On a city level, most LaMA processes resulted in the type of solutions and dynamics we were looking for, though some were more impactful than others.
Examples of implemented solutions:
- Waregem: walking routes starting from car parks at the edge of the city. Locals looking to shop or drop children at school take the routes to avoid the often car-clogged streets.
- Beveren: the earlier mentioned trac barriers at both ends of a street with two schools was eventually implemented accompanied by one way trac in two streets and a ‘bikestreet’ (where bikes have priority over cars).
- Tienen: a parking lot near a large school, a cultural center and an oce building was rearranged with kiss and ride zones, walking routes and a ‘schoolstreet’ (only walking children and parents allowed).
On a project level, the outputs consisted of a set of ‘good practice’ tools based on our own iterations in the three pilot cities in the first year. We drew a timeline detailing steps to take in each design process for each city with indications for the duration of each phase.
For the research phase, we provided:
- A guide on interviewing and observations including a standard protocol for interviews
- A guide on nding insights and writing design challenges.
We drafted a list of all challenges developed in the pilot cities. We learned that several challenges are common in most Flemish cities, such as ‘How might we make maximal use of cars bringing kids to school anyway’ or ‘How might we separate slow and fast trac on busy streets’. The list of challenges also serves as inspiration. We also provided a set of inspiring practices for improving local mobility issues using Google Slides. This can be used in a presentation tailored to the city’s needs.
For the two co-design workshops, we provided:
- Workshop scenarios with detailed instructions
- An accompanying Google Slides set, that can be used for visual reporting
- A series of canvasses to support the facilitation of each workshop (see visual document)
The graphic design of all tools is simple and clean, nearly non-existent, to keep the budget low and to make them easy to understand and familiar looking for participants. We use Google Slides to make most tools with good reason. First, because users are able to customize and ll in the blanks easily, at no extra cost. Secondly, files can be easily shared, allowing collaborative work and learning from other team members.
Our most important canvas is our Ideation Canvas. For each design challenge, a canvas is filled with supporting insights and citizen’s quotes, as a summary of the research. There is space for participants to draw their idea and to write a title. Four personas can be printed on the back. The personas are provided in a standard version and need to be customized.