Reflections from a successful H2020 applicationDr Liz Aston, Edinburgh Napier University and SIPRDr Megan O’Neill, University of Dundee and SIPR

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

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

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)

‘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

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

Feedback: EC Proposal Evaluation• Criterion 1: Excellence • Criterion 2: Impact• Criterion 3: Quality and efficiency of the implementation

• Each scored 0-5: • 0=proposal 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