Lessons learned
1. Leadership for implementation
-
In the last period, the management was very effective. It was an effect of changing the management strategy during the project. Firstly, the management was quite participative with great freedom of action left to each consortium partner. It evolved more towards the authoritative one, but remained in the participatory area all time. From the end of the project perspective, it was a quite successful aspect of the project, but also one of the most interesting, where some lessons have been learnt.
The management structure described in the project application was implemented in practice. The main responsible institution for the whole activities was the leader – the city of Lappeenranta. The leader was supported by a Steering Committee, in which the representatives of the key partners were involved. The main role of the leader was supervising and coordinating all activities and tasks according to the project schedule and in the planned budget framework. The leadership was quite challenging because of the large size of the consortium, and in the last phase also the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic forced the changing the style of work - many tasks were performed using online tools. Fortunately, the basic IT supporting systems were implemented at the beginning of the project and partners used it. The main change was connected with meeting organizations. Instead, in a traditional way, during the COVID-19 pandemic, they were conducted using web meeting platforms - MS Teams.
Furthermore, the important issue was a financial participation of the project partners (required by call rules). The partners’ contribution was 20 % of the total budget. The required contribution made the consortium partners feel more responsible for the undertaken activities.
2. Public procurement
In the area of public procurement, there were no problematic issues. There were performed in a traditional way and supported by the experience of the Lappeenranta city hall team. They were fully in line with the procedures presented in the grant application and completed in the first stage of the project.
3. Integrated cross-departmental working
In the last period of the project, the effective collaboration between different departments of the city of Lappeenranta was continued. During the whole project, the cross-departmental cooperation was supported by meetings, firstly the traditional one, and next by using virtual tools, for example, MS Teams. The common activities during the project include the decision-making process as well as activities related to project implementation and promotion. It was especially important during the last phase – prototype implementation. It requires interdepartmental collaboration and some consensus in the final stage of the project.
4. Adopting a participative approach
The participative approach was strongly implemented into the project management procedures. The communication between the consortium members was excellent, and they actively participated in the decisions taken by the consortium in different areas of the project. The decision-making process requires the opinion of key partners, additionally each partner could influence on the consortium’s decisions in particular are connected with their activities. The regular meetings enforcement the participative approach. It also helped to create better and more effective solutions for the project. The open dialogue was supported by the leader.
5. Monitoring and evaluation
The main problem in the area of monitoring and evaluation was the large size of the consortium. The city of Lappeenranta as a consortium leader was responsible for monitoring and evaluation of the project activities. These tasks are supported by an indicator-based system. The indicators were strictly connected with this described in in the grant application. The system occurred quite effective. The consortium members had updated data in the system and they could also check the project progress. The monitoring system was also helpful in the last period of the project. It allowed to re-analyse all project documentation and achieved progress, especially objectives, milestones, and outcomes.
6. Communicating with target beneficiaries
Communicating with target beneficiaries was a strong point of the UIR project. The communication campaign was quite spread and addressed to different target groups. The communication activities were well coordinated. In the last period of the project, digital communication tools have been used widely in the project. The communication activities were dedicated to different target groups. During the last two months, the communication was based on web pages and virtual content.
The useful promotion tool was the wined award of European Green Leaf Award 2021 for the city of Lappeenranta (Finland) as the greenest city in Europe (Fig. 4). This website were also used for presentation the final results of the project as a bilingual publication in English and in Finnish.
The virtual tools interest is also growing all time. The two city models were created: a browser-based, and based on a video game engine. Both are efficient interactive tools. Additionally, a separate Virtual Reality Expo was built in the Venla meeting room of Lappeenranta City Hall, where the public can explore a virtual city on a grander scale. The possibility of visit depends on Covid-19 pandemic restrictions.
7. Upscaling
The upscaling in the project had two dimensions. One is strictly connected with the project goals – it is a performance large-scale prototype and this part was successfully accomplished. The final developed version of the 3D printer was capable of producing new kinds of urban products. Some prototype solutions were performed, including noise barrier elements, benches, planters, and skate park structures (Fig. 5). They were placed around Lappeenranta and Imatra.
The second one is upscaling the technology and materials for future applications, including other regions. For this second dimension, some challenges have been defined. The most important is 3D printer technology due to issues with the performance and uniformity of the geopolymer material. It still needs to be developed before it can be used for industrial-scale production. The repetitiveness of the element and dimensional stability must be improved. The estimations provided in the project show that 3D printing will be deployed on a large scale in the construction industry within 5 to 10 years. The other challenge is the material itself. A computer-based scaling exercise, provided in the project framework, suggested that the original material costs of geopolymer composites were approximately 32% higher than those of conventional concrete of the same grade (M45). The high price of the material could be a crucial factor that decides about their widespread. With the benefits from the environmental point of view and very good material properties, including durability, the price still is a key factor about commercial applications.
Table 1 presents the implementation challenges for the UIR project. The main areas are grouped in seven thematic areas. According to the risk level, the challenging areas are marked as follows: red: high risk and important for the project, yellow: medium risk and important, and green: low risk and important or the tasks in the area were successfully completed.
