Case group work – daily recording Case number: 3

Date: 1.7.2010

Case group work program of the day:

The group goes through the previous day’s work. Opinmäki is presented and discussed. Later the
group will be split into two groups (first time for this group, but there were some positive results
from other groups) with topics that will be decided later.

Case recording:
There is a presentation of Espoon Opinmäki. Espoo is committed to this project but the eventual size
of the project is unclear. Also, it is suggested that people often prefer the type of schools they have
themselves been in, i.e. small, local schools. However, according to a OECD study, larger schools are
most cost-effective and can work very well. It was originally planned that Finnish, Swedish and the
international school was to be put into one, but it appears that the Swedish part of the school is
backing down. There has been some talk of a bi-lingual school, which could be used to emphasise
the international aspect. High-schools and higher education remain outside Suurpelto.

It was considered very important for Opinmäki (or a similar supporting infrastructure) to be
constructed first to provide a type of a centre for Suurpelto. However, it would appear that
Opinmäki will be developed only once much of the rest of Suurpelto has been developed.

It was then suggested that perhaps e.g. Aalto students could be a part of building a temporary
centre for activities/meeting point, and perhaps move it to another location later for historical
purposes. However, it was voiced in a jesty but pointy manner that in Finland nothing is as
permanent as a temporary building.

Much of the discussion has been surrounding Suurpelto or Opinmäki and there has been much talk
of innovation, but by others (esp. Espoo). A lot of exchange of knowledge takes place regarding
Opinmäki and some Espoo’s ideas for Suupelto.

Ståhle intervenes: “you are in an information mode.” & “Your creative potential that hasn’t been
used yet.” & one should move to the next “innovative phase”. Ståhle’s comments were
nevertheless positive in general.

It was suggested among the group that one should look at “generic” questions such as how to
ensure that planning works and how to implement a community. It was first suggested that the
group were to discuss these generic questions and Suurpelto-specific questions (or Politicians and
the people moving in). Eventually the group was then split to two, group 2 discussing Customer
Group/Segments somewhat specific to Internationally Oriented Residents, group 1 discussing also
Customer Group/Segments but with more emphasis on a “positive generic message to market in
order to sell suurpelto”, with a focus on “investors”. By investors it was meant that every person
buying an apartment can be considered an investor, and in Finland it is quite typical for a person to
regard an apartment especially as an actual investment, not only as housing services.
The case recorder (me) followed the discussion of the second group, from a more international
perspective (there were also more international group members in group 2).

Emphasis was on international issues and domestic issues as well as unique selling points.

The three questions were asked:

 Why Suurpelto is worth living in 2015, Why Suurpelto is worth living in 2020
 What is the difference to other regions?
 How can this be made to happen.

Some of the points of the discussion:

Could students be used as teachers of the digital age for people who are older than them? People
need to know that Suurpelto is a place where you actually receive as well as giving.

HOT3S was keyed with H for harmony, O for open and T for technology where number three were 3S
other adjectives. Point was to create a slogan, something that “hits the heart”. This is considered a
very good idea and members of group 2 soon went back to it.

It was asked whether there is a place for international students, and other international people to
gather? At the moment, people in different Espoo centres keep to themselves, as there is no
“international centre”. Suurpelto was considered to be a prime candidate for this kind of a centre,
not only for international people, but international-minded people too, which is often considered
one of the prime values by the Finnish people. People have to be invited to take part in Suurpelto,
activated, otherwise it is likely that nothing will happen. As to the talent banking: in Suurpelto the
social status is likely to be high, therefore inhabitants are likelier to pay rather than to e.g. clean
each other’s windows. Thus the talent banking would be primarily consisting of knowledge workers,
not handy people. The platform should be designed accordingly.

Citizens need to be taken into the project from the very beginning. They should have the chance to
make initiatives through platforms, virtual places, where they can begin instantly. For Suurpelto
inhabitants, a social virtual network where they could get to know each other is suggested, including
more private information than what one would include in similar services such as Facebook, like
street addresses, skills, knowledgebase. Thus, it should possible to e.g. start a band from Suurpelto
inhabitants by finding this network. It was agreed that whatever is arranged should be fun and
relaxing, but still knowledge oriented. A thematic night in some common social areas was suggested,
but a thematic week was considered better as people are able to then take part anytime along the
week (less stress). There would be one international theme for each week, by country or by region.
During this week there would be people gathering to the common areas or other venues to make
food, play games, play in theatres and so on. Also, along the thematic week (or at other times)
people could give tips on making the thematic food and where to get it. This would be international
selling point. Children’s role was considered, whether to include them or have their own game
sessions.
This should be already before Opinmäki. Done bot by The city but by the inhabitants where Aalto
university students could work as facilitators. Espoo will/should provide only the platform.

Positive gossips – selling point (as the recorder understood, they are looking for something
“viral”.)

