Co-design Toolkit / D3.1

Co-funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or REA. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. Co-design Toolkit/D3.1 2 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Technical references Project Acronym SMART ERA Project Title SMART community-led transition for Europe’s Rural Areas Project Coordinator Fondazione Bruno Kessler (FBK) Project Duration January 2024 – December 2027 (48 months) Deliverable Title D3.1 – “Co-design Toolkit” Deliverable Type R Dissemination level* PU Work Package WP3 – “Co-design of SIPs for rural innovation and sustaining community participation” Lead beneficiary Fondazione Bruno Kessler (FBK) Author(s) Chiara Leonardi, Eleonora Mencarini, Elena Not (FBK-i3), Simone Bassanelli, Federico Bonetti, Annapaola Marconi (FBK-MoDiS) Reviewers Claudia Crippa, Luca Mascellaro (ICONS), Pierrick Le Guillou (ANYSOL) Due date of deliverable 31st December 2024 Actual submission date 16th December 2024 * PU – Public, fully open, e.g. web (Deliverables flagged as ‘public’ will be automatically published on the CORDIS project’s page) SEN – Sensitive, limited under the conditions of the Grant Agreement Classified R-UE/EU-R – EU RESTRICTED under the Commission Decision No. 2015/444 Classified C-UE/EU-C – EU CONFIDENTIAL under the Commission Decision No. 2015/444 Classified S-UE/EU-S – EU SECRET under the Commission Decision No. 2015/444 v Date Contributor(s) Comment 0.1 09/07/2024 Chiara Leonardi (FBK) Initial table of contents 0.1 27/08/2024 Chiara Leonardi, Elena Not (FBK) Draft contents for chapters 1, 2 and Annexes A, B, C 0.1 31/10/2024 Elena Not (FBK) Consolidated table of contents sent to internal reviewers 0.2 27/11/2024 Chiara Leonardi, Elena Not, Eleonora Mencarini (FBK) Draft contents for chapters 3 and 4 and Annexes D, F, and G 0.2 27/11/2024 Simone Bassanelli, Federico Bonetti, Annapaola Marconi (FBK) Contents for chapter 5 3 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” 0.2 27/11/2024 Elena Not (FBK) Deliverable sent to internal reviewers for quality check 0.3 06/12/2024 Chiara Leonardi, Eleonora Mencarini Elena Not (FBK) Contents for Annex E 0.4 12/12/2024 Chiara Leonardi, Eleonora Mencarini Elena Not (FBK) Finalised deliverable following internal reviewers' suggestions 1.0 16/12/2024 Alessia Torre, Matteo Gerosa (FBK) Final editing and submission 4 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Table of Contents Acronyms ..................................................................................................................... 8 Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 9 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 10 2. Definition of Smart Innovation Package (SIP) ................................. 12 2.1 Background concepts on collaborative processes ............................................. 12 2.2 The context of SMART ERA rural innovation ...................................................... 13 2.2.1 Social aspects .................................................................................................... 14 2.2.2 Digital aspects ................................................................................................... 15 2.2.3 The SIP-based approach to rural innovation ..................................................... 17 2.3 Process followed for SIP definition and SIP co-design toolkit creation ............ 18 2.4 SIP requirements .................................................................................................... 21 2.5 Operative definition of Smart Innovation Package .............................................. 23 3. Categorization of SIP "ingredients" ...................................................... 26 3.1 People ..................................................................................................................... 28 3.2 Data ......................................................................................................................... 30 3.3 Local knowledge .................................................................................................... 34 3.4 Digital applications ................................................................................................ 36 3.5 Communication and training ................................................................................. 43 3.6 Incentives ................................................................................................................ 45 3.7 Hardware and digital infrastructure ...................................................................... 47 3.8 Physical infrastructure and equipment ................................................................ 49 3.9 Political enablers .................................................................................................... 51 3.10 Financial and economic enablers ....................................................................... 54 3.11 Legal aspects........................................................................................................ 55 3.12 Smartness assessment of the territory .............................................................. 56 4. SIP Co-design Toolkit: supporting rural areas in defining their SIPs ............................. ………………………………………………………………………..58 4.1 Overview of the analogue SIP Co-design Toolkit ................................................ 60 4.2 SIP description template ....................................................................................... 61 4.3 How to use the toolkit ............................................................................................ 66 4.3.1 Different users, flexible use................................................................................ 66 4.3.2 User scenarios, tutorial and training .................................................................. 67 4.4 SIP Board ................................................................................................................ 68 4.5 Ingredients kit ......................................................................................................... 69 4.5.1 Ingredient cards ................................................................................................. 69 4.5.2 Reflection questions .......................................................................................... 71 4.6 Canvases ................................................................................................................ 71 5 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” 4.7 Other methodological resources for capacity building ...................................... 73 5. Towards a hybrid (physical and digital) co-design toolkit ...... 74 5.1 Literature review ..................................................................................................... 74 5.1.1 Preliminary results ............................................................................................. 74 5.2 Digital tool ............................................................................................................... 75 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 78 References ................................................................................................................. 79 Annex A – Intuitive examples of SIPs ............................................................................ 84 A.1 SIP for a cooperative of farmers .............................................................................. 84 A.2 SIP for an on-demand mobility service .................................................................... 84 A.3 SIP for a school of shepherds .................................................................................. 85 A.4 SIP for the development of local crops .................................................................... 86 Annex B – Workshop on innovation processes in rural areas .................................... 87 B.1 Objective and structure of the workshop .................................................................. 87 B.2 Results ..................................................................................................................... 89 B.3 Discussion ............................................................................................................... 91 Annex C – Workshop on innovation ingredients .......................................................... 94 C.1 Objectives and structure of the workshop ................................................................ 94 C.2 Results ..................................................................................................................... 95 C.3 Discussion ............................................................................................................... 97 Annex D – Workshop on digital ingredients .................................................................. 99 D.1 Objectives and structure of the workshop ................................................................ 99 D.2 Results ................................................................................................................... 101 D.3 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 101 Annex E – Workshop on SIP Co-design Toolkit training and validation ................... 102 E.1 Objectives and structure of the workshop .............................................................. 102 E.2 Results ................................................................................................................... 104 E.3 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 104 Annex F – Scenarios of SIP Co-design Toolkit usage ................................................ 107 F.1 Scenario of usage for an internal meeting .............................................................. 107 F.2 Scenario of usage for a workshop with stakeholders ............................................. 109 Annex G – Exploration of alternative designs for the SIP Board............................... 111 G.1 Base layout ............................................................................................................ 111 G.2 Layout based on the Double Diamond approach .................................................. 111 G.3 Layout suggesting a three-phase SIP co-creation process ................................... 112 6 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” List of Tables Table 1. Different types of data. ......................................................................................... 31 Table 2. SIP description Template. .................................................................................... 61 List of Figures Figure 1. The SMART ERA concept .................................................................................. 10 Figure 2. Workpackages and tasks contributing to the definition, implementation and validation of SIP methodology. ................................................................................... 11 Figure 3. The path from a rural challenge to a validated innovation solution. In orange the added value to the process provided by the SMART ERA project. ............................. 18 Figure 4. The incremental process of SIPs framework definition, piloting, evaluation and replication in the SMART ERA workplan. ................................................................... 18 Figure 5. The flow of activities performed in Task T3.1...................................................... 19 Figure 6. Visual representation of a sample SIP. ............................................................... 24 Figure 7. An example of resources developed for the category “Digital applications”: cards, reflection questions and “How to”. .............................................................................. 26 Figure 8. List of ingredient categories and subcategories included in the first version of the SIP Co-design Toolkit. ................................................................................................ 27 Figure 9. Flow of information that will populate the SIP description along the process. ..... 59 Figure 10. Base layout for the SIP Board........................................................................... 68 Figure 11. Sample usage of the SIP Board (left) and example of hexagon-shaped sticky note. ............................................................................................................................ 69 Figure 12. An example of a presentation card for a category of ingredients (left) and an example of an ingredient card (right). ......................................................................... 70 Figure 13. Overview of the Ingredient cards created for the first version of the SIP Co-design Toolkit. ........................................................................................................................ 70 Figure 14. Reflection Questions for the "People" category of ingredients. ......................... 71 Figure 15. A sheet of the Digital Enablers canvas. (adapted from the SEROI+ method). .. 72 Figure 16. Digital Enablers canvas used during a collaborative workshop in Sòller (Mallorca). .................................................................................................................................... 72 Figure 17. Board view in the digital tool. ............................................................................ 76 Figure 18. Instances within an ingredient category, in this case “People”, and display of ingredient cards. ......................................................................................................... 77 Figure 19. Pilot view with two different examples of use, dairy supply and forestry management. .............................................................................................................. 77 Figure 20. Sample SIP for a cooperative of farmers. ......................................................... 84 Figure 21. Sample SIP for an on-demand mobility service ................................................ 85 Figure 22. Sample SIP for a school of shepherds .............................................................. 85 Figure 23. Sample SIP for the development of local crops. ............................................... 86 7 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Figure 24. Exercise 1 for Workshop 1 in Trento. ................................................................ 87 Figure 25. Exercise 2 for Workshop 1 in Trento. ................................................................ 87 Figure 26. Exercise 3 for Workshop 1 in Trento. ................................................................ 88 Figure 27. A previous service creation process for rural development that was implemented in Sóller (Mallorca). ..................................................................................................... 88 Figure 28. Analysis of one of the innovation stories emerged from the workshop. ............ 89 Figure 29. Comparative analysis of significant facts in innovation stories emerged from the workshop. ................................................................................................................... 90 Figure 30. Detail of recurrent concepts. ............................................................................. 91 Figure 31. Stimulus materials provided to support the discussion. (a) On the left, the template to describe sample ingredients, and (b) on the right, the poster to organise ideas. .......................................................................................................................... 95 Figure 32. Examples of ingredient cards filled out by participants during the workshop. ... 95 Figure 33. Mural board collecting all the ingredients that emerged from group work during the workshop. ............................................................................................................. 96 Figure 34. Initial grouping of "ingredients" into 10 categories and 50 subcategories, as emerged from the second workshop. .......................................................................... 97 Figure 35. Canvases used to facilitate group discussion during the workshop. ............... 100 Figure 36. Material produced in the workgroup of the East Herzegovina case study. ..... 101 Figure 37. Explanations provided to workshop participants during the presentation of the training session. ........................................................................................................ 102 Figure 38. SMART ERA partners engaging in the training session with the analogue SIP Co-design Toolkit ...................................................................................................... 103 Figure 39. The final session of SIP Board updating. ........................................................ 104 Figure 40. Base layout for the SIP Board......................................................................... 111 Figure 41. Layout for the SIP Board inspired to the Double Diamond design methodology. .................................................................................................................................. 112 Figure 42. Layout for the SIP Board based on an extension of the Double Diamond approach. .................................................................................................................. 