines and formal processes leave little space for real co-creation: the developed co-creation formats (with groups of max. 40 people) produced narrow albeit in-depth qualitative input

Residents’ expectation management:

  • Creation of resident advisory board for continuous information and dialogue about solutions;

 

Lessons Learned and Recommendations

Which lessons learned can be derived up to this point from the implementation process?

Project partners need to have a clear understanding of what co-creation means, what are suitable topics for co-creation, and to what extent recommendations.

The direct and personal dialogue between expert planners and local residents in the co-creation process is helpful to generate a deep understanding of local needs.

Next steps & To Do ́s

Please shortly outline the next steps planned for the implementation of the project.    

  • Workshops to encourage local businesses to use shared district box
  • Workshops to optimize usability of CityApp

Are there additional steps planned due to occurred challenges? 

  • Increased focus on synergies with existing events and local bottom-up initiatives (e.g. presence at local festivals,etc.
Implementation status

Pilot ended.

Complete 100%