Within the project, Mr Motuzas leads the task dedicated to identifying user needs, developing use case scenarios, and defining key performance indicators (KPIs), ensuring that Aurora’s solutions are aligned with stakeholder expectations and practical implementation.

𝑸: 𝑨𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒈𝒊𝒏𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒇 𝑨𝑼𝑹𝑶𝑹𝑨, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒉𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒍𝒚 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒍𝒐𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝑻𝒂𝒔𝒌 𝑻2.3-𝑬𝒍𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝑼𝒔𝒆𝒓 𝑹𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒔, 𝑼𝒔𝒆 𝑪𝒂𝒔𝒆 𝑺𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒐𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑲𝑷𝑰𝒔 𝒅𝒆𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏, 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒍𝒂𝒖𝒏𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒕 𝒂 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒚 𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒖𝒎𝒑𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒐𝒑𝒆𝒏. 𝑯𝒐𝒘 𝒘𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒅𝒆𝒔𝒄𝒓𝒊𝒃𝒆 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒓𝒐𝒍𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒔 𝒅𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒇𝒊𝒓𝒔𝒕 𝒚𝒆𝒂𝒓?
A: From the outset of the AURORA project, I was tasked with clearly defining the needs of the participating demo cities (Vilnius, Riga, Tallinn, Tampere, and Pori) and replicant cities (Klaipėda, Joniškis, Jūrmala). At the project’s kick-off meeting, it became apparent that, despite all cities coming from the same region, the climate and health challenges they face do not overlap. At the same time, neither city had a clear idea of a technological solution to overcome these challenges. Given the nature of my task, I naturally tended to take on the unifying and mediating role in this project in helping the cities articulate their challenges, needs, and requirements, finding the common interest and agreement among them, as well as forging a dialogue with the technical partners of the project in assessing the technical viability of the possible solutions.

𝑸: 𝒀𝒐𝒖 𝒍𝒆𝒅 𝒔𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒌𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒑𝒔 𝒊𝒏𝒗𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒑𝒊𝒍𝒐𝒕 𝒄𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒓𝒆𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒆𝒄𝒉𝒏𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒔 (𝒊.𝒆., 𝒅𝒂𝒕𝒂 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒔, 𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒆𝒓𝒔). 𝑾𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒂𝒊𝒏 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒔𝒆 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒑𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒔𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔?
A: Throughout the year, I initiated and led an Online Workshop and two in-person Design Thinking Workshops. These meetings served as a platform for empathizing with the challenges each city faces, defining the unifying problems, ideating viable technological features, and, lastly, prototyping possible solutions. Each workshop involved numerous participants, including project partners of academic, research, and technological nature, as well as city representatives. While it is vital to ensure everyone’s voice is heard, it is also critical to reach a mutual understanding and agreement for the project to move forward. Furthermore, it was important to bring the cities and the technical partners into direct dialogue, so that the city representatives have the right expectations for the technological solutions and the technical partners are aware of the cities' expectations.

𝑸: 𝑾𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒔𝒕 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒅𝒆𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒄𝒂𝒔𝒆 𝒔𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒐𝒔? 𝑺𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑲𝑷𝑰𝒔? 𝑾𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒐𝒖𝒕𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒔 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒇𝒊𝒓𝒔𝒕 𝒚𝒆𝒂𝒓 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒎𝒐𝒔𝒕 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒅 𝒐𝒇?
A: Once the consortium reached an agreement to work on heat-stroke and flood-Campylobacter frameworks, it was important to learn from the cities which specific actions they would like to take in the future. Examples of these actions include improving risk assessment, increasing public awareness, and taking preventive measures to reduce emergency medicine centre visits. Equally, it was critical to obtain early-stage feedback from technical partners on the feasibility of various technological solutions that would allow performing these actions. In the final stage, it was all about matching the planned technical solutions with the city's planned actions. When it comes to KPIs, it is crucial to ensure they are ambitious yet achievable and, most importantly, measurable.
I am very pleased that, at this stage of the project, each city's challenges and interests are reflected in the AURORA project, and, together as a consortium, we are on our way to addressing these challenges with effective technological solutions. I am personally very excited about the upcoming demonstration events, where we will be able to witness, through each use case, how the technology can help cities in the Boreal region become more resilient to climate change.

𝑸: 𝑾𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒂𝒅𝒗𝒊𝒄𝒆 𝒘𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒈𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒇𝒖𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂 𝒔𝒊𝒎𝒊𝒍𝒂𝒓 “𝒏𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒊𝒔 𝒄𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒓 𝒚𝒆𝒕” 𝒑𝒉𝒂𝒔𝒆?
A: I would advise setting strict internal deadlines to establish common ground and ensure the project moves forward, while also allocating sufficient time and effort to understand the unique characteristics of the project participants. In the initial phase of the project, it takes time to learn about end-user challenges, needs, requirements, and expectations, and to align them with viable technological solutions within the project scope. It is important not to panic that lengthy discussions do not generate concrete ideas and solutions from the very outset of the project.

𝑸: 𝑰𝒏 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒐𝒑𝒊𝒏𝒊𝒐𝒏, 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒔𝒕 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒈-𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒎 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝑨𝑼𝑹𝑶𝑹𝑨 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒃𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑬𝑼 𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒍 𝒓𝒆𝒈𝒊𝒐𝒏?
A: I believe that, in the long term, the AURORA will set an example in the EU Boreal Region on how cities can improve the quality of their policies, decision-making, and emergency response regarding the effects of climate change on population health. I hope that, with the success of the AURORA project, there will be a ripple effect in the region, with cities partnering, learning from one another, and passing along the best practices from this project.

𝑸: 𝑯𝒐𝒘 𝒘𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒅𝒆𝒔𝒄𝒓𝒊𝒃𝒆 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑨𝑼𝑹𝑶𝑹𝑨 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒖𝒎 𝒊𝒏 𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍?
A: My experience working in the consortium has been largely positive. Despite the professionals coming from very different backgrounds within the European Union, I find them extremely easy to communicate with, professional, and collaborative. Most importantly, I never received a “no” when asking for input or help. I believe this attitude is key to the project's success.

We sincerely thank Mr Motuzas for sharing his insights and wish him every success in the coming year as the Aurora project progresses toward its next milestones, continuing to strengthen its impact on climate resilience and public health in the Boreal region.