113 8 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Acronyms Acronym Description CSCW Computer-Supported Cooperative Work HCI Human-Computer Interaction ICT Information and Communication Technology PA Public Administration Phygital Hybrid, phygital and digital, system SESAM Smart Era Smartness Assessment Method SGIs Services of General Interest SIP Smart Innovation Package Tx.y Task Tx.y in the SMART ERA workplan WPx Work Package x in the SMART ERA workplan 9 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Executive Summary The SMART ERA project addresses the challenges faced by rural communities in remote areas while defining solutions that foster innovation and socio-economic development. The project proposes a methodology based on collaborative practices that allows the co-design of bundles of enablers that work in synergy to create innovative solutions, called Smart Innovation Packages. Enablers, informally called "ingredients", may be of different types, as required to face the complexity of introducing innovation in a territory: data and knowledge on context, digital applications, infrastructures, equipment, best practices, communication and training, incentives, financial and economic enablers, political/legal aspects, people. Work Package 3 of the SMART ERA project aims at formally investigating and defining the conceptual, methodological and operative framework for designing Smart Innovation Packages (SIPs). This report describes the outcome of the research activities carried out in Task 3.1. The report is organised into chapters that progressively explain: ● the rationale behind the adopted definition of SIP, ● a methodology for breaking down a SIP into its "ingredients", ● a set of resources that compose the SIP Co-design Toolkit aimed at empowering stakeholders in rural areas to collaboratively design the SIP that best fits their local development challenges, ● an overview of digital functionalities currently under development towards the realisation of a hybrid (physical and digital) version of the SIP Co-design Toolkit that will support the motivational strategies elaborated in Task 3.2. The Annexes of the report offer intuitive examples of SIPs, additional details on the research activities that were carried out within the SMART ERA consortium in Task 3.1 to collect the evidence informing the SIP definition and requirements, insights gathered from a formative evaluation session of the SIP Co-design Toolkit and examples of scenarios illustrating how the toolkit can be used in flexible ways that adapt to different contexts and needs. 16 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” potential of digital solutions in enhancing access to services and improving quality of life (Martinez et al., 2004; López-Igual et al., 2020). Yin and colleagues (2022) examine the importance of rural innovation systems in promoting sustainable development in rural areas. Digital transformation is emphasised as a tool for boosting productivity and connectivity, offering new business opportunities through improved access to ICT. At the same time, the authors stress the need for active stakeholder engagement, which ensures that local actors collaborate to identify and address critical challenges. Effective policies are necessary to support rural innovation systems. Besides, the importance of aligning national and local policies to create an enabling environment for innovation is stressed, as well as the importance of sustainability in rural development, advocating for practices that promote ecological balance while fostering economic growth. Recently, researchers in Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) and HumanComputer Interaction (HCI) started to focus on "developing regions", leading to an increasing interest in understanding how ICTs can support quality of life and work practices, such as agriculture in developing countries (Chandra and Collis, 2021). These scholars acknowledge the challenges faced by rural communities, including limited access to electricity and water, while also highlighting the innovative ICT solutions that arise in response, such as solar-powered mobile phone charging systems. If studies have focused at the beginning mainly on rural challenges faced in developing countries, studies are recently addressing the challenges specific to developed rural areas. Hardy et al. (2019), in their work “Rural HCI Research: Definitions, Distinctions, Methods, and Opportunities”, propose a research agenda focused on rural areas that differ from the low-income, developing regions typically studied in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI). The authors emphasise the need to explore rural areas in developed and high-income countries, which remain largely understudied in HCI research despite having access to technology and infrastructure. In their scoping review, the authors first identify key characteristics of rural areas, including infrastructure such as internet connectivity and the scarcity of public services like transportation, often due to low population density and geographic isolation. Rural areas tend to be far from urban centres, and their culture and values are closely linked to this isolation. The peculiar relationship with nature shapes local economies and businesses in rural regions, which are typically smaller and often focused on agriculture and resource extraction. Digital literacy and computer skills can vary significantly, as can access to social services and health care. Rural populations are generally smaller and less dense, with demographics often skewing older. Social networks in rural areas also differ from those in urban environments, with more family-based relationships compared to the friend-centred networks commonly found in cities. As a result, network-mediated aid in rural areas is more likely to come from family connections rather than friends. In their scoping review, Hardy et al. (2019) also identify a number of trends and the role of ICT in rural areas. They found that most of the research has been conducted in developing or low-income countries, with studies in high-income regions mainly focusing on the US, UK, and Australia. Many papers did not explicitly define "rurality", though when definitions were present, they were often descriptive rather than sociocultural or symbolic definitions. A significant emphasis has been placed on infrastructure challenges, especially limited internet connectivity, which is a primary factor influencing technology access and adoption in rural areas. Consequently, many studies explore technologies that aim to bridge the rural- 17 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” urban divide, often highlighting digital literacy and the need to align technology with rural values in the design process. Research concerning rural economies and services tends to focus on agriculture and healthcare support, while studies on social dynamics suggest that population size and density affect online social network engagement and user-generated content production. Qualitative and cross-sectional methodologies are predominant, with observational methods slightly more common, reflecting a focus on understanding user experiences in rural contexts. 2.2.3. The SIP-based approach to rural innovation By combining social and digital dimensions of innovation, the SMART ERA project takes on rural development challenges by: ● devising methods and tools to help rural communities assess their context and identify priorities; ● devising methods and tools aimed at supporting the participatory design of packages of "ingredients" (social, technological, political, financial, related to impact and sustainability), called Smart Innovation Packages, for implementing innovative solutions to rural development challenges; ● implementing motivational strategies to sustain community engagement and the achievement of innovation goals; ● with the help of 6 diverse pilot case studies, experimenting with the usage of these methods and tools, as well as observing actual co-creation processes that help refine the methodology and let best practices emerge; ● experimenting with the implementation of some "ingredients" for SIPs to test the overall approach; ● distilling lessons learned and policy briefs; ● defining replication procedures that trigger virtuous cycles for scaling up and spreading innovation. Figure 3 summarises the SMART ERA vision of the SIP-based approach to innovation, with the enablers provided by the outputs produced in the project. 18 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Figure 3. The path from a rural challenge to a validated innovation solution. In orange the added value to the process provided by the SMART ERA project 2.3. Process followed for SIP definition and SIP co-design toolkit creation Smart Innovation Packages (SIPs) are the pivotal concept that permeates the overall SMART ERA workplan. This means that the definition of SIP and the co-design toolkit produced at the end of the first year of project development represent living concepts and materials that will be tested, refined, and reflected upon during the whole project development in an incremental process, as illustrated in Figure 4. Figure 4. The incremental process of SIPs framework definition, piloting, evaluation and replication in the SMART ERA workplan 19 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” This deliverable focuses on activities carried out within T3.1 during the first year of project implementation and that enabled the distilling of requirements, the operative definition of Smart Innovation Package, the draft of a formal description template, the identification of main categories of SIP "ingredients", and the creation of a methodological toolkit with resources supporting the co-design of SIPs tackling specific rural innovation challenges. Figure 5 summarises the flow of activities performed in T3.1 and their interdependencies (Highlighted in orange are workshops held with the participation of all project partners. White boxes correspond to research activities conducted by technical partners contributing to T3.1). Figure 5. The flow of activities performed in Task 3.1 Starting from background research on collaborative processes involving public-private networks of stakeholders for the co-production of innovative services and on the peculiarities of the rural context, a participatory journey was initiated that involved SMART ERA Community Activators and Pilot Orchestrators for the six project case studies in refining the meaning and concepts of SIPs beginning from concrete examples and practices of rural development. 1. Reflection on previous participatory processes for co-creating innovation services in rural areas. Activities started with an initial in-presence workshop during which Community Activators were asked to share and reflect, with the help of Pilot Orchestrators, on previous experiences organised in their rural territory for the collaborative creation of innovation, on the type of service that was created, on the creation process that was followed, and on the positive vs. challenging aspects that were encountered. The innovation stories and the comments that emerged during the workshop discussion were analysed to identify commonalities and differences 20 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” across diverse experiences and rural contexts. Best practices, barriers and sustainability issues were identified for each sample process, trying to understand which strategies and innovative "ingredients" were used to solve challenges during the initiation phase, the stakeholder network engagement, the context analysis, the project implementation, its sustained maintenance and monitoring in time. For the sake of research replicability, Annex B describes in detail how the workshop was organised, which materials were produced and the findings that were derived. This activity's results have fed the requirements that SIPs should satisfy to support innovation processes in rural areas, as described in Section 2.4. 2. Reflection on types of "ingredients" required to deploy innovation services. The output of the first workshop provided the background for a second workshop, during which all consortium members were asked to identify different types of “ingredients” that come into play during the participatory creation and deployment of innovation services in rural areas. The workshop was held in presence in the form of a brainstorming session within four parallel work groups of about 9 - 14 participants each, as well as a final plenary discussion session. The analysis of the material collected during the workshop allowed the creation of an affinity diagram where 157 sample ingredients were grouped into ten main categories of factors that may be present in a SIP (data and knowledge on context, software, best practices, communication and training, incentives, financial and economic enablers, infrastructure, equipment, political/legal aspects, people). Annex C describes in detail the workshop whose results validated the SMART ERA overall vision that solutions to rural development challenges require complementary types of actions that work in synergy. Preliminary ideas on how to structure a categorization of ingredients to support the creation of SIPs were derived from the output of this workshop. A literature study was then initiated to deepen the understanding of the categories of SIP ingredients and integrate what has emerged so far with existing research findings and experiences from other EU projects. This desk research work helped consolidate the structure of the categorization of "ingredients" illustrated in Chapter 3. 3. Reflection on digital "ingredients" and SIP co-design methods. The literature study helped prepare a third workshop with Community Activators and Pilot Orchestrators to brainstorm on the opportunities that software/digital ingredients may open for rural areas. On the one hand, this activity allowed pilot owners to start reflecting on how digital technologies may become special ingredients for SIPs, what sample technology seems most promising for their pilot and which scenario can be envisaged, what stakeholders should be involved in implementing the scenario, what would assure that the solution would work, and/or which would be the expected benefits. On the other hand, the workshop also worked as a test experiment to refine co-design methodologies that have been included in the SIP Co-design Toolkit (like thematic cards to illustrate a variety of sample ingredients of a specific category and reflection canvases), as will be described in Chapter 4. Annex D describes in detail how the workshop was organised and the materials used to facilitate the discussion. 21 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” 4. Operative definition of SIP and SIP Co-design Toolkit specification. The results of the collaborative activities and research performed at previous stages were used to elaborate a preliminary operative definition of what a SIP is (Section 2.5) and to conceive resources and guidelines (the SIP Co-design Toolkit described in Chapter 4) to help networks of stakeholders in the co-design of a SIP that fits the needs of their local territory. Joint discussions have also been initiated with T3.2 on how motivational strategies could be incorporated into the co-design toolkit to support the engagement of stakeholders throughout the SIP creation process. 5. Formative evaluation of the SIP Co-Design Toolkit and training. Preliminary feedback by project partners on the structure and contents of the SIP Co-design Toolkit was collected during a workshop organised in conjunction with the consortium meeting held in Milano on the 3rd and 4th of December 2024. The workshop served the purpose of validating the interaction with analogue materials (formative evaluation) as well as the purpose of offering hands-on training on its use. Annex E describes in detail how the training and validation workshop was organised and the main reflections that will be used to refine the toolkit. 2.4. SIP requirements The research activities performed in the initial phases of the SMART ERA project, starting from the analysis of the workshops described above, led to the emergence of specific requirements for the conceptual definition of SIPs. In particular, the following findings emerging from Workshop 1 (described in detail in Annex B) and Workshop 2 (described in detail in Annex C) are of particular significance. ● Local rural areas first need help to build capacity in implementing innovation. ● The variety of governance models at the basis of rural innovation co-production calls for a flexible concept of SIP in terms of ideation, management and ownership. ● It may take a long time to reach the end of the service creation process. For this reason, an incremental approach to service creation is often adopted. ● Replicating the process, with lessons learned, in a new municipality or for a new product is also an applied strategy. ● Achieving early success stories helps the incremental approach, favours replicability, helps find funding and helps return results to stakeholders. ● The solution to a rural challenge may be a bundle of services (e.g., health education, proximity services, telemedicine services); therefore, complementarity between actions may be required. ● The implementation of the service might need to ensure its adaptability over time to adapt to changing seasons, regional needs, or different users' needs. 22 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” ● Continuity of action sometimes comes from the complementarity of different funding opportunities. ● It is important to monitor the progress of the process and implement periodic evaluation and improvements to take into account the feedback from stakeholders. ● Concrete examples of ingredients proposed by experts or coming from the experience of other territories, are of inspiration for rural communities committed to innovation. ● Motivation of participants is essential. There must be effective ways to activate it and sustain it in time. Indeed, different stakeholders may participate at different stages of the process. These findings have been translated into the following operative requirements for SIPs: 1. INTUITIVENESS. An intuitive methodology and framework to develop SIPs is required to help heterogeneous networks of stakeholders build capacity and share a common understanding of solutions. 