After thorough preparation, the pilot plan is clearly defined, and all stakeholders understand their respective roles and responsibilities. While the plan provides a roadmap for running the pilot, it is expected to evolve over time through the process of co-creation, incorporating new insights and shaping the piloting path while maintaining alignment with the jointly agreed-upon goals. A well-structured plan facilitates easier and quicker adjustments, ensuring adaptability while staying focused on the desired outcomes.
The pilot manager plays a crucial role in facilitating the pilot’s execution, supporting both the pilot host and the pilot team during the initial stages and throughout the whole piloting phase. The pilot manager, as a representative of their city, oversees the progress of the pilots of their city. Often involved from the beginning of the open call, the pilot manager collaborates with their city organisation to identify challenges and has a comprehensive understanding of the city’s needs.
While the tasks of the pilot manager can be divided among clloeagues, it is essential that the coordination of these tasks is managed by one designated person.
TIP – Time management. Plan how much time you can allocate for the piloting activities. While the role of a pilot manager is inspiring, it’s essential to avoid becoming overly immersed in tasks that should be carried out by others.
The Piloting Toolkit aims to simplify the work of pilot managers by offering an overview of the piloting process and providing essential tools such as meeting agenda and reporting templates. These templates help streamline meetings and document pilot progress effectively, ensuring smoother management of pilot projects. Explore the full list of the tools in chapter Documents of the Piloting Toolkit.
CommuniCity project organised training workshops for cities participating in its open call rounds. The project partners attended a training workshop in Helsinki in November 2022. Subsequently, the second round training workshop for three partner cities and four replicator cities was held in Porto in June 2023. The third round training workshop together with the three partner cities and nine replicator cities took place in Amsterdam in June 2024. These hybrid workshops with onsite field trips aimed to align and finalise the challenges of the respective calls and prepare cities for the remainder of the open call and piloting activities.
Photo: CommuniCity project
Bi-weekly meetings of the CommuniCity Replicator City Open Call were organised by OASC in the third round and by Forum Virium Helsinki during the previous ones. These meetings aimed to support the replicator cities’ pilot managers by providing practical guidance and facilitating the exchange of lessons learned. Many city representatives involved in the initial open call preparations, including challenge identification, had transitioned into the role of pilot managers for the piloting phase. The consistent support structure of the meetings ensured continuity and facilitated effective collaboration among replicator cities’ pilot managers and CommuniCity project.
Experts from CommuniCity partners supported the pilot managers, but also the pilot teams, in the piloting phase for example by organising info sessions of the CommuniCity Technical Framework and co-creation. It is highly recommended to set up an info session on co-creation in the very beginning of the piloting phase. Different people may have different views and interpretations of the term ‘co-creation’. In the info session, the essence, importance and benefits of co-creation can be explained and methods can be offered by providing a link to the toolbox.
CommuniCity training workshop. Photo: CommuniCity project
The CommuniCity project offers a collection of meeting agenda and memo templates to aid cities in piloting implementation. Three mandatory meetings involving the pilot manager, pilot host, and pilot team serve as the foundation for piloting structure. Additionally, a voluntary but highly recommended pilot host meeting is important for the pilot host and pilot manager to gain common understanding of the expectations after the winner application is chosen. The pilot manager is responsible for organising all these meetings.
The pilot host meeting and the kickoff meeting are part of the preparation work and are described in chapter Arranging a pilot host meeting and a kickoff meeting.
The midterm meeting serves as a crucial checkpoint in the pilot process. While ideally positioned in the middle of the piloting phase, the timing is best assessed collectively during the kickoff meeting. Typically, it occurs before engaging with residents, ensuring all preparations meet the standards set by the pilot host.
The lead applicant submits a report, forming the basis for the midterm meeting. This midterm report reviews actions taken during the initial pilot phase, allowing all parties to provide feedback and enhance collaboration. Together, the remaining months of the pilot plan are reviewed, and concrete action points are agreed upon.
