Reflections from a successful H2020 application

1
Reflections from a successful H2020 application

• Dr Liz Aston, Edinburgh Napier University and
  SIPR
• Dr Megan ONeill, University of Dundee and SIPR

2
Background

• Partners in the project come from
• Police forces
• Police colleges
• Universities
• Research organisations
• Private sector (including technology
  organisations)
• All based in Europe
• WYP and CENTRIC are very experienced in these
  types of bids
• Means a practitioner is the lead, not a
  university
• Admin support in place from the start

3
Boot camp

• First big step was a two-day boot camp in London
  at SERCO offices
• Many discussions and debates
• A key part in deciding the content of the bid and
  proposed technology
• Started populating the template there
• Teams were assigned to lead on drafting work
  packages (WPs)
• Did not imply eventual leadership

4
Post-Boot Camp

• Document was added and amended remotely by each
  team through track changes
• WYP set deadlines and managed version control
• WPs changed during this process
• Each WP needed to have estimated person months
  for each partner involved (PMs), clearly stated
  tasks and resulting deliverables
• We were asked to nominate individuals for the
  advisory board
• WYP decided who would lead on each WP, asked for
  expressions of interest before this
• Costings each partner given their funding
  allocation, adjust internal costings to fit this
  (in Euros)

5
Unity Abstract

• The Unity vision is to strengthen the connection
  between the police and the diverse communities
  they serve to maximise the safety and security of
  all citizens.
• Identifying best practices in CP through research
• To enhance cooperation between Law Enforcement
  Agencies (LEAs) and citizens trough the
  development and live pilot demonstrations of
  technology tools in six EU member states
• CP training and awareness raising activities to
  LEAs, citizens and community partners, including
  online virtual communities

6
(No Transcript)
7
Key elements

• Proposal is VERY specific on the time frame,
  responsibilities, actions, concepts, location of
  the pilots, potential impacts, data protection,
  intellectual property, knowledge exchange,
  training, etc.
• Includes mock-ups of the potential technology
  screens
• Includes several figures to demonstrate concepts
  and how the technology might work
• The technology is thus already somewhat developed
  with the industry partner
• Responsibilities and actions for each WP very
  clear and detailed

8
Feedback EC Proposal Evaluation

• Criterion 1 Excellence
• Criterion 2 Impact
• Criterion 3 Quality and efficiency of the
  implementation
• Each scored 0-5
• 0proposal fails to address the criterion),
• 1 Poor, 2 Fair, 3 Good, 4 Very good,
• 5 Excellent the proposal successfully addresses
  all relevant aspects of the criterion. Any
  shortcomings are minor.
• Score of 5 for each of the three criteria