There was some talk earlier that the branding etc. would be separated between domestic and
international. In this small group it was now agreed however that it should be same for everyone. As
Suurpelto is internationally flavoured, the Finns would should also be international-minded as well
as open-minded. It was reaffirmed that the first people moving in are very important, as they create
the atmosphere.

QoD

 Why we make the difference

 What difference is?
 One concrete example how this will work?

There was some discussion surrounding around these questions in group 2 (where the recorder
was), but it did work in spurring more discussion in very closely related matters.

We take the Flap board into use:

* Why Suurpelto is worth living in 2015?

What do you expect to achieve? Please identify unique sellingpoints

* Why Suupelto is still worth living 2020? (and 2050)

* What is the difference to other regions?

* How can this be made to happen?

Results:
In “Ecology and design Active”, the active word was added later. This means that the community is
involved and the process is continuous. This “stage thinking”, ie. 2015, 2020 and 2050 was thought
up previously (as an investment period/timeframe, the physical aspects/technical) tested on the
flapboard, but only in this format actually caught on (social aspects/ideals etc. are emphasised.
Students could be used to teach people at Suurpelto, IT and social media etc. Student internship.
(recorder: later on the idea of using student’s as guinea pigs was suggested, where they would be a
part of designing and testing of .. things.. this remained rather confusing to me and remains to be
seen)
In the beginning there may be one cultural week per month but later each week. Idea is to create a
multicultural brand. Highly educated people don’t want to just rest, but also to do something active.
“Making your own story” .. The first citizens, how they see Suurpelto, how they will be living..
competition style.

Notes on this group working:

Breaking the group into two was successful mainly due to the fact that as there was fewer people,
there were less random thoughts up in the air. To the case recorder it would appear that there is
quite often a constant flow of spontaneous ideas that are quickly dismissed (often by case recorder
as well, due to the fact that they are often based on misunderstandings, wrong premises etc. i.e. not
worth noting). Thus breaking the group into smaller groups leads to quicker results as the
participant’s minds are exhausted faster ... or is this perhaps due to the fact that less spurious
conversation also meant less new thoughts? Nevertheless, towards the end and once good ideas
were picked, group working was more efficient in this group of approximately 5 people. Also the
outcome was clear and HOTSI clear to present. Also the organisationary graph was in an easily
presentable form, although the meaning of each subdivision was not entirely clear to group
members (in the presentation that follows in Session 2 i.e. next). The c is for copyright, but this was
questioned on day 5 (note: this is about day 4, and these comments were rewritten in day 5 in a
more legible manner): day five results: why should one copyright it? Because it belongs to the
community? But shouldn’t it belong to all? Copyright – copy right ? As in a right to copy by
everyone? (no consensus)

Session 2 after lunch

A presentation by Group 2:

The presentation followed a logical path going through the flipcharts and was done by mostly one
/two persons. There was some participation by others through questions.

A bit discussion and suggested: 3c? Culture, content, community was decided upon in addition to
HOTSI

A presentation by: Group 1 (at first the group was in presentation mode but it quickly turned into an
open discussion, and not that the previous follow-up was about group 2. This was perhaps due to
the fact that there were far more open questions and also the topics were of more open manner)

How to attract investors? The concept project is going on throughout 2010-2020, and it is a
continuous process. It is not only that you build the house (for corporate investor instead of private
apartment investor) and then move on, but you must remain invested (was not elaborated, but it
was clear that continuous process is what we’re after because the group realised that this will not be
completed in one go, or even at the very end 2015/2020(?)). Residents must tell others how it feels
like to live in Suurpelto. People are the most important, everyone can learn from each other. The
community is evolving. T3 -> T4. 3T=Tiede, Taide, Talous. Fourth T = constant evolution. Suurpelto
will become a part of the whole T3. Marketing name, Tapiola 2.0. Free to build your own; one can
build one’s house. Come and build your own life. Marketing message: This is my Suurpelto, come
and build your own. Do you want to be creating Tapiola 2.0? (Due to cleaning up my notes
afterwards, let it be said that at this stage the question was of individuals who will move to
Suurpelto. However, later this was transformed to anyone being able to participate, even those who
are only “candidates” for living in Suurpelto)

There was much talk of social entrepreneurship: A community of social entrepreneurship. Suggested
facilitation method: Business incubator, one would use it for experts. business incubator for social
entrepreneurs. A community house, open house for everyone to develop is suggested:

What are the elements that are a part of that co-creation? (Good questions in between, but the
group seldom stays on any one track)
Actions: competition to people to write their own suurpelto. A competition to build Aalto-house, a
temporary building until the Opinmäki is built, Aalto in the sense that architects etc. are invited to
join (note: later it was felt that Aalto would be discriminating to other universities/polytechnics.
However, idea was to allow Aalto students (in particular) to participate fully.). Bike-tube for T3. Solar
car competition. Community that is permanently connected to Suurpelto. There could first be an
exhibition a launch competition. Who would win the first Fellowship. Students, Competition would
be organised by Aalto – but should it be Aaltohouse? All competitions are international.

