End of Commitment Report – Increasing the integration and use of the CoLaboratory tool in the Municipal Office agenda

Name of Evaluator

Mária Reháková, Kristína Murínová, Anna Vaňová

Email

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Member Name

Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic

Action PlanAction plans are at the core of a government’s participation in OGP. They are the product of a co-creation process in which government and civil society jointly develop commitments to open government ... Title

Action plan – Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic, 2024 – 2026

Commitment

Increasing the integration and use of the CoLaboratory tool in the Municipal Office agenda

Title

Increasing the integration and use of the CoLaboratory tool in the Municipal Office agenda

Action

This commitment is focused on increasing the use of the CoLaboratory tool in the Municipal Office as a live laboratory (platform) and an apolitical, neutral, and safe space, which provides methodological support for participative meetings and dialogue among stakeholders from different sectors to work together on quality and innovative solutions to the complex challenges of the city. CoLaboratory tool could support the preparation of project proposals, concepts and strategies. The use of the CoLaboratory tool could also help to alleviate polarised relations in our city. The CoLaboratory can also facilitate dialogues among Municipal Office experts, external experts, and members of the City Council, as the format of City Council meetings does not always provide enough space to create a dialogue. The CoLaboratory can effectively foster discussion also in the context of topics with an immediate impact on the quality of life of the whole population, which tends to deepen polarisation in the city. Action steps that could help to increase the use of the CoLaboratory include the participative creation of a directive and methodology on how and when the CoLaboratory can be used; designation of a permanent physical space for the CoLaboratory; monitoring and evaluation of the use of the tool and building the capacity of the self-government stakeholders, i.e., developing the necessary attitude and skills to use the CoLaboratory (see more in Commitment 2).

Problem

The lack of systemic use of dialogue and co-creation processes often results in misunderstandings, distrust, and polarisation. Solutions created with insufficient co-creation processes fail to tap into collective intelligence. Our city also faces the challenge of a lack of collaborative relations between the municipality, citizens, and stakeholders. A recently developed initiative is the “CoLaboratory,” which is supposed to function as a permanent platform for the support of the development of collaborative relations in the city, cooperation of different stakeholders, including citizens, in developing complex public policies and innovative solutions. One of the key features of this platform is that it is facilitated by professional facilitators who use dialogue and participatory methods such as “the art of hosting“, and “harvesting methods”. However, the CoLaboratory has not yet been used in a systematic way in the city’s agenda and policy-making processes (only a few participatory projects have been supported by CoLaboratory) due to various reasons such as lack of institutionalization of the CoLaboratory, insufficient capacities to foster quality participative processes, lack of awareness and understanding of the opportunities provided by the CoLaboratory, lack of common practices, no evaluation processes in place to provide data about its use, absence of a directive specifying how and when CoLaboratory can be used, and people’s resistance towards new approaches and tools.

1.1 What was the overall level of progress in the commitment implementation at the time of this assessment?

Substantial

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

None of the four planned milestones has been formally completed. One milestone, concerning the internal directive, has not yet started, while the remaining three are currently in progress.

Nevertheless, tangible progress has been achieved in practice. A Co-Laboratory user manual has been developed and now serves as the methodological basis for the future internal directive. Both a physical and a mobile Co-Laboratory space are being prepared. The use of the Co-Laboratory is being monitored through evaluation reports, and the coordination and assessment function originally envisaged for the planned working group has effectively been assumed by the Council for the Development of Open Governance.

The substance of the commitment has therefore been partially achieved, although the formal outputs have not yet been completed.

1.2 Describe the main external or internal factors that impacted implementation of this commitment and how they were addressed (or not).

Implementation was affected primarily by the absence of the dedicated organizational capacity originally envisaged in the form of a small Municipal Office working group. Instead, a broader coordination body emerged organically – initially the Co-Laboratory Council and later the Council for the Development of Open Governance – which assumed these functions within a wider institutional framework.

Legal consultations also resulted in the planned “Statute of the Co-Laboratory” being renamed as the “Statute of the Council for the Development of Open Governance”.

The development of the physical Co-Laboratory space depends on broader municipal investment decisions, including those related to the premises of Divadlo z Pasáže, which has contributed to delays in the implementation timeline.

According to feedback collected from participating stakeholders through an internal questionnaire, stronger links between the Co-Laboratory and local communities are still lacking, which has limited the depth of its impact.

Stakeholder feedback also varied considerably. One respondent assessed the commitment as “mostly fulfilled”, highlighting improvements in the quality of information and in the channels used for its publication, while also pointing to the insufficient connection with local communities. Another respondent assessed the commitment as “not fulfilled at all” and, when asked whether all relevant stakeholders had been involved, responded “not at all”. This respondent identified insufficient delegation of responsibilities by the city leadership as a key issue and perceived the process as not representing fully authentic participation.

