The profiling criteria are six dimensions that describe a project’s “life in use”: U1 (intensity), U2 (depth), U3 (maintenance / shared responsibility), U4 (locality), U5 (user / community resilience), and U6 (transferability). They were introduced in order to build a clear profile of a practice rather than reduce it to a single overall assessment. Thanks to them, we can see what is actually happening: who uses the project and how, what changes, who takes care of it, how it is rooted in a place and how it responds to disruption, and whether — and where — it can be meaningfully transferred. If any given criterion is not relevant, it is simply omitted from the assessment.
Where the T/O/M horizon defines the conditions of the project’s completeness, and the Risk Areas identify typical gaps, the U1–U6 criteria show how the project can operate — or does operate — within those conditions. The U-profile is meant to support decision-making during a project’s self-diagnosis, not to compare it with other projects. It is therefore an internal tool for improving the actions being developed.
The criteria are divided into three sets. This additional grouping helps structure the reading of the profile and makes decision-making easier. We first ask whether the project is actually alive and has something to stand on; only then do we examine whether it is rooted and able to withstand tensions. In this way, if the project is to be developed further, we do not begin by talking about “scaling” or “transfer” before the foundations of use have even been established. This order reduces the risk of premature conclusions — for example, copying a format that does not work at its source — and makes the discussion of the project’s duration more realistic.
Set U1–U3: “use and care”
This group addresses the most basic questions: who uses the project and how (U1), what actually changes as a result (U2), and who carries the project and under what conditions (U3). This is the core of the project’s “life” — the rhythm of meetings, the growth of competencies, clear roles, hospitality, and the transferability of care. If there are deficits here — for example, high attendance without any real change in practice, “hero mode,” or a lack of simple rules of access — then any further discussion of rootedness or resilience becomes purely theoretical. We first strengthen what exists in the here and now: relationships, habits, and responsibility, because that is what durable value grows out of.
Set U4–U5: “rootedness and resilience”
Once we know that the project is actually being used and that someone is taking care of it, we ask whether it is truly “of its place” — whether it responds to local needs and gives people real influence (U4) — and whether it strengthens the community’s ability to deal with the issue at stake even after the project has ended (U5). This is where we see whether the practice is not merely “brought in for a while,” whether habits and networks emerge that can function without the artistic team, and whether the burdens placed on the site do not increase with every new iteration. Only when rootedness and resilience have been examined in this way do we have a basis for discussing any meaningful “move beyond” — that is, the transfer of the formula into other contexts.
Set U6: “moving beyond” — at the end
Transferability should be considered only after both of the previous groups. If U1–U3 and U4–U5 are functioning well, then we can begin to ask what belongs to the project’s core and what is only a local variant, how to prepare instructions and an adaptation protocol, and how to avoid “colonising” new places. This order protects us from copying “empty forms” and helps generate genuinely effective adaptations.
U1 — Intensity (use and care)
Purpose: to determine who uses the project and how often (scale, rhythm, diversity), rather than simply “how many people came to the opening.”
PLAN: target group and threshold of entry; attendance.
TRACES: any documentation.
EVAL: who actually became a user, duration of participation, and attendance.
Points of reference: T, O | E
Red flag: “movement without care” (many people, but no hosts / no structures).
TRACES: any documentation.
EVAL: who actually became a user, duration of participation, and attendance.
Points of reference: T, O | E
Red flag: “movement without care” (many people, but no hosts / no structures).
Sample guiding questions
PLAN
Who is the event for, and who is expected to return — and why?
What barriers to entry are we removing (for example, language, cost, transport, architecture)?
What rhythm (times of day / week / season) and what level of attendance are “just enough”?
Who is the event for, and who is expected to return — and why?
What barriers to entry are we removing (for example, language, cost, transport, architecture)?
What rhythm (times of day / week / season) and what level of attendance are “just enough”?
TRACES
What do we record, and how do we record it (for example, photo documentation, lists, social media events, notes)?
Do we distinguish between new and returning users, and if so, how?
What do we record, and how do we record it (for example, photo documentation, lists, social media events, notes)?
Do we distinguish between new and returning users, and if so, how?
EVAL
Who actually used the project (profile), when, and how often?
How do we adjust the rhythm and scale of the event?
Who actually used the project (profile), when, and how often?
How do we adjust the rhythm and scale of the event?