Poster about families living there. Appealing if it is written as if from ones’ own perspective.

Now people from the observation team are coming to film a quick recording of the general idea
where we are headed. The group quickly tries different paths, basically repeating the above in
different formats (a presentation style). However, the method of storytelling quickly catches on, and
the whole HOTSI-idea and the surrounding topics were made a story. A record of this should be
available as attachment. However, here is the discussion starting from a point preceding the idea of
a “story line”.

Suggestion: should one write a 20 second speak. Elevator speech. Selling speech.

 There’s community dying, people want to go back there. That’s something city cannot
provide, but Suurpelto can create again the feeling where people could feel a part of the
community. Active work together, with Aalto university. First building the temporary
building in the centre of the Suurpelto Opinmäki.
 2016, I have lived in Suurpelto for one year:
 Create your own community; make your own story.
 Active living, make your own story. Too narrow? Living is too narrow?

1. Community
2. Living
3. Active
4. Co-creation

Why suurpelto: active community where the community creates

Why still: Creating community

What makes the difference?

Story needs to have a context to make it human. Very vivid and lively story. I-word in the sentences.

Story:

Let’s co-create our dream village. <-> Come and co-create our dream village.

How to make it gossip.

Story: 18:00 > sound clip 8 (a recording on my phone)

Some points of discussion after the presentation:

Fellowship with some activities held at this Aalto house, invited that could contribute to the society.
Fellowship, stay there for a while and leave, so this community would have constant flow of
fellowship. And they would come back with new knowledge.

T4: vision 2020, difference between other: Compared to some other areas there is the constant
evolution, process, change. Write their own story, from the very beginning.

Competition who will be the first fellow to ACSI.

Feedback of both the presentation and some of the discussion by many of the observers:

T4 is a good thing, examples were good and placed in a context that was clear in the beginning.
Everything you mention/create should be a small story. Few key stories. A transformation from
space to a place.

The group was commended for coming such a long way and praised that something tangible was
created on Day 4. Both the presentation and the praise came at the exact right time in the recorder’s
opinion.

Discussion concerning the Feedback

Tapiola, Otaniemi, Keilaniemi, ->

The flower idea was liked, what is in the centre, what the parts are. This was from Suominen Jarno’s
presentation. Make HOTSI into a flower?

One pedal by one, so in the end there will be one flower.

Should one work around the talent bank?

Should we discuss the story straight first?

Gossip, the best cuisine is in Suurpelto.

The international school is right there, in the centre.

In this presentation we were talking about feelings, this is considered to be preferred over
particularities.

Write down the story? So it can be improved. Food is emphasised again. Where to get the fresh
materials to make the Taiwanese food. Co-sharing information on food. A lot of interaction. Give and
take. (Notes from the case recorder: very little if anything was eventually written on paper, other
than notes. Towards the end of day 4, people were getting excited. On day 5 many appeared to be
experiencing FLOW.)

Everyone to get a reason: why I moved there? Why are we living?

Comments from the case recorder: the group has been very interested and even made use of
different methods of presenting information easily. Especially the flower petal example. These help
the group to think how to present the ideas into different format and this is also a good way to
internalise the information. Often only at these later stages and when shuffling notes that many of
the group members appear to realise that they have not entirely understood all the aspects.

Why is it worth living

What is the difference

(same questions are repeated. These have been often answered already in some format, but the
importance of the questions is unquestionable by the group)

Smoke sauna methaphore: you’re sharing information and your feeling belongness when in the heat.
Cold shower would be outside the community making people want to stay in, but the contrast needs
to be there.

Highly educated with special talents. This target group is mentioned once again.

We are looking at photos of the Suurpelto case visit day. (people are very tired and pictures from
all the happenings and the case visit day. This is a good method to relax, and also to keep reminding
where we have come (the group has come a long way), and where they may be heading for. Also,
seeing Suurpelto once more caused some agreeing grunts over some of the established facts and
made the group more convinced over some of their ideas.)

Discussion about what to do with the time remaining time. (Until now everything has been moving
at a fast pace with no room to breathe.)

People are talking about ACSI fellows idea and it seems to be liked a lot. ACSIbhition visitors can co-
create with Suurpelto case. One question that could be presented on the final day: What would be
your Suurpelto 2020.? It was decided that the story needs to be improved along the way, over the
remaining days.

Final notes by case recorder: many of the formalised methods of collecting recordings are not
functional. The case leader is entirely aware of what is required of me (although it was already
decided upon in recorder meetings during the first day that completing all of these tasks would be
overly hard), but even the case leader is reluctant to stop the process when some new ideas are
created. As the creation phase has so far been toward the end of the sessions, and the sessions
overshooting the allocated time, it was generally thought better for the discussions to run their
course. This day was the first when something truly tangible was created that can be worked on. The
general feeling was feeling of elation and that “there is still hope”.