2. COLLABORATION. SIP's conceptualisation should support its collaborative creation and flexible management. 3. USERS DIVERSITY. Different types of stakeholders may orchestrate a SIP coproduction process. Therefore, flexibility has to be guaranteed in terms of how a SIP is used and by whom. 4. INCREMENTALITY. The operative definition of a SIP has to accommodate the progressive identification and implementation of ingredients easily. 5. SUBPARTS. Subsets of ingredients in SIPs may constitute meaningful clusters that solve subproblems related to the overall innovation challenge. Clusters could be focussed on individually and could be reused separately. 6. COMMUNICABILITY. Intermediate results of the SIP co-design that represent successful stories need to be communicable in an intuitive way. 7. REPLICABILITY. A SIP or its subparts need to provide a sort of "recipe" to help their replication, e.g., by the same territory to scale up the approach to a more extensive area or to a different type of service, or by a distinct territory with similar needs. 8. ADAPTABILITY. Replication in a different context or the usage of a SIP at a different time may require adapting the set of ingredients. 9. COMPLEMENTARITY. SIPs generated from different projects may need to be complementary, e.g. to share some ingredients or to become subparts of a larger SIP. 23 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” 10. OVERVIEW. SIPs should have a representation that allows identifying at a glance the state of progress, the type of ingredients that have been identified so far and whether there are categories that have not been considered yet. 11. DESCRIPTION and SEARCHABILITY. SIPs should be described in simple terms to help other territories immediately grasp what was done and its impact to get inspiration. Further details on the SIP ingredients should be made available to facilitate followers' actual take-up. 12. MOTIVATION. The process for SIPs co-design should be supported with motivational strategies to stimulate and sustain participation. 2.5. Operative definition of Smart Innovation Package The research activities performed during the SMART ERA initial phase and presented in the previous sections provide the background to the following conceptual framework for Smart Innovation Packages. Definition A Smart Innovation Package (SIP) is a set of integrated enablers that work in synergy to provide a solution to a rural innovation challenge. Enablers, informally called "ingredients", may be of different types, as required to face the complexity of introducing innovation in a territory: various types of actors and incentives to motivate them, data and knowledge on the context, digital applications, infrastructures, equipment, financial and economic enablers, political advocacy, legal aspects, communication and training activities may be all required to set up a solution that works and is socially, environmentally and economically sustainable. Complementary ingredients may be necessary to: ➔ establish the collaborative processes that prepare the ground for the service/innovation, ➔ implement the service itself, ➔ maintain it in the long term. Visual representation metaphor A visual metaphor was selected to intuitively convey the concept of complementary ingredients created collaboratively in a joint effort (INTUITIVENESS requirement). The hexagon shape to represent ingredients was preferred over that of a puzzle piece (used in the project proposal to introduce the SIP concept) to better support the idea that aggregations of hexagons are easier to compose, to incrementally create flexible shapes that may adapt to different spaces (contexts). At the same time, the evocative structure of beehives suggests the possibility of providing clear guidance on how to collaboratively work at filling gaps. This visual representation metaphor was adopted very soon at the beginning of the project to test its intuitiveness within the heterogeneous group of project partners, who have very 24 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” different backgrounds. Figure 6 shows one of the very first examples of a visual representation of SIP shared with partners (at the consortium meeting in Mallorca in June 2024). Figure 6. Visual representation of a sample SIP This example was used to intuitively explain how a rural challenge of limited agricultural development due to a lack of modern equipment could be solved by creating a cooperative of local farmers to facilitate the renting of expensive equipment. The example was inspired by a real challenge faced by a rural community in Marene (Italy). To build the final solution (SIP), stakeholders first needed to better understand the context of the problem (mustardcoloured ingredient hexagons), set up the legal, financial and regulatory structure of the cooperative (turquoise ingredient hexagons), create networking and communication strategies (white ingredient hexagons). The pale blue hexagons exemplify how this existing case study could be further innovated by using digital technologies to optimise the management of the equipment. This visual representation also supports the requirement of providing, at a glance, the state of progress and the ingredients identified so far (OVERVIEW requirement). It allows to visually highlight subparts that solve specific problems and can be communicated as intermediate success stories (SUBPARTS and COMMUNICABILITY requirements). It easily permits the incremental growth of the SIP or the change of some ingredients (INCREMENTALITY, ADAPTABILITY). It allows to put side-by-side SIPs created for different challenges to identify common ingredients and overlapping items (COMPLEMENTARITY). Formal representation In addition to its very intuitive visual representation, a SIP needs to be described in good detail to document what was done, help other territories get inspiration and facilitate the replication, with adaptation, of the solution. A common template to structure and annotate 25 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” SIP descriptions was defined for this purpose, as illustrated in Section 4.2. (requirements of DESCRIPTION, SEARCHABILITY, REPLICABILITY). How different types of stakeholders may collaborate in the co-design of a SIP is favoured by a bespoke SIP Co-design Toolkit, as described in Chapter 4 and in the usage scenarios exemplified in Annex F (COLLABORATION and USERS DIVERSITY requirements). How to support the motivation of stakeholders along the whole SIP co-design and co-delivery process is currently being investigated in Task 3.2 and will be described in detail in deliverable 3.2 at month 24 of project development (MOTIVATION requirement). An explanation of how motivational strategies will be supported by digital functionalities complementing analogue materials of the SIP Co-design Toolkit is offered in Chapter 5. 32 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Qualitative Data Descriptive, non-numerical data, such as interview transcripts, observations, and social media comments, often used to capture meanings, concepts, or perceptions. By timeframe Real-Time Data Captured and processed instantly as data are generated, often used in monitoring systems, financial trading, and IoT applications. Historical Data Collected over time and used to analyse past trends, predict future outcomes, or understand patterns, such as weather or historical sales data. By sensitivity Public Data Data that is openly available to the public and does not contain sensitive or confidential information, like public records and open data sets. Confidential Data Information restricted to authorised personnel, such as personal identifiers, financial details, or proprietary business data. Sensitive Data Data requiring special handling to protect privacy and security; they are often governed by regulations, such as health records, financial information, and personal data protected under GDPR. The Data ingredient category can be further divided into several subcategories. Here is a non-exhaustive list. Demographic and socio-economic data Data on population density, age distribution, income levels, employment rates, development of different economic sectors, availability of services, and digitalisation levels constitute the basis for understanding the needs and challenges of rural communities and social transformations in time. This information can guide the initial assessment of potential areas of intervention, policy-making and resource distribution to ensure that actions are targeted effectively. Socio-economic data can also aid ex-post evaluation of interventions or historical trends. For example, the European Commission's rural observatory 1 provides data on healthcare access, education, and economic conditions, which can be used to inform local development strategies. Infrastructure and connectivity data Information on broadband availability and quality is strategic, as connectivity is a prerequisite for implementing digital technologies. Projects to improve internet access in rural areas highlight the importance of mapping connectivity gaps to ensure digital services reach those who most need them. Reliable connectivity is a cornerstone for economic growth and improved quality of life in rural areas. High-speed internet empowers local businesses to participate in e-commerce, access larger markets, and adopt modern technologies, driving economic dynamism. 1 https://observatory.rural-vision.europa.eu/?lng=en&ctx=RUROBS (last accessed on the 18th of November 2024). 33 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Livestock farming data Monitoring sensors, IoT infrastructures, and other methods can support the collection of data related to livestock farming. These data can help improve production efficiency, for example, by identifying optimal feeding regimens, monitoring environmental impact towards more sustainable practices, and enhancing animal health management. Wildlife data Wildlife data refers to collecting and analysing information regarding wild animal populations, their behaviours, and habitats to improve wildlife management, conservation efforts, and ecological research. Wildlife data encompasses a diverse range of information (Neethirajan and Kemp, 2021). For instance, species observations involve records of wildlife sightings gathered through methods like field surveys, camera traps, and citizen reporting. These observations are fundamental for mapping species distribution and tracking population trends. Besides, habitat information focuses on the ecosystems where species thrive, such as forests, wetlands, or grasslands, and examines the environmental conditions sustaining these populations. Environmental and geographical data Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and environmental data can assist in land use planning, resource management, and disaster preparedness. This data type helps make informed decisions that consider environmental sustainability alongside economic development. Health and well-being data The digital collection of personal health data enables telemedicine services in remote areas. At a more strategic level, monitoring health indicators and quality of life metrics can help identify areas needing intervention, such as healthcare access and social services that improve the overall well-being of rural residents. Collecting health and well-being data can significantly support rural innovation by providing insights that enhance healthcare delivery, improve community resilience, and foster economic development. Industry-specific data Each economic sector or industry relies on data that can help businesses and organizations make informed decisions, optimize operations, and improve overall performance. The type of data useful in a specific economic sector can vary widely depending on the nature of the sector. For instance, the tourism industry counts on visitor numbers and demographics, accommodation occupancy rates, seasonal trends and patterns, customer satisfaction and feedback, economic impact assessments, data on mobility. It therefore requires an integration of data coming from heterogeneous sources, with the collaboration of hotels, owners of private accommodation solutions, restaurants, public transport companies, renta-car companies, other providers of tourist services, etc. The agriculture sector needs instead to collect data from cooperatives, farmers, local producers, and other actors of the supply chain. Weather patterns and forecasts, market prices for crops, pest and disease incidence are other types of data that might be needed. 34 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Citizen science and community data This cross-cutting category of data may relate to different domains (e.g. agriculture, land use and status, livestock, wild flora and fauna, …) and is referred to engaging local populations in data collection through citizen science initiatives. It is worth being distinguished as this approach not only gathers valuable information but also fosters community involvement and ownership of development projects. Citizen science and community science can indeed be considered forms of crowdsourced data. These approaches involve the participation of the general public in the collection, analysis, and dissemination of data related to scientific research, environmental monitoring, and community issues. A wide array of data can be collected collaboratively, including agricultural land use, soil quality, weather conditions, phenology, crop calendars, and the presence of weeds, pests, and diseases. 3.3. Local knowledge According to OECD reports (2014), rural innovation relies on voluntary efforts, creativity, and local contributions, often involving various stakeholders and knowledge sources. In addition to data that can be formally represented and often digitally collected, a relevant type of information that is needed to develop innovative solutions for rural areas is represented by "local knowledge". This term carries different meanings across various domains. It refers to beliefs and orientations rooted in a community's historical social practices, with their own rationale and validity distinct from global knowledge forms. It contrasts with institutional knowledge and it denotes knowledge that diverges from established paradigms, circulating unofficially among smaller groups (Canagarajah, 2002). It also describes the contextspecific strategies practitioners develop in their work and the practical know-how of rural inhabitants and producers (Csurgó et al. 2008). Recognizing and valuing local knowledge empowers rural areas inhabitants to take an active role in innovation efforts. When local voices are included in decision-making processes, this fosters a sense of ownership over initiatives and encourages greater engagement (Kusumastuti et al. 2023). 35 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Community perspectives and values Values, viewpoints and beliefs shared by members of a community shape how individuals understand their environment and provide valuable insights on how a community might creatively respond to local challenges, fostering engagement with innovative solutions. In the context of rural innovation, community values help shape initiatives that are relevant, sustainable, and accepted by local residents. For instance, as suggested by Hardy et al. (2019) the relationship with Nature of inhabitants of rural areas can be different from that of urban people. Values related to Nature are shaped by productive practices, local traditions and specific forms of natural resources extraction and it is important to understand them when introducing innovative practices and solutions. Taking into account attitudes and beliefs held by members of a community helps ensure acceptability of solutions and sustainability of initiatives. Creative ideas by community members should be highly valued, as they are tailored to address local challenges with originality. Traditional and cultural knowledge Traditional or "indigenous" knowledge is knowledge rooted in the experiences gained through long-term interactions with the environment and is often adapted to local cultural contexts. Traditional knowledge encompasses a wide range of information, including agricultural practices, medicinal uses of plants and ecological management techniques. This knowledge is typically transmitted orally from one generation to the next, traditional knowledge is considered collectively owned by the community rather than by individuals. It is useful in various fields, particularly in agriculture, fisheries, health care, and environmental management. Local expertise Community members possess valuable insights about their environment, agricultural practices, and socio-economic conditions. This localised knowledge can inform innovative practices that enhance productivity, sustainability, and resilience in rural areas. For example, local entrepreneurs often have insights into market dynamics, consumer preferences, and effective business practices. Likewise, farmers may have expertise about specific breeds of cattle that are well-suited to the local climate and terrain. 