1. Urban benchmarking USESPON Workshop „Urban Benchmarking” 6.11.2013 Katarzyna Wojnar

2. Cele warsztatu 1.Presentation of urban benchmarking tool as a tool for complex assessment of development potential on urban, regional and national level. During the workshop, participants get basic information about the assumptions and methodology of benchmarking cities, and then, under the guidance of experts, will have the opportunity to 2.Conduct their own analysis Including available analytical tools, especially ESPON tools. 3. Integration of 3 levels

3. Groups 1.Central Perspective 2.Regional Perspective 3.Local perspective

4. Agenda: 11.00 - Introduction 11.30 - Brainstorming and presentation of results 12.00 - Benchmarking towns, step by step 12.45 - Lunch 13.20 - Online applications and ESPON ESPON CityBench HyperAtlas 13.30 - Benchmarking towns in practice 14.00 - Benchmarking cities group exercises 14.45 - Discussion: feelings, doubts, dilemmas 15.15 - Evaluation of the meeting (evaluation questionnaire) 15.30 - End of the meeting

5. ESPON Programme www.espon.eu

6. Urban Benchmarking as a tool for complex assessment of development potential USESPON Workshop „Urban Benchmarking” 6.11.2013 Katarzyna Wojnar

7. The origin and nature „bench-mark”: point of reference, level marked, as a starting point to conduct measurements of hight Benchmarking: a tool for improving performance that goes beyond measure, indicating HOW to achieve better results (Foot, 1998) Methos of relative assessment of performance results, especially for the measurement of complex phenomena that are difficult to define with a clear measure of success Diagram of the relative evaluation result in characterizing UB Benchmarking can be used to learn from the best of their knowledge and experience. As a management tool first appeared in the private sector

8. Benchmarking in public sector „all governments need reliable methods for assessing the relative results of the various public programs to be able to set the overall goals and formulate strategies. Benchmarking allows officials to improve the quality of information based on the achieved results [...], helping to meet the requirements of internal and external accountability. ” O’Connel (2000: 22)

9. Benchmarking in public sector  the 80s. : Margaret Tatcher Compulsory Competitive Tendering – benchmarking efficiency in public services  the 90s. : Beacon Scheme in UK- dissemination of bestpractices in the field of public services usług publicznycamong local adminsitration, quality certificates  First decade of the twenty-first century: the rise of urban studies Changing number of articles in the field of urban studies, 1992-2012

10. Context Typology of European metropolitan areas (MEGA) Source: ESPON Project 1.1.1 Legend  Typology of European metropolitan areas (MEGA) based on their function in the information economy and industry  76 MEGA: biggest concentration in the so-called European Pentagon  Warsaw has been classified as MEGA 3  Other large Polish cities as noeds of fourth category

11. Context  Cities play key role in development processes  Biggest cities in Poland are facing dynamic changes related to development of metropolitan functions  Position of Polish cities in European metropolitan space is relatively weak  Urban governance demands new approach including complex relations that characterise functional areas

12. Context EUROPA 2020 Smart, sustainable and inclusive growth Urban context demands new analytical tools that allow:  (1) merging several thematical fields of analysis,  (2) flexible indicator adjustments allowing operationalisation of abstract issues such as „smart growth”,  (3) presentation of results in relative perspective focused on areas with potential for improvement.

13. Urban benchmarking : pros  allows objective analysis of strenghts and weaknesses of a particular city  shows areas with potential for improvement  comparative approach – evaluation of a particular city in relation to other, similar (reference group) – easier identiffication and interpretation, better communication of results  evaluation of effectivenes of programmes targeted at restructuring and improvement of urban functionality  flexibility – allows to adjust the diagnosis, i.e. to 3 strategic goals of the Europe 2020 strategy  participation - mechanism empowering public engagement, both on the diagnostic and interpretative stages  it allows to include environmental issues

14. Urban benchmarking : cons  temptation to look for an ideal solution or perform copy-paste strategy  there is no universal formula to select the right reference group – it needs to be selected very carefully  using universal standards (i.e. EU average) can be blind for territorial specificities  need for critical analysis of indicators – their relation to goals, comparability, credibility of sources  limited availability of comparable statistical data  disadvantages of statistical approach resulting from different definitions and indicator construction methodologies