Pilot manager ensures the midterm meeting will take place and is well documented. It is a good and efficient practice to modify the slide presentation of the meeting into a meeting memo.
Midterm meeting agenda template
The arrangements for the midterm meeting closely resemble those of kickoff meetings, with the addition of the midterm report process:
Schedule the meetings well advanced to ensure all parties are available; the midterm meeting in the kickoff meeting, and the final meeting in the midterm meeting.
Share the materials to all parties preferably a week before the meeting:
During the midterm meeting, the pilot team will present the progress of the pilot, highlighting learnings and addressing any potential issues encountered. Simultaneously, the pilot host will share their insights and expectations for the remaining duration of the pilot, particularly if any challenges have arisen during implementation.
It is crucial, especially in the case of issues, to agree on practical tasks and schedules to address them effectively. Negative feedback should not be afraid of, and to be communicated latest at the midterm meeting to ensure the corrective actions can be taken, ultimately leading to positive outcomes for the pilot.
The memo of the midterm meeting includes possible modifications to the pilot plan.
The final meeting represents the culmination of the piloting experience, serving as a platform for comprehensive review and feedback from all participants. While administrative finalisation of the pilot is required, the primary objective of the meeting is knowledge sharing among stakeholders.
Participants share insights gained from the pilot, facilitating mutual learning and understanding. Additionally, discussions may include potential communication actions and opportunities for further collaboration. The lead applicant submits the final report before the meeting, which serves as a basis for discussions. Upon acceptance of the final report and conclusion of the final meeting, the final payment is processed.
Final meeting agenda template:
The arrangements for the final meeting are similar to midterm meetings, including the reporting process.
Occurring meetings are recommended to be agreed at the kickoff meeting where the parties have established practicalities for the piloting, including maintaining active and productive collaboration between the pilot host and pilot team. One suggested method is to schedule weekly meetings, lasting 30 minutes each. During these meetings, the previous week’s progress and next week’s action points can be briefly reviewed with the pilot host and team. If additional time is required to address specific issues, separate meetings can be arranged as needed.
The pilot parties can collectively determine the specifics of documenting these update meetings. It is recommended that the pilot manager or the lead applicant organise a shared folder for documentation purposes, streamlining the pilot work process. This approach enhances collaboration and ensures efficient management of pilot-related documentation.
People in a workshop in Porto. Photo: CommuniCity project
CommuniCity project is a citizen-centred project and co-creation is at the core of it. All pilots are unique and CommuniCity does not require specific co-creation methods to be applied. Co-creation should be regarded as a valuable tool throughout the pilot process.
The pilot teams have been planning their co-creation activities already in their open call application. The co-creation plan has evolved in the preparations phase, when deeper understanding of the pilot environment and stakeholders expectations and resources have been formed.
The pilot teams hold the primary responsibility for organising co-creation events of its pilot. Nevertheless, the pilot hosts, being crucial participants in the co-creation process, utilise their expertise to contribute to the planning phase. An integral aspect of this planning involves evaluating when end users can be incorporated into the co-creation process from its early phases.
InclusiVerse, an innovative virtual reality application developed by CTRL Reality, emerged through a collaborative effort with the Virtual Disability Services for Clients in Work and Day Activities (VIPA) program under the City of Helsinki’s Disability Services. This pioneering application was meticulously crafted to address the specific needs of individuals with developmental disabilities, aiming to bolster their social and digital skills in a nurturing virtual environment.
At its core, InclusiVerse offers users a safe and immersive space to practise social interactions, simulate daily routines, and navigate novel situations. By fostering real-time collaboration and customizable settings, the application empowers users to confidently manoeuvre through the complexities of daily life.
The journey of creating InclusiVerse began with CTRL Reality engaging closely with VIPA staff to gain a deep understanding of the target audience and their requirements. Through collaborative meetings and workshops, insights were gathered and educational scenarios were meticulously defined to shape the application’s development.