36 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” 3.4. Digital applications Digital technologies are increasingly important for driving sustainable rural development, offering significant benefits across various sectors (European Parliament, 2021; OECD Report, 2007). However, this requires coordinated efforts to build infrastructures, skills, and innovation ecosystems. A holistic approach integrating digital tools with traditional strengths is required (ENRD Report, 2015). Precision farming, IoT sensors, and data analytics enhance agricultural productivity and livestock management by providing real-time data, optimising inputs, and increasing yields. Digital platforms improve market access for rural producers, empowering them economically. Additionally, digital tools enable new business models, such as rural tourism and remote services, fostering economic diversification and job creation. Investments in rural broadband and digital services like telemedicine and distance learning improve connectivity and access to opportunities, bridging the urban-rural divide. Moreover, digital technologies support sustainable resource management, ensuring long-term environmental and economic sustainability. The category of digital applications has strict ties and overlaps with digital infrastructures (as discussed in Section 3.7.) and data (Section 3.2.). Here follows a small selection of examples of digital applications relevant for rural development that may be interesting for the six SMART ERA case studies. Some of these examples were proposed by pilot case studies themselves, during the exploratory workshop on digital enablers held at the consortium meeting in Mallorca in June 2024, as described in Annex D. The list of subcategories also includes types of digital applications provided by SMART ERA WP4 in the form of technological components already developed or experimented in previous projects by SMART ERA technical partners. These are highlighted in the text with the SMART ERA logo ( ). 37 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Digital dashboards for data analysis and decision-making Data dashboards are software tools designed to help users collect, process, analyse, and visualise data to gain insights, create models, and support informed decision-making. Dashboards can monitor the performance of various initiatives or projects over time. For example, a dashboard might display metrics related to crop yields, water usage, or economic indicators, allowing communities to assess the effectiveness of their strategies and adjust as necessary. In this way, dashboards also facilitate collaboration among different stakeholders because they provide a shared platform for data access. Community members, government agencies, and NGOs can all access the same data, promoting transparency and collective problem-solving. Digital dashboards for territorial assessment A special case of data dashboards is represented by digital tools purposefully aimed at integrating diverse datasets such as socio-economic, environmental, and demographic information, to create a comprehensive view of a region. They allow for the visualisation of critical metrics, including population density, employment rates, and access to services, through user-friendly charts, graphs, and maps that reveal trends and patterns. They may help identify priority domains, needs and challenges. In SMART ERA, these types of digital applications have an important role. WP4, in collaboration with WP2, aims at designing and implementing the SMART ERA data dashboard for rural smartness assessment analysis of the needs of the project pilot areas, based on the SESAM methodology being developed within the project and described in deliverable D2.1. Other types of dashboards experimented by partners in previous projects are for example: The Territorial Analyzer proposed by SCCH that leverages data from Open Street map and generative AI algorithms to produce written reports with recommendations on how to improve the digitalisation level of a rural area. The Seroi+ Calculator2 proposed by UL which was successfully employed in different projects: Erudite and Erudite 2.0., EDIH 4PDIH, Carpe Digem, Public Link, Smart Agro Grape. It consists in a digital tool that measures the value of digital services considering social, environmental, and economic impacts Territorial overviews developed by UL within the EDIH 4PDIH project3 is a tool offering data visualisation (for example on connectivity) that can be used for varied purposes of policy makers working on policy instruments. Originally tested for Slovenian municipalities, it provides an overview of priority domains, needs and challenges by using open data and SEROI+ methodology for mapping out the needs of Slovenian municipalities. The Territorial Digital assessment tool was developed within the Interreg project Carpe Digem4. It allows stakeholders to establish digital maturity of territories 2 https://seroi.plus/. 3 https://4pdih.com/povezljivost-v-sloveniji/ and https://4pdih.com/orodje/. 4 carpedigem.eu. 38 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” including peripheral and emerging territories to (further) develop and improve their digital transformation strategies. The tool consists of nine key dimensions that are related to both preconditions and accelerators of digital transformation of territories. Dimensions assessed are infrastructure, open data, digital education, attraction and retention of talent from the field of IT, digital competences of companies, digital innovation ecosystems, finance, support services and governance and leadership. For each dimension a scoring system from 1 – 5 was developed to indicate the current state of play. The tool generates a report, consisting of a visual diagram, accompanied with achieved levels of digital maturity for each of the listed dimensions. Data ecosystem platforms As a generalisation of data dashboards, data ecosystem platforms offer structured ways to discover, harmonise, synchronise and integrate multi-source data and deduct new information. They are essential to enable interoperability and standardisation of data exchange. These platforms may represent an essential prerequisite for implementing information services in complex data environments. In SMART ERA, technical partners have a solid background expertise in the development of this type of platforms and can offer ready-to-use solutions, like for example the following: The Digital Enabler developed by ENG offers a complete pipeline for harvesting, integrating and digesting data, up to the fast reusable dashboards creation and management and fast web/mobile apps generation. NADIA is ANYSOL´s Data and FIWARE based platform. It enables the collection of data from heterogeneous sources and formats, ensuring comprehensive data gathering. It standardises the collected data in smart data models, ensuring consistency and compatibility and facilitates the analysis and cross-referencing of standardised data, enhancing the depth and breadth of insights. It allows the visualisation of data using powerful visualisation tools, making complex data more accessible and understandable through dashboards. Domain specific applications can be built on top of data ecosystem platforms, such as the NADIASmart Logistics made available by ANYSOL that allows the creation of intelligent home delivery routes. The system calculates the shortest and most optimised route among all the defined delivery points. By optimising routes, trips are reduced, leading to lower energy consumption, which in turn reduces pollution and increases sustainability. Shorter trips also mean reduced delivery times, with increased benefit and satisfaction for the population in dispersed areas. Digital Twins Digital Twins can create virtual representations of physical objects or systems in rural settings, updating them with real-time data and using simulation, machine learning, and reasoning to aid decision-making and capacity building. By implementing this approach, rural areas can benefit from improved planning, control, and resource utilisation. For example, by integrating sensor networks and Earth observation data, digital twins create a comprehensive and real-time representation of environmental conditions. This advanced 39 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” visualisation and analysis empower rural farmers to make informed, data-driven decisions, optimise resource allocation, and improve farm management practices for greater efficiency and sustainability. Digital twins can also simulate habitats and ecosystems, enabling the prediction of how environmental changes and human activities impact biodiversity protection. An example of Community Digital Twin (CDT) is being developed by FBK as a platform tailored for capturing and analysing the complex dynamics of social or socio-technical systems. It is capable of performing complex analysis and prediction tasks. It has been tested in different domains: for mobility, to analyse traffic patterns and predict transportation needs; for tourism, to manage tourist flows and predict tourism trends; for civil protection, for emergency response planning and predicting and mitigating disaster impacts. UL is also working on a numerical predictive model to reduce the environmental impacts of agriculture by means of a digital platform for data collection, processing, modelling and forecasting, based on environmental observations generated by field sensors. Public deliberation platforms Online deliberation platforms are digital tools designed to facilitate structured and equitable discussions among community members, allowing them to engage in decision-making processes. These platforms typically include features such as structured agendas to guide discussions, speaker management systems to ensure everyone has a chance to contribute, and automated moderation tools to maintain a respectful environment. They also offer realtime analytics to monitor conversations and have the scalability to support multiple discussion groups simultaneously. As an example, Decidim is a multi-language open-source digital platform, made available by partner ENG, designed to support participatory and deliberative democracy5. Initially developed for the City of Barcelona, it helps governments and organisations involve citizens in decision-making processes, facilitating the creation and sharing of new ideas, needs and proposed solutions, the voting and commenting for ideas and proposals, the evaluation and selection of proposed ideas, the publication of posts, articles, blogs, meeting (physical/virtual) announcements and debates. Web content management systems A web content management system is a software application that allows users to create, edit, manage, and publish digital content on websites without needing extensive technical knowledge. These systems provide a user-friendly interface for managing various types of content, such as text, images, videos, and interactive elements. These types of platforms often include features like templates for consistent design, collaboration tools for teambased content creation, and automated workflows for content approval and publishing. 5 https://decidim.org/about/. 40 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” As an example, Egnition, made available by partner MUNICIPIA, is a web content management system delivered in SaaS mode. It allows the management of the contents of a website (hypertext level) and apps supporting many different types of content through a single framework environment, like: audio, video, images, text, schedule and broadcast on monitor, lighting, holograms, projections. It includes a hierarchical authentication system with different types of users. Wisita is an example of multimedia guide system, developed on top of the Egnition content management system, for managing tourist guides in both indoor and outdoor settings; Participatory digital mapping Participatory digital mapping describes various approaches and techniques that merge modern cartography tools with participatory methods to document and display the spatial knowledge of local communities. Typical applications are for example resource mapping and cultural heritage conservation, where geographically referenced information on natural resources, cultural points of interest and services like health posts, schools, water sources, museums and infrastructures are captured through participatory methods. This helps identify existing capacities and key gaps in rural areas. Citizen science platforms Citizen science platforms are online tools (web-based or apps for smartphones) and services that facilitate and support the participation of the general public in scientific research projects. By involving citizens in data collection and analysis, these tools empower communities to contribute to monitoring environmental conditions, biodiversity, and habitat conservation, as well as to collect information on traditional practices, such as sustainable agriculture and regional food systems. This might help ensure that local specificities are not lost over time. Digital Storytelling Digital storytelling allows the creation of a narrative using digital media such as video, audio, images, text and interactive elements. Digital storytelling empowers rural communities by providing a platform to share their voices and stories. It can, for example, promote local products by sharing the history, tradition, and unique qualities of local products, or it can document and preserve traditional farming methods and culinary practices, maintaining cultural heritage for future generations. Digital geo-routes, mobile guides As a complement to digital storytelling, digital geo-routes provide detailed maps and information on local attractions, services, and infrastructure. This improves accessibility and navigation for visitors, making it easier to engage with the local community and economy. They may support sustainable tourism by highlighting rural areas' natural resources, geological heritage, and cultural significance, as well as recommend slow tourism routes. Digital geo-routes may be implemented in the form of mobile guides. 41 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” E-commerce platforms E-commerce platforms are digital platforms that enable businesses to sell their products or services online, reducing reliance on intermediaries. This can lead to better pricing for consumers and increased revenue for local businesses. Companies can list their products or services, including descriptions, prices, and images; tools are available to manage orders and payments through gateways that facilitate secure transactions. In the rural domain ecommerce can favour, for example, the access to market to small agri-food producers or to rural hospitality, and it can support young entrepreneurs by providing them with opportunities to expand their customer base. E-commerce platforms can also support the specific case of business-to-business (B2B) commerce. Blockchain applications for traceability Digital systems for tracing goods and products can help ensure the authenticity and quality of products, which can be especially important in rural agricultural sectors. These systems may use blockchain's decentralised and transparent means to enhance the traceability and transparency of supply chains. By implementing blockchain, these systems track products from the point of origin to the consumer, providing detailed records of each step in the supply chain. This helps in reducing fraud, improving product safety, and building trust among consumers. In rural areas, where supply chains can be complex and fragmented, blockchain technology can streamline operations, reduce costs, and improve the livelihoods of farmers and producers by providing them with better access to markets and fairer prices. SMART ERA partner UM has for example developed a blockchain-based system to implement traceability along the entire food supply chain, from farmers, going through logistics, food processors, distribution centres, retailers up to consumers. Motivational systems for sustainable actions Motivational systems leverage mechanisms stemming from the research field of serious games (Bassanelli et al. 2022) (e.g., narrative, visual metaphors, content personalization, achievement symbols, progress bars, missions, challenges) that foster a sense of accomplishment and achievement within the community of users (Bassanelli et al. 2024). They empower creativity and feedback, promote social influence and relatedness, and strengthen the sense of ownership (of the participant) and belonging (to the community) (Bucchiarone et al. 2023). Innovative features include the possibility of characterising the profile of the various stakeholders involved (e.g., demographic information, roles, interests, competences) and of personalising the recommended activities/behaviours as well as the motivational mechanisms (missions, challenges, call to actions) according to each specific participant’s profile. This allows to promote and valorise each individual’s contribution, depending on their role, needs and competences, as well as to showcase the collective community-level achievements. These systems can also be used to share the progress and results with other related communities or interested entities. Examples of motivational systems are the following: Play&Go is a mobile application and related information system, made available by SMART ERA partner FBK, that supports the implementation of sustainable mobility actions and campaigns, which can be customised according to city-level 48 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” (2006) highlight the potential of IoT technologies in transforming traditional farming into a data-driven enterprise, which is more attractive to younger generations. ● IoT sensors for environmental risk prevention can enhance safety and environmental protection in rural areas. By utilising infrastructure that supports sensors for monitoring risks such as landslides and water quality, these networks provide real-time data that can predict and mitigate potential hazards (Vijayakumar and Ramya, 2015; Mei et al., 2019). These technologies contribute to a safer living environment, promoting sustainable practices and improving overall environmental resilience. ● IoT sensors for resource management. By monitoring water usage, energy consumption, and environmental conditions, IoT networks help rural areas implement sustainable practices. This reduces costs and ensures the longevity of natural resources, fostering eco-friendly innovations. ● IoT to monitor fauna. Radio collars equipped with GPS or other sensors can collect data on animals (such as the animal’s location, movement, and behaviour) and transmit it to a central system for analysis. This practice helps protect biodiversity but also increases the safety of local communities and tourists, in the case of monitoring large carnivores. ● Movable IoT sensor networks. Movable IoT infrastructures allow for the reusability of expensive and complex networked sensors, making advanced technologies more accessible to rural communities. For example, an itinerant van equipped with sensors can travel to different locations, enabling real-time data collection and monitoring for agricultural, environmental, or infrastructure purposes. This approach reduces the need for permanent infrastructure investments, maximises the use of costly equipment, and ensures that sensor networks are deployed efficiently, responding to immediate needs without the high costs of establishing fixed installations. Drones Drones equipped with cameras, sensors and spraying capabilities can provide mapping and analysis of soil, crops and livestock, as well as precision monitoring of plant health, water usage, and pest/disease detection. Other applications of interest for rural areas are: disaster management (floods, wildfires, missing persons...), delivery services, inspection of remote infrastructure, conservation (monitoring of wildlife and environment), mapping and surveying (topographical maps for land management, forestry and/or urban development), but also for telecommunication (in remote areas, drones can help establish provisional communication networks). Remote satellite sensing Remote satellite sensing is the process of using satellites equipped with sensors to collect data about the Earth's surface and atmosphere without physical contact. This technology captures images and measurements, such as temperature, vegetation, and land use, which are used for various applications like environmental monitoring, agriculture, and disaster management. 