Ref. Ares(2021)2801609 - 27/04/2021
3.7
COMPARED - TEXT MINING SOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE EVALUATION
PROCESS OF RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATIONS (2018.07)
1.1.1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACTION
Service in charge
JRC.I.3
Associated Services
RTD
1.1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Public funding agencies are investing billions of Euros in research and innovation (R&I)
projects every year. Funding mechanisms can be improved to reach higher funding efficiency
e.g. by aiming at the reduction of unnecessary duplication or overlaps between research
proposals, increasing the quality of incoming proposals and decreasing the number of
submitted R&I projects. There is also no doubt that the process of evaluating research
proposals should be based as much as possible on scientific evidence. One way funding
agencies could work towards this is by facilitating the sharing to other agencies of data
related to public funding of research in Europe. But not all funding agencies have sufficient
expertise in data analytics to act on this issue and the European context, with many funding
mechanisms at regional, national, or European levels, does not help. This diversity of funding
mechanisms is an asset but also a burden as it makes connecting funding schemes together
difficult.
Through the development of a semantic similarity platform that would select documents
relevant to the evaluation process, COMPARED aims at supporting evidence-based decision-
making in the field of public funding of R&I. The project aims to achieve data
interoperability but not interoperability of IT systems. Indeed, overall interoperability does
not hinge on data availability of funded research alone and actually depends on systems
design, processes and rules, which are context specific and therefore legitimately localised.
By giving funding agencies, applicants and other stakeholders access to a semantic platform
for the assessment of research proposals, the project aims to contribute at reducing
unnecessary research duplication, reducing scientific overlap between funded projects, and at
increasing the quality of R&I proposals while reducing the number of incoming proposals.
Recent publications have identified these issues as key to maximise the impact of publicly-
funded R&I1,2,3. This was also confirmed in a recent report by an independent high-level
group recommending the European Commission to align national and EU R&I investment
schemes, establish synergies with other funding programmes in Europe, and increase the
impact of publicly-funded research in Europe4.
1
Concentrating on the Fall of Labor Share; CEP Discussion Paper No. 1476; Grell, Kevin Berg – Marom, Dan
– Swart, Richard (2015): Crowdfunding, The Corporate Era, Elliott and Thompson, London, 218 p.
2
Funding agencies urged to check for duplicate grants, Nature, January 2013, volume 493.
3
The Economic Rationale for Public R&I Funding and its Impact, European Commission DG Research &
Innovation, ISBN: 978-92-79-65270-7
4
"Lab-Fab-App, investing in the European future we want", Report of the independent high level group on
maximising the impact of EU research & innovation programmes. European Commission DG Research &
Innovation, ISBN: 978-92-79-70069-9
Applicants to publicly-funded research programmes could also benefit from means to verify
how similar their proposal is to funded R&I projects and other documents (e.g. scientific
publications or patents). This would help applicants submit more original projects or help
justify why research has to be duplicated, and will contribute to increasing the quality of
research proposals entering the evaluation process at public funding agencies. Another
benefit of giving access to grant data to applicants would be to reduce the incoming number
of grant applications for funding agencies, as applicants would receive indications on similar
projects already funded. This reduction of incoming proposals would have be a significant
added value for funding agencies as it could reduce operational costs related to grant
evaluation. In addition, as most of R&I today is privately funded, making some parts of
COMPARED publically accessible would also allow private actors of R&I (companies,
investment firms) to use the platform to reduce duplication in R&I investments and overlap
between research projects.
The first phase of the project (2018-2019) delivered a pilot platform, the first version of the
database containing grants data and a report containing a set of recommendations for possible
further extension and full deployment of the system. Building on this, the JRC aims now at
extending the scope of the Compared tool by further consolidating the platform, by collecting
data from R&D funding agencies in Member States to enrich the database of grant data and
by disseminating the tool and promoting its use in Member States. Compared aims at
supporting grant evaluators in funding agencies throughout all of Horizon Europe, the new
framework programme for research of the European Commission starting 1st January 2021
and lasting for 7 years. A certain level of sustainability is therefore expected and will be
ensured mainly through IT support (see below).
The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission has a solid expertise in text and data
mining in which it is active for more than 15 years5. The present project will be located in the
Text Mining Competence Centre recently launched by JRC to serve the Commission with
text mining solutions.
