(7) Case Studies of 1st Report

We had started with 7 different case studies in an effort to investigate successful implementation by identifying those elements which make them remarkable and can be found first in the list below. We added recently 12 new case studies thanks to your contribution and we are still looking for more case studies and this can be done by getting in touch directly to us. As we receive more new cases, we will increase the list below. Each case study is following a structure that is explained below and they should help in developing your own:

New Case studies:

Case study structure

Each case study is aimed to provide an example for the use of VGI by government or by the public, and it is written to enable using them to learn about the context, positive and negative aspects, and the main lessons learned from the case study. The case studies are all deliberately short with the following structure:

First, a summary table provides the general information about the case study

Interaction Type

This field describes the flow direction of the data (either crowdsourced or authoritative). The data flow can fall into one of the following three categories (see also introduction for the typology): from government to public, from public to government or from government  to public and back to government.

Trigger Event

This field describes a specific event that might have triggered the data sharing (eg. change in data licence, natural disaster etc.), if exists.

Domain

This field describes the area where the datasets have been used into. This will include both an abstract characterisation of the general area (eg. Generic mapping) as well as information about the specific field (e.g. update of National Topographic Database)

Organisation

This field refers to the organization(s) that has initiated the data sharing process and consequently the one(s) that has been more actively involved in the whole project

Actors

This field lists all interested parties/stakeholders that have been involved in the synergy/data sharing and have contributed or benefited by this data sharing process in any way.

Data sets in use

This field describes the datasets that have been shared and used by the crowd or the authorities (including datasets that have been generated due to the synergy crowd/ authorities).

Process

This field describes the process followed so to successfully implement the data sharing, data integration  and co-operation of VGI and authoritative datasets.

Feedback

This field describes the immediate result that was returned to the initiator of the data sharing process, if any.

Goal

This field describes the original goal of the synergy between VGI and authoritative datasets.

Side effects

This field lists any possible cases or factors that have been revealed or generated during the data sharing and the co-operation of the crowd with the authorities (eg. IPRs) (if applicable).

Contact Point

This field gives information about the contact point that either has provided details about the specific case study or has been significantly involved in the case study (when available).

Next, the context of the project is provided in a short paragraph (100-250 words). This is followed  by details of the project (200-300 words), and a discussion about the positive and the negative aspects of this specific collaboration (about 100-300 words for each), finally, a conclusion is provided, followed by 3-5 bullet points of the most important lessons from the case.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s