TABLE 1: MAPPING THE URBAN INFRA REVOLUTION PROJECT AGAINST THE ESTABLISHED UIA CHALLENGES
|
Challenge
|
Level
|
Observations
|
1. Leadership for implementation
|
Low
|
The city of Lappeenranta was the organization responsible for the leadership and coordination of the project. The leadership had a participative style of taking into consideration the opinions of all partners. The main advantage of this solution was the common work with the solution. The main disadvantage – delays in the project. The leadership was, without doubt, consistent and accepted by all partners. The city organised regular meetings where all problems were discussed and solved. The management was supported by IT technologies, especially in the last period of the project.
|
2. Public procurement
|
Low
|
The public procurement procedures planned for the project were successfully completed in the first stage of the project. The procedures were made in the traditional way. The consortium leader was responsible for the public procurement of the project.
|
3. Integrated cross-departmental working
|
Low
|
The cross-departmental communication was connected mainly with the consortium leader - Lappeenranta city. In the case of other partners, the whole organization participated in the project activities or only one department was involved.
The cooperation between the departments of the city hall was efficient and a good working relationship was established between the involved divisions. It was beneficial for the activities organized as promotional events. This collaboration did not cause any complications, and the results were timely delivered to particular units.
|
4. Adopting a participative approach
|
Low
|
The participative approach was a strong point of the project. All partners were involved in the decision making process. The very effective collaboration mechanism was built in the project. The consortium members know their role and support each other.
|
5. Monitoring and evaluation
|
Low
|
The monitoring and evaluation procedures were correctly designed. The most challenging aspect in this area was a consortium size. The monitoring procedures warmed to the delays in the schedule of the project, but because of COVID-19 pandemic it was impossible to do some activities to correct it. The main reason of delays in the project was the changeable law connected with restrictions on the COVID-19 pandemic.
|
6. Communicating with target beneficiaries
|
Low
|
Communication with target beneficiaries was a crucial aspect for successful outcomes of the UIR project. During the project , the approach to the communication activities has a little change. The traditional communication way was changed into virtual activities. The project implemented a lot of communicating activities. The most interesting seems to be the virtual support developed by the joined forces, the City of Lappeenranta and LAB University of Applied Sciences and Design Reform. They built two city models: a browser-based one and one based on a video game engine to promote project activities. These tools by using augmented reality show in an attractive and interactive way the project results overview. Moreover, they are tools that professionals can use in urban planning and residents can access to get involved in designing their living environment. More information about these tools were presented in zoom-in 3 (https://www.uia-initiative.eu/en/news/virtual-and-augmented-reality-innovative-tools-supporting-project-implementation-zoomin-3).
|
7. Upscaling
|
Medium
|
Despite the project being successfully accomplished, the upscaling of a technology is still the future task. During the project, some business models had been prepared and they show that the product had a great potential to be implemented in large scale, but the time is needed.
However, the prototype solution had been finished some months after the deadline preparation confirmed the technology readiness for implementation. Currently, the most important challenges are: current material standards that hinder the acceptance of geopolymer technology, the availability of industrial side streams varies by location, and the cost of geopolymer production that is higher than for ordinary Portland cement (OPC) .
|
Recommendations to other urban authorities that wish to implement similar innovative projects
Despite of Covid-19 pandemic, project objectives have been reached. However, from October 2020 to the end of December 2020, the significant progress in Urban Infra Revolution (UIR) project was made, but not the whole activity was accomplished. Because of that, the City of Lappeenranta accomplished some works with own resources. The main barrier to end the whole project activities were issues and regulations connected with the Covid-19 pandemic as well as in the last period the weather that made the construction work impossible.
It should be emphasized, however, that regardless of the difficulties occurring in the project, members of the consortium still decided to implement it with slight changes. Firstly, without the implementation of 3D printing technology. This idea was very innovative and promising, but in practice it was very challenging, especially as it was not able to meet the needs of Finland’s construction industry and the harsh climate. Instead of that, the traditional casting technology was used. Secondly, with some limitation of the consortium size and changes of some partners to subcontractors.
The management of such a large consortium was really demanding and time-consuming. Finally, with some limitations of ambition about the final product certification. In the beginning of the project aim was product acceptance procedures and the criteria needed for CE marking were approved by the authorities. In practice, this task was very hard to achieve, because of the short time of the project, especially because the standardization for the geopolymer material itself doesn’t exist yet. Instead of that, the consortium decided to choose some products that do not require fulfilling such restrictive regulations as construction materials, for example, noise barriers and skateboard structures. Because of that, this elements were finally selected as piloting products.
The lessons learned in the project show to other urban authorities that wish to implement similar innovative projects that this could be beneficial for the whole region, but it requires a large amount of work and carefully preparation. The basic element is the collaboration with local organizations such as universities, industries, and other stakeholders. Moreover, planning is a crucial element for a the implementation, especially the planning of the timeline of the project key elements is essential. Eventually, the implementation should be monitored strictly. All the factors are the recipe for a successful project, but what is really crucial are people. Only a strong team with a common vision of the future can guarantee the implementation of the project and its significant potential in the future.