1.1.3 OBJECTIVES
The overall objective is to further consolidate and develop the Compared tool and promote its
use by R&I funding national agencies.
1. Consolidate and further develop the Compared web application that evaluators of R&I
proposals can use to obtain similar documents relevant to the evaluation process. Among
other things, the translation mechanism will be consolidated, etc.
2. Enrich the database containing the grant data needed for the semantic comparison of
research proposals. Data will be collected from R&D funding agencies in Europe (National
funding agencies but also at European level).
3. Reach out to users of the platform to promote its use. In addition to the benefit of using the
platform, the creation of a community of practice will foster the exchange of best practices on
the use of modern text mining and scientometrics techniques to support evaluation of
research proposals.
5
Check http://emm.newsbrief.eu and http://www.timanalytics.eu for concrete examples of IT solutions.
1.1.4 SCOPE
This project aims to support the decision-making process in evaluation of R&I grant
proposals with more evidence e.g. information about similar proposals submitted or grant
awarded in the past. The IT platform where users can retrieve documents semantically similar
to the proposal they are evaluating at the time and the text mining techniques will be further
developed. A community of practice will be created to foster the use of text mining and
scientometrics techniques in the evaluation of research proposals. It should be noted that the
semantic similarity platform does not aim to replace IT systems used to perform evaluation of
proposals, neither does it aim to harmonise evaluation processes for research proposals
throughout Europe or data standards. Rather, it aims at complementing processes operated in
Member States by creating a bridge between evaluation processes and connecting
stakeholders together.
1.1.5 ACTION PRIORITY
1.1.5.1 Contribution to the interoperability landscape
Question
Answer
How does the proposal
The project aims at data interoperability in a field where a real
contribute to improving
need for more cross-border collaboration exists, but for which
interoperability among
there are no IT solutions yet. Some initiatives like the Lead
public administrations and
Agency Model offer models for cross-border collaboration but
with their citizens and
there exists today no means to compare R&I grants at a
European scale. The first benefit of the project will be to
businesses across borders
establish data interoperability between funding agencies in
or policy sectors in
different member states. This will be done with minimum
Europe?
disturbance to processes operated today by funding agencies:
In particular, how does it
there will be no direct impact of the COMPARED platform on
contribute to the
IT systems operated by public funding agencies.
implementation of:
The project is in line with 2 ERA priorities6 and with a recent
report by an independent high-level group delivered to DG
the new European Research and innovation, which encourages the European
Commission to align national and EU R&I investment
Interoperability
schemes, to establish synergies with other funding
Framework (EIF),
programmes in Europe, and to increase the impact of publicly
the Interoperability funded research in Europe7. The project will also contribute to
opening up access to grants data, which is common practice in
6 "More effective national research systems that include increased competition within national borders
and sustained investment in research" and "Transnational cooperation and competition which define
and implement common research agendas on challenges, raise quality through Europe-wide open
competition, and construct and run key research infrastructures on a pan-European basis".
7 "
Lab-Fab-App, investing in the European future we want", Report of the independent high level group on
maximising the impact of EU research & innovation programmes. European Commission, DG Research &
Innovation, ISBN: 978-92-79-70069-9
Question
Answer
Action Plan and/or
some countries but not in all. Dissemination and access to
the
Connecting data will be royalty-free, but restricted to non-profit activities.
European
Facility
(CEF)
Telecom
guidelines
any other EU
policy/initiative
having
interoperability
requirements?
Does the proposal fulfil an
There are today no IT solutions for addressing the lack of
interoperability need for
informed decision-making when it comes to the evaluation of
which no other alternative
research project proposals. Some local solutions exist,
action/solution is available? however they cannot work in isolation. The real issue is
related to the fragmentation of the funding mechanisms in
Europe and the difficulty to gather the relevant corpus of data,
combined to the possibility for project applicants, organised in
consortia, to submit grant proposals across borders. An EU-
wide approach including grant data from R&D funding
agencies in Member States, from the Framework program and
ERC program of the EU would guarantee a meaningful
volume of data.