U2 — Depth (use and care)
Purpose: to determine whether use produces any real change (for example, in procedures, competencies, or decisions).
PLAN: hypothesis of change + path of implementation.
TRACES: new / changed procedures, decisions, artefacts of competence.
EVAL: what has become established over time; what should be simplified / reinforced through additional learning.
Points of reference: T, O | RE
Red flag: “attendance without change” (many events, no effects).
TRACES: new / changed procedures, decisions, artefacts of competence.
EVAL: what has become established over time; what should be simplified / reinforced through additional learning.
Points of reference: T, O | RE
Red flag: “attendance without change” (many events, no effects).
Sample guiding questions
PLAN
What practice is meant to change, and for whom?
What implementation tools might lead to that change (for example, training, workshops, educational materials)?
What would count as the smallest effect that still proves the action has been effective?
What practice is meant to change, and for whom?
What implementation tools might lead to that change (for example, training, workshops, educational materials)?
What would count as the smallest effect that still proves the action has been effective?
TRACES
What documents / artefacts are we collecting (for example, revised procedures, decisions, works)?
Who is responsible for the change, and what will confirm that it has taken place?
What documents / artefacts are we collecting (for example, revised procedures, decisions, works)?
Who is responsible for the change, and what will confirm that it has taken place?
EVAL
What has become established after 3, 6, or 12 meetings?
What do we need to simplify or improve to make the change durable?
What has become established after 3, 6, or 12 meetings?
What do we need to simplify or improve to make the change durable?
U3 — Maintenance / Care (use and care)
Purpose: to ensure who carries the project and under what conditions (for example, roles, resources, frequency, hospitality).
PLAN: map of roles with substitutes, shifts / rotations, starter instruction, care budget; duration.
TRACES: timetable, duty plan, instructions, rules of access.
EVAL: what worked in the event of absence; what was overburdening; what can be handed over to the community / institution.
Points of reference: O, T | Ø, RE
Red flag: “hero mode” (everything rests on one person).
TRACES: timetable, duty plan, instructions, rules of access.
EVAL: what worked in the event of absence; what was overburdening; what can be handed over to the community / institution.
Points of reference: O, T | Ø, RE
Red flag: “hero mode” (everything rests on one person).
Sample guiding questions
PLAN
What roles (with substitutes) are needed, and what does rotation within the team look like?
Do we have written instructions for new people joining the project?
What is the scheme and frequency of quality monitoring?
Is a care budget foreseen for the whole undertaking?
What roles (with substitutes) are needed, and what does rotation within the team look like?
Do we have written instructions for new people joining the project?
What is the scheme and frequency of quality monitoring?
Is a care budget foreseen for the whole undertaking?
TRACES
How do we record shifts / rotations and the use of instructions?
How do we document rules of access and the management of space / equipment?
How do we record shifts / rotations and the use of instructions?
How do we document rules of access and the management of space / equipment?
EVAL
What worked when people were absent, and where did overload occur?
What can be handed over to the community / institution so that the project can function independently of the artistic team?
What worked when people were absent, and where did overload occur?
What can be handed over to the community / institution so that the project can function independently of the artistic team?
U4 — Locality (rootedness and resilience)
Purpose: to determine the project’s fit with the place and the real co-decision-making of its users.
PLAN: diagnosis of needs; rules of shared use; mechanisms of co-decision-making (for example, a council / open meetings, a shared budget).
TRACES: records of consultations / meetings, matrices of needs, changes made in response to feedback.
EVAL: was co-decision-making effective / inclusive; what needs to be adjusted?
Points of reference: O, M | E, FB
Red flag: “token consultation” (users have no real influence on decisions).
TRACES: records of consultations / meetings, matrices of needs, changes made in response to feedback.
EVAL: was co-decision-making effective / inclusive; what needs to be adjusted?
Points of reference: O, M | E, FB
Red flag: “token consultation” (users have no real influence on decisions).
Sample guiding questions
PLAN
Whose needs are we addressing, and how was that identified (for example, conversations, a research walk, data)?
Which elements are decided together, and how do we communicate this before the meeting?
How do we ensure inclusive access (for example, language, hours, sense of safety, thresholds of entry)?
Whose needs are we addressing, and how was that identified (for example, conversations, a research walk, data)?
Which elements are decided together, and how do we communicate this before the meeting?
How do we ensure inclusive access (for example, language, hours, sense of safety, thresholds of entry)?