49 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Wearable biosensors for livestock These devices can enhance agricultural practices because they provide real-time monitoring of animal health and behaviour, enabling farmers to make informed decisions that enhance productivity and sustainability (Lee and Seo, 2021). 3.8. Physical infrastructure and equipment Physical infrastructure and equipment in rural areas refer to the tangible assets and facilities that support various functions essential for community development, quality of life and capacity to stay. Examples include emergency management facilities, transportation networks, public safety systems, and structures designed for wildlife coexistence. Physical infrastructure for emergency management Physical infrastructure for emergency management encompasses the tangible assets that support the preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation of emergencies and disasters. This infrastructure includes a wide range of components that enable effective emergency management operations and enhance community resilience against various hazards, like for example helicopter landing zones, evacuation plans and means, public safety communication spectrum, firebreak paths 6 . Physical infrastructures for coexistence between humans and wild fauna These refer to the physical and organisational systems designed to facilitate harmonious interactions between human populations and wildlife. These infrastructures aim to minimise conflicts, enhance safety, and promote sustainable practices that allow both humans and wildlife to live side by side in shared environments. They include electric fences (used for example against bears, wolves, wild boars), secured waste bins, wildlife crossings, and anticrossing deterrents. Although not relevant in all rural areas, physical infrastructures of this type are for example important in the Val di Sole case study. 6 https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/NECP_Spotlight_REMCDP_12.07.2020_508C.pdf 50 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Infrastructures for transportation and mobility These refer to the physical and organisational systems that enable the movement of people, goods, and services. These include roads, bridges, railways, and public transportation networks, as well as supporting facilities like terminals, bike lanes, and pedestrian pathways. Equipment for transportation innovation In rural areas where public transport may be limited, alternative forms of transport may be required to support the local population and temporary visitors. For example, on-demand transport services adapt to the specific needs of users, providing on-demand shuttles or community transport schemes that respond to local demand. They enhance access to essential services and offer flexibility in travel schedules. Affordable bicycles, electric bikes (e-bikes), electric scooters provide instead an eco-friendly transportation option for short distances. These can reduce carbon emissions and be also appealing for tourists. They require an appropriate distributed infrastructure with recharge stations. Physical infrastructure and equipment for energy production and water supply Tangible systems, facilities, and technologies are required for generating, distributing, and utilising renewable energy sources. This infrastructure encompasses a wide range of components necessary for the effective transition from fossil fuels to sustainable energy systems, like for example photovoltaic panels and wind turbines, independent energy sources for remote locations (Díaz and van Vliet, 2018), lagoons for natural water storage (Viviroli et al., 2011). Agricultural equipment Types of equipment and tools may be varied and include innovative agricultural machinery like precision farming tractors, as well as low-cost harvesting tools for small-scale farmers, but also efficient watering systems (like drip irrigation) or composting systems to produce bio-fertilisers. Physical spaces Another important ingredient for rural innovation, that is essential when planning social innovations based on services that enhance community well-being, facilitate economic growth, and promote social cohesion, is the availability of appropriate physical spaces to host activities or co-living. ● Business hubs: Physical spaces such as co-working centres, business incubators, and marketplaces provide entrepreneurs with the resources and support needed to start and grow their businesses. This fosters local economic development and job creation (Akhavan et al., 2022). ● Public gathering spaces: parks, community centres, and event venues serve as gathering places for residents to socialise, participate in community events, and engage in civic activities. These interactions strengthen social ties and promote a sense of belonging. 51 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” ● Community facilities and services. Physical spaces such as schools, and libraries can provide essential services to rural residents. Access to quality health care and education improves the overall quality of life and helps retain residents in rural areas. ● Community multifunctional spaces. Multifunctional spaces offer versatile environments that foster collaboration, creativity, and resource sharing. They serve as hubs where community members can access shared resources such as meeting rooms, technology, and tools. This accessibility encourages collaboration among local entrepreneurs, farmers, artisans, and organisations. ● Co-housing solutions promote the creation of shared living environments where residents can interact, collaborate, and support one another. Moreover, co-housing allows for the sharing of resources such as tools, vehicles, and communal facilities (e.g., kitchens, gardens). This reduces individual costs and promotes sustainable consumption practices. ● Single point of access to services: By providing a single point of access to various services and resources, residents can easily obtain information and services related to healthcare, education, social services, and local government 7 . This reduces the complexity and time required to navigate multiple service providers. 3.9. Political enablers Political enablers comprise the actions, policies, and institutional arrangements that can facilitate rural innovation. These enablers can include supportive legislation, funding mechanisms, and collaborative networks that bring together different actors in the innovation ecosystem. Governments can facilitate access to resources, networking opportunities, and training programs while encouraging collaboration among stakeholders, including local 7 https://www.ufficiostampa.provincia.tn.it/Comunicati/Contributi-ai-multiservizi-nelle-zone-di-montagnapremiati-gli-esercizi-che-erogano-maggiori-servizi-alla-popolazione. 52 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” authorities, businesses, and educational institutions. A multi-level governance approach ensures that policies harness the unique strengths of various actors, fostering capacity building and enabling community-led innovation. Policy audits and participatory governance further ensure that strategies reflect local needs and priorities, enhancing their effectiveness and relevance (Georgios, 2023). Political advocacy For an initiative to gain long-term viability and impact, it requires approval or support from policymakers. Political advocacy helps align the initiative with public policy objectives, mobilises institutional support, and ensures that it can continue to operate within the legal and regulatory frameworks. Political endorsement is key in translating local or bottom-up community efforts into lasting change. Combining top-down advocacy with bottom-up local community involvement is considered a powerful strategy for supporting rural development (OECD, 2014). This dual approach leverages the strengths of both methods to create a more effective and inclusive framework for innovation and growth in rural areas. Top-down advocacy ensures that broader policy goals and frameworks are established, while bottomup involvement brings local knowledge and specific needs into the decision-making process. This integration helps create policies fit to local contexts, fostering a sense of ownership among community members. Governmental authorities can influence rural entrepreneurship by creating supportive environments. This includes providing resources, facilitating networking, and ensuring policies are accessible and relevant to local needs. As highlighted in the research by Kujala et al. (2021), trust, discretion, creativity, and learning are critical factors that allow rural authorities to act as effective enablers of entrepreneurship. Political endorsement can be achieved through several strategies, such as building partnerships with stakeholders like businesses and NGOs, engaging in lobbying and advocacy, aligning the initiative with current policy priorities, and mobilising grassroots support to apply bottom-up pressure and raising public awareness through media and public discourse can further sway political opinion. Multi-level governance and community engagement Governance in the context of rural innovation refers to the frameworks and processes through which decisions are made and implemented regarding rural development initiatives. It encompasses the interactions among various stakeholders, including government entities, local communities, businesses, and civil society organisations. There are different types of governance models: they can be top-down approaches, where policies are formulated at higher levels of government, and bottom-up strategies that empower local communities to take an active role in decision-making processes (as presented in Section 2.1). Hybrid approaches combine elements of both top-down and bottom-up strategies to maximise their strengths while mitigating weaknesses. For instance, while top-down policies can provide necessary resources and frameworks for innovation, bottom-up engagement ensures that these initiatives are grounded in local realities and address concrete local needs. Participatory governance is a model that actively involves local communities in decisionmaking processes, ensuring that policies and initiatives reflect their specific needs and priorities. This bottom-up approach is particularly effective in rural areas, where unique 53 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” challenges and opportunities require tailored solutions that are best understood by the residents themselves (Georgios, 2023). A multi-layer structure emphasises instead the distribution of powers across various levels of government (national, regional, intermediate and local). Rather than following a strict hierarchical order, it operates on a principle of interdependence, where each level and actor contributes unique resources and skills (Mantino, 2005). Capacity building Capacity building refers to actions that enhance the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary for effective governance and community engagement. It involves efforts and actions to improve the capabilities of individuals, organisations, and institutions, enabling them to better address local challenges and to actively participate in decision-making processes. As suggested by Cuthill and Fien (2005) building the capacity of local citizens to take collaborative action amplifies participation, empowerment, and civil engagement. Capacity building can be achieved, for instance, by developing training and education programs: political enablers can facilitate access to training programs that equip local entrepreneurs with the skills needed for innovation. Besides, knowledge transfer initiatives can be encouraged through partnerships between educational institutions and rural businesses. Policy audit SMART ERA has already developed, in Task 6.1, guidelines that will enable pilot responsible partners to analyse the key policy frameworks and the initiatives, strategies and instruments in their national and regional contexts (with a particular emphasis on EUsupported policies) that are enablers/disablers of community-led innovation in rural areas. Guidelines provide a simplified set of steps of actor-centred policy analysis that can be directly used by the SMART ERA communities to (1) identify issues, (2) identify actors connected to the issue, (3) analyse the actors’ respective positions, opportunities and barriers, and finally (4) build policy options, alternative scenarios and reporting. This is an ongoing work conducted in WP6. Future work will extrapolate information from these activities and create material to be inserted in the categorization of SIP ingredients and in the SIP Co-design Toolkit materials. 54 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” 3.10. Financial and economic enablers Financial and economic enablers determine the feasibility and long-term success of initiatives and sustainability of implemented services. Access to funding, whether through grants, subsidies, or investment opportunities, ensures that innovative projects can be implemented and scaled effectively. Economic enablers, such as tax incentives, microfinance programs, and market access support, create an environment where businesses can do well. Funding Funding is a critical component, as rural areas often lack the necessary capital to invest in modern infrastructure, technology, and business development. Government grants, EU structural funds, and private investments may provide essential financial support to rural projects. Finding and managing funding for rural innovation requires a strategic approach that includes identifying diverse funding sources, building partnerships, developing competitive proposals, and ensuring effective fund management. Understanding and planning rural markets Understanding the market context is critical to ensuring that innovative ideas are tailored to the specific needs and opportunities of rural regions. Rural innovators must account for the unique economic structures, such as smaller market sizes and dispersed populations, which can shape the demand for new products and services (Mahroum et al., 2007). Business models Specific resources for developing business models in SMART ERA will be implemented in Task 3.4 "Business models for SIPs" (M19-M42). This task is about creating new business models to ensure the sustainability of each SIP with the help of project partners. Business Model Canvas (BMC) will be used to look at various aspects like governance, key activities, resources needed, value propositions, target audiences, customer relations, channels, and financial structures. 55 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” 3.11. Legal aspects Considering the legal ingredient in innovation activities ensures the compliance with laws and the protection of stakeholders' rights. Well-defined contractual agreements, including partnership and service agreements, clarify roles and responsibilities, preventing disputes and enhancing accountability throughout the project. For initiatives that involve the development and deployment of digital services, understanding data usage laws and ensuring GDPR compliance ensure sustainability and community trust. Legal aspects, especially when the use of ICT is involved, should be considered during the design, development, and deployment phases to ensure compliance and to protect stakeholders. Sample subcategories are the following. Regulatory compliance Projects must consider local, regional, national and European laws governing the sectors addressed in rural innovation initiatives, such as agriculture, food processing, tourism, renewable energy, transportation and health. Specific regulations should be scouted for each local context and type of innovation solution to rural challenges. GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) The GDPR is a European Union regulation focused on safeguarding individuals' privacy by enforcing standards for managing personal data responsibly and transparently. Compliance with GDPR is essential for projects that involve collecting or processing data about rural populations or stakeholders. It ensures that data-driven ICT solutions respect privacy, fostering trust and enabling broader community engagement. Checklists are available to facilitate compliance with the regulation 8 . 