The divergence in stakeholder views indicates a need for clearer communication of the purpose, mandate, and role of the Co-Laboratory to the actors involved.

1.3 Was the commitment implemented as originally planned?

Few of the commitment milestones were implemented as planned

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The intended purpose of the individual milestones – methodological anchoring, establishment of a physical space, monitoring, and evaluation – has been achieved to a considerable extent, although through organizational arrangements that differed from those originally envisaged. For example, the coordination role has been taken over by the Council rather than by a separate working group, while an existing user manual currently serves as the methodological basis in place of a formally adopted internal directive.

2.1.1. – Did the government disclose more information; improve the quality of the information (new or existing); improve the value of the information; improve the channels to disclose or request information or improve accessibility to information?

Yes

Explanation: In narrative form, what has been the impact on people or practice.

The Co-Laboratory provides a mechanism for collecting and processing information generated through participatory processes, including through the use of an evaluation report template. However, its formal integration into the agenda and internal processes of the Municipal Office is not yet sufficiently clear. As a result, its impact on the quality and value of information is currently difficult to assess conclusively.

Documentation from Co-Laboratory meetings and from the issues discussed through this mechanism is not published on the Co-Laboratory website, which still indicates that the site is under development. Meeting minutes are distributed only to Co-Laboratory members, which limits the wider dissemination of information and the development of broader public awareness.

2.1.2. – Did the government create new opportunities to seek feedback from citizens/enable participation inform or influence decisions; improve existing channels or spaces to seek feedback from citizens/enable participation/ inform or influence decisions; create or improve capabilities in the government or the public aimed to improve how the government seeks feedback from citizens/enables participation/ or allows for the public to inform or influence decisions?

Yes

Explanation: In narrative form, what has been the impact on people or practice.

The Co-Laboratory is directly designed as a tool to support co-creation and the involvement of stakeholders in decision-making processes. Its principles are set out in the user manual and its development is coordinated by the Council for the Development of Open Governance, which regularly addresses the advancement of participation within the city.

The Co-Laboratory therefore has the potential to strengthen co-creation. However, feedback from participating stakeholders is mixed. Some respondents perceive improvements in communication channels and in the quality and value of information, while others question the extent to which relevant stakeholders are genuinely involved and the overall authenticity of the participatory process.

Until the institutionalization of the Co-Laboratory is completed – including the adoption of the internal directive and the establishment of a physical space – and until communication about its activities and role within the city is strengthened and stronger links with local communities are established, its overall impact cannot yet be conclusively demonstrated.

2.1.3 Did the government create or improve channels, opportunities or capabilities to hold officials answerable to their actions?

Not Applicable

2.1.4 Other Results

Yes

Explanation: In narrative form, what has been the impact on people or practice.

An unplanned but valuable outcome of the commitment has been the establishment of the Council for the Development of Open Governance as a more permanent, cross-sector governance mechanism extending beyond the original scope of the commitment.

2.2 Did the commitment address the public policy problem that it intended to address as described in the action plan?

Unclear

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The intended objective – more systematic use of dialogue and co-creation — has been partially achieved. However, key formalization steps are still outstanding, and the issue of insufficient institutionalization has not yet been fully resolved.

Feedback from directly involved stakeholders has also been mixed and, in some cases, critical. One respondent perceived the process as insufficiently authentic and considered the mandate from the city leadership to be inadequate.

This suggests that the original challenge – limited institutionalization of participatory processes and insufficient trust in the process – has not yet been fully addressed.

Provide evidence for your answer:

COOPERATION: Banská Bystrica user manual

3. Provide at least one lesson or reflection relating to the implementation of this commitment. It can be the identification of key barriers to implementation, an unexpected help/hindrance, recommendations for future commitments, or if the commitment should be taken forward to the next action plan.

Practical, less formal tools, such as the user manual, proved during implementation to be more functional and quicker to put in place than the originally planned formal instruments, including the internal directive and a separate statute. For future Action Plans, we therefore recommend formulating milestones more flexibly, with greater emphasis on the intended function and outcome rather than on a strictly predefined form of deliverable.

The implementation process also demonstrated that broader, cross-sector coordination bodies, such as the Council, may be better placed to perform some of the functions originally assigned to smaller internal Municipal Office working groups.

We recommend carrying this commitment forward into the next Action Plan, while strengthening its connection to local communities, which participants identified in the evaluation questionnaire as a missing element.

We also recommend that the city leadership communicate the mandate, role, and competencies of the Co-Laboratory more clearly to participating stakeholders. Critical feedback indicates a risk that participation may be perceived as formalistic or insufficiently credible, which could reduce stakeholders’ willingness to engage in future participatory processes.