Subsequently, armed with invaluable feedback and insights, the development phase commenced. Simultaneously, preparations were made to involve the end users – the disabled clients – in the co-creation process. A concerted effort was made to ensure accessibility, with a roadshow visiting five Work Activity units to engage approximately 150 end users directly.
The impact of InclusiVerse was profound, evident in the enhanced social interactions and boosted confidence observed among users. These outcomes underscored the vital role of inclusion and accessibility in fostering a more equitable society.
As the pilot phase concludes, CTRL Reality remains committed to expanding the reach of InclusiVerse, breaking down barriers, and fostering understanding. For VIPA, the experience of co-creating with a technology development company and witnessing the transformative potential of virtual technology has been enlightening, showcasing the valuable role virtual tools can play in the lives of their clients.
Photo: Timo Korkalainen
In the wake of concluding the series of pilot projects, an important event was organised. The co-creation workshop hosted organisations, pilot teams, and key city figures involved in the field of social services and decision-making. This served as an invaluable forum for sharing the rich experiences learned from the pilots, highlighting the strengths and positive aspects, pinpointing areas needing refinement, and deliberating on future directions.
Porto Digital, together with Domus Social and the Municipality of Porto, managed the co-creation event, encapsulating the essence of collaboration that characterised the end of the piloting phase. Hosted in the vibrant city of Porto, and in the heart of the intervention area, the event stood as a testament to the collective efforts and dedication of all involved. It attracted a diverse group of participants, including representatives from the pilot management organisations and other stakeholders, who convened to share insights and outcomes from the piloting phase.
The primary objective of this event was multifaceted: to reflect on the pilots’ accomplishments, to identify challenges and lessons learned, and to strategise for the enhancement of future open calls. Through open discussions, interactive sessions, and feedback mechanisms, the participants engaged deeply with the material, offering a wealth of perspectives and expertise. The event not only celebrated the successes but also paved the way for critical reflection on what could be optimised in subsequent rounds.
This collaborative endeavour had a rich exchange of ideas, fostering a sense of community and a shared commitment to advancing social integration through digital and innovative solutions. The insights gathered from this event underscored the value of continuous learning and adaptation, setting a dynamic course for future co-creation initiatives in Porto. The success of the gathering highlighted the importance of open dialogue and mutual support among all stakeholders, ensuring that the journey of social innovation remains responsive, inclusive, and impactful.
Photo: CommuniCity pilot teams, pilot hosts and other pilot stakeholders at the co-creating workshop organised by pilot managers in Porto.
The grant is disbursed to the lead applicant in accordance with the piloting contract terms.
By default, the initial payment is 50% in the beginning and the remaining 50% at the end of the pilot.
The first payment is made following the signing of the Pilot Contract and successful completion of the kickoff meeting, indicating mutual agreement among piloting partners to commence the pilot.
The second and final payment, constituting the remaining 50% of the grant, is disbursed after the lead applicant fulfils all obligations, including submission of the final report. Evaluation of these obligations occurs during the final meeting, with assessment conducted by both the pilot manager and pilot host.
The CommuniCity project implemented 101 pilots across 19 European cities, engaging a wide range of stakeholders, from municipalities and NGOs to technology developers and vulnerable communities.
Based on that work, this section now shares a curated, thematic selection of learnings. The insights highlight both challenges and good practices to inform future initiatives involving co-creation with marginalised communities. The reflections aim to provide a transferable knowledge base for future EU-funded projects, policy development, and local innovation ecosystems seeking to foster inclusive and sustainable digital transformation.
Photo: CommuniCity project
Ethical boundaries require innovation, not exclusion.
The pilots confirmed that direct engagement with marginalised groups is not always ethically possible. For instance, when involving children or individuals with sensitive health conditions. The use of proxy participants (such as caregivers, NGOs, peer support specialists and healthcare professionals) proved essential to represent the voices of these groups responsibly. Ethical constraints should not be treated as barriers but as design challenges that inspire innovation and creative flexibility.
Privacy by design builds trust and legitimacy.