8 https://gdprinfo.eu/gdpr-checklist. 56 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Contractual Agreements A contractual agreement is a legally binding document that outlines the terms and conditions of a relationship between two or more parties. These agreements establish clear roles and responsibilities, thereby minimising the potential for disputes. They can consist in partnership agreements, when there is a formal collaboration between organisations or stakeholders that need to agree contributions and expectations, or in service agreements when external services (such as consultancy or technology providers) are involved, to define deliverables and timelines. EU AI ACT The EU AI Act is a pioneering regulatory framework for the development and use of Artificial Intelligence within the European Union 9 . It focuses on ensuring AI systems are safe, ethical, and non-discriminatory. All AI technologies deployed in rural areas, such as predictive analytics for agriculture or remote healthcare solutions, must align with this act. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) IPR covers patents, copyrights, trademarks, appellations of origin, and design rights, offering legal protections for innovative creations and intellectual assets 10 . Protecting innovations specific to rural contexts, such as local products or traditional knowledge, allows communities to maintain ownership and control over their unique resources and services, creating economic opportunities. Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) PPPs can act as legal enablers for rural innovation. By facilitating collaboration between government entities and private sector companies, PPPs create a structured framework through which both parties can pool resources, share risks, and harness the strengths of each sector to promote rural development and innovation. 3.12. Smartness assessment of the territory A special category of ingredients for rural innovation is represented by methods that allow rural areas to assess their territorial smartness along different dimensions, both to analyse their starting point and help stakeholders acquire knowledge on the potential and priorities of their area during the problem definition phase, as well as to perform impact evaluation after the interventions. As mentioned in previous Section 3.4 on digital applications, there exist digital dashboards for smartness assessment implementing data collection and visualization functionalities in support of methods for the smartness assessment of a territory. However, not all methodologies have a digital counterpart. Task 2.1 in SMART ERA workplan performed an extensive research on existing smartness assessment methods, employed in rural contexts. Some of them focus on economic aspects, others on policies, or on agriculture; others consider different dimensions at the same time. Starting from this background research, a bespoke multi-dimensional 9 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificialintelligence. 10 https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/enforcement-and-protection/protecting-eu-creations-inventions-and-designs_en. 57 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” methodology was developed (named SESAM) that merges different assessment dimensions (enabling factors, mobility and transport, economy, smart governance and policy, services of general interest, environment and environmental and climate-related SDGs) and that combines qualitative and quantitative measures. The research work from Task 2.1 is documented in Deliverable 2.1 (delivered at M12) and will be used as the basis for the creation of contents to complement the SIP ingredients categorisation in this area and the materials of SIP Co-design Toolkit. 64 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” SIP INGREDIENT Description of the ingredient Short description: Category: Phase in which is needed: How it was obtained: What it does: Limitations: Related costs: Requirements and constraints for its use: Example Short description: Minibus with 19 seats Category: Equipment Phase in which is needed: The bus was rented for the periods of service delivery How it was obtained: The bus was rented by the municipality of Riva del Garda from a local private company specialised in selling and renting vehicles What it does: The minibus is used to connect existing bus stops in a flexible way, according to an itinerary computed according to booking requests Limitations: Related costs: Monthly paid rent Requirements and constraints for its use: The size of the bus was determined by considering the expected average number of requests and the areas where the bus needed to go through. To reduce emissions in the historical centre, an electric 65 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” vehicle was used. + SIP INGREDIENT Description of the ingredient, following the schema above + … other ingredients….. Description of the ingredient, following the schema above LESSONS LEARNED DURING THE SIP CREATION PROCESS Description of aspects (for example, type of difficult decisions) that required some reasoning during the SIP creation process and how these aspects were tackled. This information may be useful when replicating the usage of the SIP. Example: Initially, it was difficult to estimate the correct size of the bus. For this reason, it was decided to initiate the experimental phase of the service with a rented vehicle instead of immediately proceeding with a purchase. LESSONS LEARNED DURING THE SIP USE Description of aspects that emerged during the use of the SIP and how these aspects may be used to improve the deployed innovation. This information may be useful when replicating the usage of the SIP. Example: Statistics showed that a significant portion of users were local residents. This aspect suggests that the service could be extended for longer periods during the year. SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF SIP VALIDATION Description of how the community received the innovation and the type of validation performed. Example: The Bus & Go service was launched in 2022 and was active for a pilot period from July to September. During the validation period, the service registered 3.459 booking requests. Residents accounted for 60% of total users. The average age of users was 58. A satisfaction questionnaire was distributed to evaluate the perceived usability, usefulness and future intention to use the service…… BUSINESS MODEL FOR THE SIP Description of how the innovation supported by the SIP was economically sustainable. IMPACT OF THE SIP Description of the benefits or disadvantages that were observed after the deployment of the SIP. 66 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” 4.3. How to use the toolkit The SIP Co-design Toolkit aims to improve the local community’s capacity to tackle innovation processes by providing tools and resources, such as cards, reflection questions and canvases, for reflecting on the various “ingredients” involved in an innovation process. It is important to stress that the SIP Co-design Toolkit has not been conceived to provide a general step-by-step guide to collaborative design activities. In this sense, it doesn't replace already existing and well-validated co-design methodologies, like, for example, the general Double Diamond approach to design 11 , the Design Thinking framework 12 , the Values-led Participatory Design (Iversen et al., 2012), or other more specific methodologies guiding participatory rural innovation processes, as the ones produced by the Smart Villages project 13 or the SEROI+ method developed within the ERUDITE project 14 . These existing methodologies already suggest (flexible) sequences of phases to frame the problem context, explore the problem space and define a specific challenge to solve (as was done in SMART ERA WP5 during the first year of project development), develop ideas for possible solutions, prototype and converge towards a solution to be delivered and tested. Instead, the SIP Co-design Toolkit offers complementary resources specifically tailored to reason about the different ingredients of rural innovation and support the development of the SIP pivotal concept. This means that the resources in the SIP Co-design Toolkit can be used in conjunction with different methodological frameworks (Double Diamond, Design Thinking, Values-led Participatory Design, SEROI+, …) to facilitate specific activities involving rural communities and can be adapted to various contexts, from more institutional settings to more informal ones. Within task T3.3, starting at month 13 of the SMART ERA project work plan, a plan for codesign workshops and activities will be set out that combine participatory design steps with the SIP Co-design Toolkit resources to validate with use cases the SMART ERA SIP-based approach to innovation. During the SIP creation process, the SIP Co-design Toolkit will be used in different phases and for various purposes according to the needs of each pilot area. 4.3.1. Different users, flexible use Who will use the SIP Co-design Toolkit? There will be primary and secondary users. 11 https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-resources/the-double-diamond/ (last accessed on the 14th of November 2024). 12 https://www.ideou.com/pages/design-thinking, definition of Design Thinking by IDEO (last accessed on the 14th of November 2024). 13 https://smartvillages.si/ (last accessed on the 14th of November 2024). 14 https://seroi.plus/about/ (last accessed on the 14th of November 2024). 67 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Primary user: the facilitator(s) << A primary user is the main individual for whom a product or service is designed and who interacts with it directly. This user typically has the most frequent or intensive engagement with the product. >> The primary user of the SIP Co-design Toolkit is the facilitator: a person or a team with expertise in mediation and collaborative processes who oversees co-design activities. They guide and manage the interactions and dynamics within a group to ensure inclusive participation. Their role is to create a supportive environment where diverse perspectives are heard, ideas can flow, and participants can co-create solutions. They also ensure that the group remains focused on shared goals defined by the SMART ERA partners. Facilitators decide how to use the SMART ERA resources according to some considerations: the goal of the activity, the setting (formal, informal), participants' expertise, and time constraints. Secondary users: stakeholders and local community << Secondary users are individuals or groups interacting with a product or service less frequently or indirectly than primary users. Secondary users often benefit from the product's features or outputs but may have different usage patterns, priorities, or goals than primary users. >> The secondary users of the SIP Co-design Toolkit are the stakeholders and other actors participating in the co-design process, such as mayors of municipalities, representatives of local supply chains, associations, and local groups. Their experience with the toolkit is mediated by the facilitator. 4.3.2. User scenarios, tutorial and training The materials of the SIP Co-design Toolkit can be used very flexibly by different users and for various purposes. ● Preparation (before activities): The toolkit may support the facilitator(s) to become aware of the different “ingredients” that should be considered. The facilitator can use the toolkit to prepare the presentations or co-design activities and customise contents (modify, select, enrich, translate) according to the goal of the activity, the target audience, etc. ● Live collaboration (during activities): During the co-design activities, the resources of the toolkit can be used in different ways by the facilitator(s) and the participants: Ingredient Cards and Reflection Questions can be used to stimulate discussion and raise awareness of necessary “ingredients” and related constraints; Canvases can support targeted collaborative tasks. ● Consolidation and tracking (after activities): After the collaborative activity, the SIP board can be used to take notes on the selection of ingredients that will describe the SIP. This can be done through a pen-and-paper approach (the SIP board is paper-based) or in a digital form. The Toolkit resources are made available to SMART ERA project partners in a dedicated folder in the shared project repository. Resources will also be accessible from within the 68 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” digital version of the Toolkit currently under development in task T3.2. After the resources are validated in the six project use cases, the SIP Co-Design Toolkit will be made publicly available. To help Community Activators and Pilot Orchestrators understand how the Toolkit can be used in practice, illustrated use scenarios have been prepared (these are reported in Annex F of this deliverable). A video presentation explaining the scenarios has also been circulated. A hands-on training session was organised to familiarise users with the physical version of the materials in conjunction with a plenary consortium meeting (Milano, 3rd December 2024). Annex E reports how this training and validation activity was organised. 4.4. SIP Board Figure 10 displays the base layout for the SIP Board. The board serves as a reference point that shows the progress of the collaborative activity of each case study: the hexagons of the board represent the different categories that should be considered to define a SIP (e.g. people, legal aspects, digital applications, infrastructures, incentives, etc., as described in Chapter 3). Figure 10. Base layout for the SIP Board The board can be printed on a large sheet of paper (for example, in A0 size) to create a physical tool supporting individual and group discussions around SIP ingredients. A digital version of the SIP Board is also under development within Task 3.2, as described in Chapter 5. Stakeholders can progressively record the identified SIP ingredients on the board as they emerge during the various co-design activities (Figure 11, left). Coloured hexagon sticky 69 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” notes (reflecting the colour code of the ingredient categories) representing ingredients can be used to make the physical interaction more intuitive and enjoyable (Figure 11, right). Figure 11. Sample usage of the SIP Board (left) and example of hexagon-shaped sticky note Alternative graphical layouts have been experimented with for the design of the SIP Board to additionally pace the identification of the ingredients according to the different phases of the SIP co-creation process (e.g. phase 1: Discover and define the rural challenge, phase 2: Engage and motivate stakeholders, phase 3: Develop and deliver the solution). For the sake of completeness, Annex G reports the alternative layouts that were generated for the SIP Board. The possibility of offering users alternative layouts for the board will be further considered for the implementation of the digital version of the SIP Co-design Toolkit (Task 3.2). 4.5. Ingredients kit The Ingredients Kit comprises physical cards (and their digital version) that provide information and stimuli on SIP ingredients. These materials can be used to facilitate presentations, brainstorming sessions, workshops, or preparation work by community activators and pilot orchestrators. 4.5.1. Ingredient cards Each category of ingredients (e.g. “People”, “Digital applications”, “Legal aspects”,...) has an associated set of cards. A presentation card offers a general presentation of the category (Figure 12, left). Other cards describe concrete examples of ingredients of that category that can be used in the SIP and for which purpose (e.g. "local hero", "drones",...) (Figure 12, right). Ingredient cards are aimed at enhancing awareness of opportunities and constraints related to ingredients. The graphical layout of the Ingredient cards has been optimised for printing on A5-size paper for easy manipulation during brainstorming sessions. 70 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Figure 12. An example of a presentation card for a category of ingredients (left) and an example of an ingredient card (right) Figure 13. Overview of the Ingredient cards created for the first version of the SIP Co-design Toolkit 71 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Overall, 80 ingredients cards were created for the first version of the SIP Co-design Toolkit released at M12 of the project development (Figure 13). This set will be integrated as the SMART ERA project progresses, with material elaborated on other tasks. For example, cards illustrating examples of methods for territorial assessment (from Task 2.1) will be added to the "Smartness assessment" category, and cards illustrating examples of business models (from Task 3.4) will be added to the "Economic enablers" category. 