# Enhancing Smart Cities' Resilience Through Competency Assessment and Open Data Utilization
## 10 Evaluation
### Evaluation Cycle 2: Usability and Usefulness  
The second evaluation phase focused on assessing the prototype tool's usability and practical utility. This phase involved real-world testing with a diverse group of professionals and researchers from the municipal sector, especially those involved in civil protection and firefighting, as well as specialists in smart city development and resilience. The broad composition of participants enabled a well-rounded evaluation of the tool's functionality and relevance within the municipal and urban resilience sectors. A significant majority (84.2%) of the participants engaged in the assessment opted for online participation. The participants were distributed across various professional categories as follows:  
* Municipal Representatives (56%)--Over half of the participants were affiliated with municipal councils and were actively engaged in fields such as civil protection, emergency response, and firefighting. Their firsthand experience in municipal operations and resilience initiatives made them an ideal target group for testing the tool's applicability in assessing and strengthening local resilience. * State Council Representatives (8%)--A smaller portion of participants were representatives from state-level councils, highlighting the tool's potential for international relevance and applicability beyond local settings. * Academic and Research Participants (23%)--Academics and researchers affiliated with various institutions brought critical perspectives, especially from the fields of urban planning, smart cities, and resilience, offering insights into the tool's academic value and its alignment with existing research frameworks. * Other Stakeholders (13%)--The remaining participants represented a range of stakeholders from intermunicipal organizations, national agencies for education and training, and national innovation agencies. This group provided broader, multi-sector perspectives, reflecting the interests and requirements of a variety of entities invested in urban resilience. The diverse mix of participants allowed for a robust assessment, and their feedback contributed significantly to refining the tool. Key observations and suggestions included:  
* Clarity of Competency Descriptions--Many participants noted that certain competency descriptions were overly complex and lengthy. Simplifying these descriptions was recommended to enhance clarity and accessibility. * Language and Translation Accuracy--Minor translation errors were identified, underscoring the need for linguistic refinement to ensure clarity and accuracy across language versions. * Accessibility of Self-Assessment Results--While some participants could successfully download their self-assessment results, others encountered difficulties. Ensuring consistent access to results was highlighted as essential for user satisfaction and usability. * Module Identification for Training Selection--Participants suggested that clearer labels or identifiers for different modules should be incorporated, helping users easily locate and select relevant training modules following their self-assessment. * Addition of a \"Not Applicable\" Option--To accommodate competencies not relevant to every user's role, a \"Not Applicable\" option was proposed. This would allow respondents to bypass competencies that do not align with their professional responsibilities. * Competency Mapping Potential--The tool's potential to map competencies across Europe has been highlighted, especially if it could aggregate self-assessment data with training attendance records. Such mapping could identify competency gaps and training needs across different regions, fostering a more cohesive approach to urban resilience development. Evaluation data indicated high levels of participant satisfaction. Learners consistently rated the content as relevant, well-structured, and directly applicable to their professional roles.