TRACES
How do we record the impact of feedback (for example, note → change in the plan)?
How do we measure openness (for example, regular participation of existing users, regular participation of new users)?
How do we record the impact of feedback (for example, note → change in the plan)?
How do we measure openness (for example, regular participation of existing users, regular participation of new users)?
EVAL
Was co-decision-making effective and inclusive, and with what result
What adjustments should we make to the rules and practices of the place?
Was co-decision-making effective and inclusive, and with what result
What adjustments should we make to the rules and practices of the place?
U5 — User / Community Resilience (rootedness and resilience)
Purpose: to assess whether the project strengthens the community in relation to the issue it is working on, including after the project has ended.
PLAN: what competencies, networks, and simple procedures are being strengthened (for example, a support group, new skills, an “action card”); what local resources or support structures we can rely on.
TRACES: new skills; activity of the group / circle; map of alliances; continuation of the action without the original initiators.
EVAL: what actually remains; what helped at the first crisis; what should be simplified / strengthened in the course of use.
Points of reference: O, T, U4 | FB, Ø
Red flag: “without us, the project does not live” (no autonomy, no network).
TRACES: new skills; activity of the group / circle; map of alliances; continuation of the action without the original initiators.
EVAL: what actually remains; what helped at the first crisis; what should be simplified / strengthened in the course of use.
Points of reference: O, T, U4 | FB, Ø
Red flag: “without us, the project does not live” (no autonomy, no network).
Sample guiding questions
PLAN
What specific problem are we taking on, and what skills are we strengthening?
How are we building a support network (e.g., the group’s horizontality, emergency contacts, institutional partners)?
Do we have a simple action card (who / what / when)?
What specific problem are we taking on, and what skills are we strengthening?
How are we building a support network (e.g., the group’s horizontality, emergency contacts, institutional partners)?
Do we have a simple action card (who / what / when)?
TRACES
How will we check whether competencies have increased (e.g., through interviews and observations)?
How do we record the activity of the network (e.g., group attendance, an alliance map)?
Has the card / procedure been activated without the artistic team?
How will we check whether competencies have increased (e.g., through interviews and observations)?
How do we record the activity of the network (e.g., group attendance, an alliance map)?
Has the card / procedure been activated without the artistic team?
EVAL
What remained after the project ended (for example, competencies, rituals, networks)?
What helped during the first crisis — and what should be simplified or strengthened?
What remained after the project ended (for example, competencies, rituals, networks)?
What helped during the first crisis — and what should be simplified or strengthened?
U6 — Transferability (moving beyond — at the end)
Purpose: to ask, at the very end, whether and where adaptation makes sense — without “copy and paste” logic and without colonising new places.
PLAN: what belongs to the project’s core, and what is only a local surplus; instruction; adaptation protocol (what to watch out for in a new place); channels of support.
TRACES: register of adaptations, users’ accounts, local modifications.
EVAL: what should move into the core, what should remain local, and when not to scale further.
Points of reference: U4, M | FB
Red flag: transfer “as it comes” (ignoring local needs / capacities).
TRACES: register of adaptations, users’ accounts, local modifications.
EVAL: what should move into the core, what should remain local, and when not to scale further.
Points of reference: U4, M | FB
Red flag: transfer “as it comes” (ignoring local needs / capacities).
Sample guiding questions
PLAN
For whom and where does adaptation make sense — and where does it not?
What constitutes the core, and what is a local surplus dependent on the place?
What is the minimum scale required for the action to retain its meaning in a new place?
Is there a group interested in adapting it elsewhere?
For whom and where does adaptation make sense — and where does it not?
What constitutes the core, and what is a local surplus dependent on the place?
What is the minimum scale required for the action to retain its meaning in a new place?
Is there a group interested in adapting it elsewhere?
TRACES
How do we keep a register of adaptations and of users’ accounts from earlier places?
What documents local modifications and their effectiveness?
How do we keep a register of adaptations and of users’ accounts from earlier places?
What documents local modifications and their effectiveness?
EVAL
What should move into the core, and what should remain local?
When and why should the project not be scaled further?
What should move into the core, and what should remain local?
When and why should the project not be scaled further?
In each card, leave a separate field marked n/a — not applicable, as well as a short decision footer:
We sustain / We revise / We phase out / We transfer (U6)
We sustain / We revise / We phase out / We transfer (U6)