Data protection and privacy management were crucial to ensure participants’ trust and institutional collaboration. The experience demonstrated that privacy cannot be an afterthought; it must be embedded in the project’s design and methodology from the outset. Integrating GDPR-compliant practices, transparency, and data minimisation principles from the beginning facilitated smoother cooperation with partner institutions.
Emotional safety is as important as technical safety.
Participants affected by trauma or instability require safe and respectful environments. Emotional safety protocols, including smaller groups, trusted facilitators, and methods such as storytelling and art-based dialogue enabled sensitive topics to be addressed without re-traumatisation. These practices ensured authentic participation and strengthened co-creation outcomes.
Lived experience must shape the process, not only the outcomes.
Genuine inclusion was achieved when communities’ lived experiences guided all phases, from problem framing to testing. This approach shifted co-creation from tokenism towards empowerment and ownership of results.
One-size-fits-all accessibility does not exist.
The pilots demonstrated that accessibility challenges including language barriers, mobility limitations, and digital illiteracy require tailored, multimodal approaches. Offering both digital and physical participation channels, synchronous and asynchronous engagement, and multiple communication formats proved vital for inclusion.
Safe intermediaries strengthen engagement.
Trusted intermediaries such as social care workers, teachers, or NGO staff were indispensable in bridging communication gaps between communities and pilot teams. They helped overcome scepticism and ensured participants felt represented and supported throughout the process.
Recognising intersectionality enhances relevance.
Participants often faced overlapping vulnerabilities (e.g., migrant women balancing language, care, and financial challenges). Considering intersectionality led to more nuanced and equitable solutions, avoiding overly simplistic interventions.
Continuous communication sustains empowerment.
Regular meetings, weekly or bi-weekly, between pilot teams (hosts, technical partners, and participants or their representatives) were key to maintaining motivation and ownership. Continuous dialogue prevented disengagement and ensured that participants’ feedback directly influenced solution development.
Distinguishing users from beneficiaries prevents misalignment.
Many pilots involved intermediaries, for instance, professionals or service providers who offered contextual knowledge and supported the testing process on behalf of, or together with, the beneficiaries. In several cases, these professionals were also indirect beneficiaries, as the solutions developed during the pilots enhanced their ability to assist their clients more effectively.
This distinction between end users (those directly engaging with a tool or service) and beneficiaries (those who ultimately benefit from its use) proved essential for avoiding design mismatches and improving both usability and relevance. Recognising overlapping roles, where professionals may simultaneously act as facilitators and beneficiaries, contributed to a more nuanced understanding of user ecosystems within co-creation processes.
Individual empowerment must lead to collective resilience.
While individual empowerment was a positive outcome, community-wide impact requires deliberate investment in shared identity, collaboration, and long-term structures for exchange.
Training hosts and technical teams is essential.
Training for pilot managers, pilot hosts and pilot teams before engaging with communities was fundamental. It was found out that many technology teams initially lacked co-creation experience; preparatory meetings covering ethical, social, and communicative aspects prevented unintentional power imbalances.
Early and continuous engagement is critical.
Recruitment and attendance challenges underscored the importance of building trust before pilots start. Engagement should begin early in the planning phase and continue beyond project closure to ensure adoption and sustainability (when applicable).
Flexibility is non-negotiable.
Adaptive management – adjusting schedules, methods, and tools in response to participants’ needs or ethical constraints proved to be crucial. Agile responsiveness enhanced inclusivity and improved pilot outcomes.
Storytelling is a powerful co-design method.
Narrative and visual methods were particularly effective with young people and vulnerable families. Storytelling fostered empathy, creativity, and emotional connection, leading to richer and more grounded design insights.
Small groups amplify impact.
Smaller, focused sessions encouraged honesty and participation, particularly among vulnerable individuals. Large workshops sometimes silenced marginalised voices; thus, a balance between group formats was necessary.
Time and budget must match ambition.