4.5.2. Reflection questions Reflection Questions contain general questions that help stakeholders understand why the different categories of ingredients are essential and the dependencies between them. Figure 14 shows an example of Reflection Questions prepared to stimulate thinking about the various stakeholders involved in a SIP co-design and deployment. Reflection Questions can be used in conjunction with ingredient cards or separately. When printed out, A4 size paper can be used. Figure 14. Reflection Questions for the "People" category of ingredients 4.6. Canvases Canvases are visual templates that can be used to support collaborative discussions on specific aspects of SIPs. They can be used in conjunction with Cards or separately. Canvases are, for example, available to guide the stakeholders' mapping in the initial stages of problem definition (as illustrated in the scenario described in Annex F.1) or to stimulate reflection on the possible uses of digital ingredients to solve rural challenges (as illustrated 72 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” in the scenario described in Annex F.2). Figure 15 shows one sheet of the Digital Enablers canvas that can be used in the latter scenario. This canvas was obtained from an adaptation of existing resources of the SEROI+ method developed in the previous ERUDITE project 15 . Figure 15. A sheet of the Digital Enablers canvas. (adapted from the SEROI+ method) Figure 16 illustrates how the Digital Enablers canvas was used in an early validation test of the resources under development for the SIP Co-design Toolkit that was organised during the SMART ERA plenary meeting in Mallorca (June 2024) and is further described in Annex E. In this case, the canvas was used in its printed form (on A3 size paper) to facilitate faceto-face interactions. Figure 16. Digital Enablers canvas used during a collaborative workshop in Sòller (Mallorca) 15 https://seroi.plus/about/ (last accessed on the 14th of November 2024). 73 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” 4.7. Other methodological resources for capacity building As explained in Section 4.3, the SIP Co-design Toolkit is not a general framework for codesign but rather a bespoke resource for facilitating the creation of rural innovation solutions centred around the pivotal SIP concept. Nonetheless, in addition to the resources described in the previous sections (SIP Board, Cards, Reflection Questions, Canvases), the SIP Codesign Toolkit includes other methodological resources that may help SMART ERA stakeholders build (or strengthen) capacity in the organisation of initial context analysis activities or co-design workshops. The following resources were made available to case study partners in the early phases of project development to support the initial exploratory activities of pilot areas (now reported in deliverable D5.1): ● A guided list of methods to facilitate the needs and gaps analysis, with suggested steps to perform, ● Guidelines for initial problem definition, with a suggested template for problem description (provided by Task 5.1), ● Guidelines for the identification and analysis of stakeholders, with a suggested template for their description (provided by Task 5.1), ● Template tables for data sources mapping and analysis (provided in conjunction with Task 5.1). New resources for capacity building in co-design will be progressively added to the Toolkit as they are prepared for or collected during the case study activities, to be readily available when follower regions test the SMART ERA SIP-based approach to innovation. Materials resulting from other European projects related to the development of rural areas (e.g., Smart Villages, Smart Communities, Nevermore, …) will be reused whenever possible. 80 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” [Díaz and van Vliet 2018] Díaz, Paula, and Oscar van Vliet. "Drivers and risks for renewable energy developments in mountain regions: a case of a pilot photovoltaic project in the Swiss Alps." Energy, Sustainability and Society 8 (2018): 1-17. [European Commission 2013] European Commission. (2013). Guide to social innovation. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/guides/2013/guid e-to-social-innovation [ENRD 2015] European Network for Rural Development (ENRD) 2015. Smart Villages – How to Ensure That Digital Strategies Benefit Rural Communities: Orientations for Policy-Makers and Implementers. https://ec.europa.eu/enrd/sites/default/files/enrd_publications/smartvillages_orientations_digital-strategies.pdf [European Parliament 2021] European Parliament. Long-term Vision for Rural Areas. 2021. European Parliament, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/698027/EPRS_BRI(202 1)698027_EN.pdf. [Gao 2016] Gao, Y. (2016). Top-Down and Bottom-Up Processes for Rural Development and the Role of Architects in Yunnan, China. Buildings, 6 (4). ISSN 2075-5309 [Georgios and Barraí 2023] Georgios, Chatzichristos, and Hennebry Barraí. "Social innovation in rural governance: A comparative case study across the marginalised rural EU." Journal of Rural Studies 99 (2023): 193-203. [Hardy et al. 2019] Jean Hardy, Susan Wyche, and Tiffany Veinot. 2019. Rural HCI Research: Definitions, distinctions, methods, and opportunities. Proc. ACM Hum.- Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW, Article 196 (November 2019), 33 pages. [Honingh et al. 2018] Marlies Honingh, Elena Bondarouk, and Taco Brandsen. 2018. Parents as co-producers in primary education. In (2018) Co-production and Cocreation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services. Routledge. [Iversen et al. 2012] Iversen, Ole Sejer, Kim Halskov, and Tuck W. Leong. Values-led participatory design. CoDesign 8.2-3 (2012): 87-103. [Jungsberg et al. 2020] Leneisja Jungsberg and Andrew Copus and Lise Byskov Herslund and Kjell Nilsson and Liisa Perjo and Linda Randall and Anna Berlina (2020). Key actors in community-driven social innovation in rural areas in the Nordic countries, In Journal of Rural Studies, vol. 79, 2020. doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.08.004 [Kujala et al. 2021] Kujala, P., Virkkala, S., & Lähdesmäki, M. (2021). Authorities as Enablers in Rural Business Support Policy Regime–Case‐Study Finland. Sociologia Ruralis, 61(1), 212-233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12326 [Kusumastuti et al. 2023] Kusumastuti, R., Silalahi, M., Sambodo, M. et al. Understanding rural context in the social innovation knowledge structure and its sector implementations. Manag Rev Q 73, 1873–1901 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00288-3 [Lee and Seo 2021] Lee M, Seo S. Wearable Wireless Biosensor Technology for Monitoring Cattle: A Review. Animals (Basel). 2021 Sep 23;11(10):2779. doi: 10.3390/ani11102779. PMID: 34679801; PMCID: PMC8532812. [Leonardi and Not 2022] Chiara Leonardi and Elena Not. 2022. Challenges and opportunities for ICT in co-production: A case study of public service innovation in an Italian municipality. In DG.O 2022: The 23rd Annual International Conference on 81 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Digital Government Research (DG.O 2022). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 322–327. https://doi.org/10.1145/3543434.3543462 [Leonardi et al. 2023] Chiara Leonardi, Elena Not, Matteo Gerosa, and Roberta Lotti. 2023. A Case Study of Cross-Organizational Co-Design with Public Bodies: Opportunities for a Collaborative Platform. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Communities and Technologies (C&T '23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3593743.3593747 [Linders 2011] Dennis Linders. 2011. We-government: An anatomy of citizen coproduction in the information age. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual 1033 International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, 167–176. [López-Igual and Rodríguez-Modroño 2020] López-Igual, P.; Rodríguez-Modroño, P. Who is Teleworking and Where from? Exploring the Main Determinants of Telework in Europe. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8797. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218797 [Mahroum et al. 2007] Mahroum, S., Atterton, J., Ward, N., Williams, A. M., Naylor, R., Hindle, R., & Rowe, F. (2007). Rural innovation. National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA), London. [Mantino 2005] Franco Mantino (2005) Typologies of Governance Models. Assessing the impact of rural development policies. Deliverable D3.2 National Institute of Agricultural Economics, Rome, Italy (INEA) [Martens et al. 2021] Katrin Martens, Anke Wolff, Markus Hanisch (2021). Understanding Social Innovation Processes in Rural Areas: Empirical Evidence from Social Enterprises in Germany. 10.18452/22931. [Martinez et al. 2004] A. Martinez, V. Villarroel, J. Seoane and F. D. Pozo, "Rural telemedicine for primary healthcare in developing countries," in IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 13-22, Summer 2004, doi: 10.1109/MTAS.2004.1304394. [Mei et al. 2019] Mei, Gang, Nengxiong Xu, Jiayu Qin, Bowen Wang, and Pian Qi. "A survey of Internet of Things (IoT) for geohazard prevention: Applications, technologies, and challenges." IEEE Internet of Things Journal 7, no. 5 (2019): 4371-4386. [Melaku et al. 2024] Melaku, B. S., Sefereh, E. Y., Emunu, M. H., & Wassie, D. Y. (2024). Application of communication strategies in the diffusion of agricultural innovations and technologies: the case of Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute, Ethiopia. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2306704 [Moulaert et al. 2013] Frank Moulaert & Jean Maccallum, D. & Hillier (2013). Social innovation: Intuition, precept, concept, theory and practice. Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research. 13-24. 10.4337/9781849809986.00011. [Nabatchi et al. 2017] Tina Nabatchi, A. Sancino, and Mariafrancesca Sicilia. 2017. Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Admin. Rev. 77 (2017), 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12765 [Neethirajan and Kemp, 2021] Suresh Neethirajan, Bas Kemp, Digital Livestock Farming, Sensing and Bio-Sensing Research, Volume 32, 2021, 100408, ISSN 2214-1804, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbsr.2021.100408. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214180421000131) 82 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” [Neumeier 2017] Neumeier Stefan (2017) Social innovation in rural development: identifying the key factors of success. Geographical J 183:34–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12180 [Not et al. 2024] Elena Not, Chiara Leonardi, Diego López-De-Ipiña, Daniel Silva Palacios, Ruben Sánchez-Corcuera, Raman Kazhamiakin, and Matteo Gerosa. 2024. Designing a Digital Environment to Support the Co-production of Public Services: Balancing Multiple Requirements and Governance Concepts. Digit. Gov.: Res. Pract. 5, 3, Article 24 (September 2024), 30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3664612 [OECD 2007] OECD. (2007). Innovative rural regions: The role of human capital and technology. OECD Rural Conference, Caceres, Spain. [OECD 2014 OECD. (2014). Innovation and modernising the rural economy. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264243439-en [Salemink et al. 2017] Koen Salemink, Dirk Strijker, and Gary Bosworth. 2017. Rural development in the digital age: A systematic literature review on unequal ICT availability, adoption, and use in rural areas. Journal of Rural Studies 54: 360-371. [Sept 2020] Ariane Sept. 2020. Thinking Together Digitalization and Social Innovation in Rural Areas: An Exploration of Rural Digitalization Projects in Germany, European Countryside, ISSN 1803-8417, Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin, Vol. 12, Iss. 2, pp. 193-208, https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2020-0011 [Sgaragli 2014] Fabio Sgaragli (Ed.). 2014. Enabling social innovation: Ecosystems for community-led territorial development. Quaderni della Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini. [Sulaiman et al. 2023] Sulaiman, A.I., Prastyanti, S., Adi, T.N., Chusmeru, Novianti, W., Windiasih, R., Weningsih, S. (2023). Stakeholder communication and its impact on participatory development planning in rural areas. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, Vol. 18, No. 8, pp. 2513-2521. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.180822 [Trischler et al. 2019] Jakob Trischler, Timo Dietrich, and Sharyn Rundle-Thiele. 2019. CoDesign: From expertto user-driven ideas in public service design. Public Management Review 21, 11 (2019), 1595–1619, DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2019.1619810 [Vercher 2022] Vercher, N. The Role of Actors in Social Innovation in Rural Areas. Land 2022, 11, 710. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050710 [Vijayakumar and Ramya, 2015] Vijayakumar, N., and and R. Ramya. "The real time monitoring of water quality in IoT environment." In 2015 International Conference on Innovations in Information, Embedded and Communication Systems (ICIIECS), pp. 1-5. IEEE, 2015. [Viviroli et al. 2011] Viviroli, D., Archer, D. R., Buytaert, W., Fowler, H. J., Greenwood, G. B., Hamlet, A. F., ... & Woods, R. (2011). Climate change and mountain water resources: overview and recommendations for research, management and policy. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15(2), 471-504. [Wang et al. 2006] Wang, Ning, Naiqian Zhang, and Maohua Wang. "Wireless sensors in agriculture and food industry—Recent development and future perspective." Computers and electronics in agriculture 50, no. 1 (2006): 1-14. [Xu et al 2022] Xu, Jinyuan, Baoxing Gu, and Guangzhao Tian. "Review of agricultural IoT technology." Artificial Intelligence in Agriculture 6 (2022): 10-22. 83 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” [Yin et al. 2022] Ximing Yin, Jin Chen, Jizhen Li, Rural innovation system: Revitalize the countryside for a sustainable development, Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 93, 2022, Pages 471-478, ISSN 0743-0167, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.10.014. 84 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Annex A – Intuitive examples of SIPs This Annex includes some intuitive examples of bundles of technological and nontechnological ingredients that can be used in synergy to solve challenges impacting on rural development. These examples were used during different presentations and collaborative reflection activities within T3.1 to brainstorm on the SIP concept and related co-design processes. A.1 SIP for a cooperative of farmers This example was inspired by a real-use scenario of a cooperative of farmers 16 where the intent was to join farmers' forces to rent expensive equipment and use it in turns. Figure 20. Sample SIP for a cooperative of farmers A.2 SIP for an on-demand mobility service This example was inspired by a real scenario of an on-demand mobility service created for a tourist destination in Northern Italy 17 . 16 https://www.ruminantia.it/macchinari-agricoli-in-condivisione-lesperienza-della-coop-agr-di-marene/ (last accessed on the 11th of November 2024). 17 https://www.gardatrentino.it/it/organizza/trasporti-mobilita/Bus-and-Go (last accessed on the 23rd of November 2024). 85 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Figure 21. Sample SIP for an on-demand mobility service A.3 SIP for a school of shepherds This example was inspired by two distinct projects investigating the challenge of training young people living in remote rural areas as shepherds 18 . Figure 22. Sample SIP for a school of shepherds 18 https://www.reterurale.it/giovanipastori and https://www.innovazionesociale.org/index.php/1409-arriva-il-pastore-4-0-in-calabria-l-antico-mestierediventa-smart-per-attrarre-i-giovani-e-rilanciare-le-aree-montane. (last accessed on 23 November 2024). 86 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” A.4 SIP for the development of local crops This example was inspired by two projects investigating the challenge of sustaining the cultivation of local cereals 19 . Figure 23. Sample SIP for the development of local crops 19 https://www.unimontagna.it/progetti/buone-pratiche-per-la-coltivazione-e-la-trasformazione-di-cerealialpini-e-piante-officinali-ceralp/ and https://www.pulsesincrease.eu/experiment (Increase European project) (last accessed on the 23rd of November 2024) 87 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Annex B – Workshop on innovation processes in rural areas Workshop - Participatory processes in the pilot territories (learning together from past experiences in (co)designing innovation services in rural areas) Trento, 17th of January 2024 B.1 Objective and structure of the workshop One week before the SMART ERA project kick-off meeting (held on the 17-18 January 2024 in Trento, Italy), Community Activators were asked to reflect (with the help of Pilot Orchestrators) on previous experiences organised in their rural territory for the collaborative creation of innovation. To facilitate this homework, a template schema for slides (jointly developed by FBK, POLI and ANYSOL) was circulated in advance to guide their reflection on the type of service that was created (Figure 24), on the creation process that was followed (Figure 25), and on the positive vs. challenging aspects that were encountered (Figure 26). Figure 24. Exercise 1 for Workshop 1 in Trento Figure 25. Exercise 2 for Workshop 1 in Trento 88 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Figure 26. Exercise 3 for Workshop 1 in Trento Following the provided template, partners responsible for each of the six pilots produced a story narrating an already implemented experience of rural innovation, as shown in Figure 27. Figure 27. A previous service creation process for rural development that was implemented in Sóller (Mallorca) On the 17th of January 2024, the two-hour workshop then unfolded into three main stages: ● a brief introduction (10 minutes) by a researcher of FBK explained the aim of the workshop; ● during the central part of the workshop, a representative of each pilot area, in turn, briefly presented one previous experience of (participatory) creation of services in their territory (approximately 15-20 minutes). After each presentation, comments, reflections, and clarification questions were interactively discussed with the audience, facilitated by partners FBK, POLIEDRA and ANYSOL. 