Meaningful co-creation requires adequate resources. While the scale of CommuniCity’s 100 pilots enabled extensive learning across Europe, some pilot teams noted that longer engagement periods would have strengthened community ownership and sustainability.
The scale of CommuniCity’s 100 pilots provided valuable insights, but deeper engagement in fewer pilots might lead to greater long-term impact.
Simplicity matters more than sophistication.
Low-threshold technologies, such as web-based tools, often outperformed more complex applications. Users valued stability, clarity, and ease of access over technical novelty.
Digital tools must be adapted to users’ realities.
Cultural sensitivity, language diversity, and accessibility features were indispensable. Customisation increased trust and usability across contexts.
Real-world testing ensures sustainability.
Testing solutions in authentic settings revealed practical barriers (e.g., poor connectivity or hardware limitations) that would not have surfaced in laboratory environments.
Gamification and incentives foster engagement.
Integrating playful elements or small rewards boosted motivation, especially in pilots with children, youth, and families.
Local partnerships create legitimacy.
Municipalities, NGOs, and local associations were essential for credibility, access to communities, and continuity beyond the project’s lifetime.
Institutional alignment ensures impact.
Some pilots experienced delays due to limited institutional commitment. Early endorsement from local authorities, clear governance structures, and shared priorities were key success factors.
Communication and transparency maintain momentum.
Regular updates and open decision-making processes helped prevent misunderstandings and fostered trust across all levels of implementation among consortium partners, pilot hosts and technical teams, as well as community participants engaged in the co-creation activities.
Proxy representation must be carefully managed.
While proxies are valuable mediators, it is critical that they amplify rather than replace community voices.
Empowerment requires continuity.
Ending engagement abruptly risks frustration and distrust. The project emphasised the importance of planning for continuity, ensuring that pilots contribute to long-term empowerment rather than temporary participation.
Iteration bridges prototype and adoption.
Extended feedback cycles and iterative testing are vital for sustainable adoption. Several pilots underestimated this need, delaying results or limiting final usability.
Co-creation benefits professionals as well.
The process strengthened professional practices, for example, among social workers, hospital staff, educators, who gained transferable skills and improved collaboration networks.
Empowerment is relational, not merely technical.
Technology served as a facilitator, but genuine impact stemmed from trust and human connection.
Institutional and participant value must be recognised.
Participation of local communities and stakeholders involved in the pilots, including vulnerable groups where applicable, yielded secondary benefits such as visibility, skill development, and new partnerships. Recognising and communicating these gains fostered stronger motivation and commitment among all actors involved.
According to the CommuniCity project, the preparatory phase prior to the launch of the Open Calls, typically lasting four to six months, proved decisive for success. During this stage, consortium partners and pilot hosts prepared the necessary administrative, legal, and organisational groundwork for the Open Call implementation. This included activities such as resource allocation, documentation preparation, pilot host training, and the design of governance and reporting templates.
Once launched, the Open Call phase covered implementation activities such as the publication of challenges, applicant support, evaluation procedures, and transparent dissemination of results. Together, these structured processes reinforced trust, transparency, and continuity among organisers, pilot teams, and local partners.
Best practices and insights from the first two Open Call rounds were compiled into an Open Call Manual, which served as a comprehensive toolkit for the third round and for activities beyond the project’s duration.
Insights reaffirmed the central role of co-creation as an ongoing process rather than a single phase. Pilot teams should begin stakeholder engagement early, maintain transparency throughout, and make feedback visible to participants. Agile experimentation, short iteration cycles, and small-group prototype evaluations were key to improving results.
The three rounds of CommuniCity Open Calls leading to 101 European-wide pilot projects demonstrated that inclusive, ethical, and flexible co-creation is achievable across diverse European contexts. However, success depends on sufficient preparation, institutional alignment, and sustained engagement. The lessons captured here emphasise that innovation with marginalised communities is not only a technical endeavour but a deeply social one, requiring empathy, adaptability, and long-term commitment.
Main photo: CommuniCity project