89 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” ● In the last 10 minutes of the workshop, a researcher by FBK briefly wrapped up the activities by explaining how the collected information would be elaborated by identifying commonalities and distinguishing aspects of the 6 pilot areas. All project members participating in the kick-off meeting participated in the workshop (50 participants). B.2 Results Each innovation story narrated during the workshop was analysed to factor out information about 1) how the process was initiated, 2) how the stakeholders' network was engaged, 3) what methods were used for context analysis, 4) how the creation and development process unfolded, 5) implementation aspects, 6) barriers, 7) sustainability issues and 8) monitoring practices. Figure 28 shows, for example, some relevant facts extracted from the innovation story reported by +CULTURA for the Sóller/Mallorca pilot. Figure 28. Analysis of one of the innovation stories emerged from the workshop The facts distilled for the six pilots were then organised in a summary board offering a comparative analysis clustered according to the eight selected research dimensions listed above (Figure 29). A numeric and colour code was assigned to each pilot to facilitate the organisation of contents and the following analysis. 96 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” useful, how it was described (in written text or verbally), the problem it was mentioned to solve. To facilitate the analysis of ingredients that emerged in different workgroups, a Mural board was prepared with all the names of the ingredients, as illustrated in Figure 33, where different colours identify input from various groups at a glance. Figure 33. Mural board collecting all the ingredients that emerged from group work during the workshop An affinity diagram was then created to aggregate similar ingredients into categories and subcategories. The diagram was enriched with a further 46 sample ingredients extracted from the analysis of the rural innovation stories narrated in the first workshop on participatory processes described in Annex B. The organisation of the affinity diagram was discussed and refined by three FBK researchers, and reflections during this phase led to the emergence of 20 additional ingredients. The final categorization included 157 examples of ingredients, grouped into ten main categories: ● Data and knowledge on context ● Software ● Best practices ● Communication and training ● Incentives ● Financial and economic enablers ● Infrastructure 97 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” ● Equipment ● Political/legal aspects ● People Figure 34 illustrates how each category was divided into meaningful subcategories. Figure 34. Initial grouping of "ingredients" into 10 categories and 50 subcategories, as emerged from the second workshop C.3 Discussion The mix of multidisciplinary backgrounds and previous experiences of participants in each workgroup let emerge different perspectives and points of view that clearly validate the SMART ERA vision that community-led territorial development requires the creation of an ecosystem made up of "ingredients" that go well beyond the practicalities of service delivery (like materials, infrastructures, or human operators). The workshop results laid the basis for further research towards a possible categorization of ingredient types (described in Chapter 3) as an important tool to help rural communities build capacity in performing co-production processes. Several lessons learned and requirements were also distilled: ● Ingredients can be categorised in alternative ways. For example, strategies for community engagement can be considered as belonging to a separate category of 98 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” "Best practices", as was done during the analysis of workshop results (Figure 34), or they can be considered as essential ingredients to better frame the "People" category. ● SMART ERA does not aim to create an exhaustive catalogue of ingredients for rural innovation, as this would be an encyclopaedic task whose effort goes beyond the project's scope. ● Concrete examples of ingredients of different categories, proposed by experts or coming from the experience of other territories, are of inspiration for rural communities committed to innovation. ● Stakeholders in rural areas have yet to discover ingredients related to digital technologies (digital data, software applications, bespoke hardware devices) and their related opportunities. ● There exist tasks in the SMART ERA workplan that can provide fruitful input for the creation of reusable SIP ingredients like business models to make rural innovations sustainable (Task 3.4), updated knowledge on rural policies (WP6), methodologies to assess the local context before and after the interventions (Task 2.1), data dashboards to support decision making (Task 4.2). 99 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Annex D – Workshop on digital ingredients Workshop: What can be digitised in rural areas? How can digitalization support territorial challenges? Soller, 6th of June 2024 D.1 Objectives and structure of the workshop During the second plenary consortium meeting of the SMART ERA project, held in Soller (Mallorca) on the 6-7 June 2024, a workshop was organised with multiple objectives in order to: ● deepen the consortium's shared awareness about technological / digital solutions that may contribute to rural development; ● brainstorm on the potential relevance of digital ingredients for the six SMART ERA case studies; ● collect ideas to extend the presented draft list of digital enablers with other solutions specific for case studies' needs; ● reflect on type of solutions with the higher replication/up-taking possibilities for rural areas in Europe; ● reflect on the limits and constraints of using certain technologies in some rural contexts; ● validate with Community Activators and Pilot Orchestrators preliminary concepts of the SIP Co-design Toolkit that was under development, i.e. the usage of Cards to stimulate reflection through illustrated examples of digital ingredients and the usage of Canvases to guide the discussion. The workshop involved the 43 participants to the meeting and unfolded into the following phases: ● Right before the beginning of the workshop, in a plenary session all participants were exposed to the presentation by technical partners contributing to WP4 of digital solutions already available and tested in previous projects for the implementation of innovation in rural and non-rural areas. ● Still in a plenary session, a researcher from UL introduced the workshop objectives and a researcher from FBK offered a presentation of a set of ingredient Cards describing potential digital enablers for rural innovation (20 min.) 100 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” ● Participants then divided in three rooms (plus one online group for partners participating from remote). Each room hosted representatives from two case studies, split in two tables. Technical partners distributed across the various tables, in order to have mixed background and skills in each group. (The setting is illustrated in previous Figure 16 in section 4.6). Facilitators from UL, FBK and POLI supported the team work. ● Each group was asked to select a set of digital solutions that seem particularly relevant to the challenges of their territory, from the list presented in the digital Cards (10 mins.) ● Pilots were then invited to agree upon one most promising digital solution and potential use scenario and to work on it by following the proposed Canvas (40 min). ● At the end of the group activity, a plenary session concluded the workshop with a peer review phase, when a representative of each group synthesised what emerged at their table. Figure 35 illustrates the canvases used to stimulate the activity, which were derived from an adaptation of materials included in the SEROI+ methodology. Figure 35. Canvases used to facilitate group discussion during the workshop 101 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” D.2 Results Each work group in the workshop generated interesting contents that envisaged how current needs and gaps of the territories are matched by technological solutions. Figure 36 shows sample input that was produced by workshop participants. Figure 36. Material produced in the workgroup of the East Herzegovina case study D.3 Discussion In general, the type of practical activity proposed in the workshop was very well received by Community Activators and Pilot Orchestrators, who showed appreciation for the ingredient Cards and the guidance offered by the Canvases. This represented a preliminary validation of the design concepts of the SIP Co-design Toolkit. Another valuable outcome of the workshop was the collection of concrete examples of digital/technological ingredients' potential usage. From one side, participants took inspiration from the stimuli that were presented to them by technical partners and researchers. From the other side, they were able to envisage additional digital enablers for their needs. This was used to enrich the categorization of digital ingredients included in the first version of the SIP Co-design Toolkit, as described in Chapter 3. 102 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Annex E – Workshop on SIP Co-design Toolkit training and validation Hands-on workshop with the analog SIP Co-design Toolkit Milano, 3rd December 2024 E.1 Objectives and structure of the workshop During the third plenary consortium meeting of the SMART ERA project, held in Milano (Italy) on the 3-4 December 2024, a workshop was organised with multiple objectives in order to: ● Let all SMART ERA partners (and in particular Community Activators and Pilot Orchestrators) familiarise with the task of identifying ingredients for a SIP solving a given rural challenge; ● Let all partners examine the analog materials of the SIP Co-design Toolkit in the context of a simulated brainstorming session and train on the usage of the toolkit with a hands-on activity implementing a "learning by doing" approach; ● Collect feedback on the content (ingredient categorization, cards, reflection questions) included in the first version of the SIP Co-design Toolkit; ● Observe how the toolkit was received and how it was used. The workshop involved all the 48 partners’ representatives taking part in the project meeting. During the initial 15 minutes of the workshop, a researcher from FBK briefly recalled who may the potential users of the SIP Co-Design Toolkit be (facilitators, core work group, and extended groups of local stakeholders) and the flexible ways in which the toolkit can be used (Figure 37). Figure 37. Explanations provided to workshop participants during the presentation of the training session 103 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Participants were then presented with a fictitious (but realistic) scenario of a rural community in need of creating a SIP for a hypothetical on-demand public transportation service, in support of the local community and tourists. Participants were asked to engage in a discussion about the required ingredients to implement the expected SIP. Participants were then presented with a fictitious (but realistic) scenario of a rural community in need of creating a SIP for a hypothetical on-demand public transportation service, in support of the local community and tourists. Participants were asked to engage in a discussion about the required ingredients to implement the expected SIP. The 48 participants were divided into three separate groups. Each group was assigned the task of identifying potential ingredients related to three or four different categories: group 1 was expected to reason on digital applications, local knowledge, and financial and economic enablers; group 2 brainstormed on hardware and digital infrastructure, people, incentives and legal aspects; group 3 brainstormed on data, physical infrastructure and equipment, communication and training, and political enablers. Each discussion table was equipped with a canvas to collect ideas and ingredient cards, together with the related how-tos and reflection questions for the considered categories. A researcher from FBK was present in each group to further provide explanations on how to take advantage of the toolkit analog materials to support the identification of ingredients (Figure 38). Ideas were annotated on coloured hexagon-shaped sticky notes. Figure 38. SMART ERA partners engaging in the training session with the analogue SIP Co-design Toolkit After 30 minutes of group work, in a final plenary session, representatives of each group were invited to present what ingredients emerged at their table, while attaching the 104 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” completed sticky notes on a common SIP Board hanging in a visible place of the meeting room. E.2 Results In only half an hour, each work group was able to quickly initiate the discussion and generate several ideas for ingredients. Overall, 73 sticky notes were added to the SIP Board (Figure 39). It is important to note that for this training activity the actual information attached to the SIP Board is not of crucial importance, given the fictitious scenario chosen and the fact that this SIP will not be really implemented. Nonetheless, the exercise worked out very well: the complementary expertise of the different participants enabled to elaborate interesting insights for each of the considered ingredient categories and several considerations emerged from the type of generated output, from the suggestions on how to extend the material of the SIP Co-design Toolkit, and from what was observed on the toolkit usage. Figure 39. The final session of SIP Board updating E.3 Discussion Overall appreciation After the workshop, several participants explicitly expressed appreciation for the co-creation activity according to different points of view. Partners experts in co-design commented on the efficacy of analog materials (the tangible aspect of the toolkit) and in particular on the intuitiveness of the SIP Board, which allows to provide a sense of progress. Indeed, many 105 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” participants were surprised by the amount of work produced in such a short time, and certainly the intuitive overview provided by the board facilitates a shared visualization of collective achievements. Some Community Activators and Pilot Orchestrators started envisaging how they could use the SIP Co-design Toolkit to facilitate the creative activities in their pilot, also in combination with the community engagement methods they already employ (e.g. the Future Search Conference). Flexibility of use of the SIP Co-Design Toolkit In the different groups, the observed usage dynamics was varied. One group immediately decided to split into subgroups, with each subgroup working with one single ingredient category in parallel. Whereas other groups considered all the assigned categories (three or four) at the same time during the brainstorming. For one group the initiation of the discussion required some brief warm up phase in which the challenge to address was further detailed before the creative phase of ingredient ideas generation could start. The cards were used to get inspiration at different points during the brainstorming and to further check whether something was missing. In other cases, the cards were used more systematically, to make sure each example card was elaborated with a corresponding idea fitting the given scenario. This variety of use exactly goes into the direction of the main principle of flexibility around which the SIP Co-design Toolkit was created. Relationships across categories While discussing ingredients within the context of a certain category, in some cases ideas emerged that belonged to other, related categories. This provided evidence of the fact that although the ingredients categorisation was conceived to structure and guide the process of ingredients identification, still it does not hamper cross-category thinking. Extendability of the toolkit The openness property of the SIP Co-design Toolkit, i.e. the possibility (and encouragement) to extend the materials with further categories and cards starting from expertise and evidence on the peculiarities of the rural domain, was fully understood by participants. Many comments and suggestions were collected on the opportunity to extend the current categorisation, for example with a category collecting examples of ingredients dealing with "Ethical aspects", and the current set of ingredient Cards (for example with material related to policies or to additional types of digital applications). What's comes after brainstorming Although participants contributed easily and effectively to the population of the SIP Board, they were unsure of what would be the following step. As illustrated in the scenarios reported in Annex F, the typical follow-up phase to a brainstorming aimed at generating ingredients ideas would include a refinement session (most probably involving the facilitator and members of the core work group) in which ideas are reordered, aggregated by similarity, filtered and consolidated into a reduced number of options, to then repeat other iterative cycles of missing ingredients identification or to analyse in detail the requirements and constraints of the ingredients in the SIP Board. 112 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” SIP ingredient categories are grouped closer to the design phase in which they are most useful. Figure 41. Layout for the SIP Board inspired to the Double Diamond design methodology G.3 Layout suggesting a three-phase SIP co-creation process The graphical layout in Figure 42 is an elaboration of the one in Figure 41 that explicitly adds visibility to the important phase of stakeholders and community engagement, which is essential in participatory design approaches. 113 D3.1 - “Co-design toolkit” Figure 42. Layout for the SIP Board based on an extension of the Double Diamond approach