1.1.5.2 Cross-sector
Question
Answer
Will the proposal, once
Should the project be successful, it could contribute to enhanced
completed be useful,
evidence-based decision making and provide some elements for
from the
more cross-border collaborations in that field. Data
interoperability point
interoperability (and not system interoperability) would be
of view and utilised in
achieved through collecting data from the different funding
two (2) or more EU
mechanisms in Member States via the COMPARED platform.
policy sectors? Detail
Funding of research projects by public organisations is a cross-
your answer for each of sector activity. Once implemented, the IT solution proposed here
the concerned sectors.
will contribute to more informed decision-to-fund in various
policy fields like energy, environment, ICT, health, transport, and
many more.
1.1.5.3 Cross-border
Question
Answer
Will the proposal, once
1) Administration to Administration.
completed, be useful
Once completed, the platform will be used by as many funding
from the
agencies of Member states as possible, ideally by agencies in all
interoperability point
Member States, as well as in other countries. The project will
of view and used by
establish close interaction with National funding agencies and with
public administrations
Science Europe (gathering funding agencies from many Members
of three (3) or more EU States), with the goal to involve the final users as soon as possible
Members States?
in the project. We will also aim for a maximum of these funding
Detail your answer for
agencies to contribute to COMPARED with data about grants.
each of the concerned
The main advantage for funding agencies will be to obtain
Member State.
information about prior research projects funded in other Member
States. Funding agencies will also gain from sharing best practices
in the evaluation of research proposals and of their impact.
2) Administration to citizens & administration to business.
Whenever possible, COMPARED will be publically accessible
allowing applicants to R&D funding to build more innovative
proposals and investment funds or companies to better evaluate
requests for R&I funding.
1.1.5.4 Urgency
Question
Answer
Is your action urgent? Although there is as such no urgency, evidence-based decision-
Is its implementation
making in the funding of R&I projects by public agencies is
foreseen in an EU
critically needed. Evaluators of grants have no means of knowing if
policy as priority, or
a particular research project has already been funded elsewhere, or
in EU legislation?
if the research has already been performed. Experts use their vast
knowledge and experience to evaluate the originality of projects, but
there are no actual systematic prior art searches being performed as
part of the evaluation process. Knowing more about the past will
help evaluators to assess the quality of research proposals and
justify their decision on more factual elements. Ideally the platform
should be fully operational for the start of FP9 in 2020.
How does the ISA2
scope and financial
capacity better fit for
the implementation of
This project fits with the ISA² interoperability goals. There are no
the proposal as
other identified available sources of funding for this project.
opposed to other
identified and
currently available
sources?
1.1.5.5 Reusability of action’s outputs
Name of reusable solution
to be produced (for new
COMPARED platform
proposals) or produced (for
existing actions)
The platform will be accessed through a web application and
will therefore be re-usable by any additional funding agency
Description
or other entity wishing to use it, subject to certain limitations
related to ownership of data. No personal data will be needed
for the project.
Reference
Re-use is part of the project. Platform accessible and available
Target release date / Status
as the project evolves and on request.
Critical part of target user
Funding agencies.
base
Name of reusable solution
to be produced (for new
COMPARED data
proposals) or produced (for
existing actions)
To the extent that is possible, the dataset on which the
platform will rely will be made available to funding agencies
Description
and possibly other stakeholders, with the condition that the
data can be exclusively re-used for non-profit activities.
Reference
Re-use is part of the project. Data will be made available from
Target release date / Status
the onset, depending on specific legal or data protection
issues.
Critical part of target user
Funding agencies, scholars in the field of scientometrics,
base
economics, innovation and research management.
Name of reusable solution
to be produced (for new
COMPARED code
proposals) or produced (for
existing actions)
JRC code will be made available through licensing schemes
without royalty compensations. EUPL could be envisaged but
choosing the adequate licence scheme requires in depth
Description
analysis of the developed code. Should licensing be
envisaged, JRC will follow the recommendations of the
Central IP Service of the Commission that will run a thorough
analysis of the software and its various components.
Reference
Re-use is part of the project. JRC code will be made available
Target release date / Status
as much as possible as the project evolves and on requests.
Critical part of target user
Developers of text mining solutions.
base
1.1.5.6 Level of reuse of existing solutions
Question
Answer
Does the proposal intend to make use of any ISA2, ISA or
EUPL whenever possible.
other relevant interoperability solution(s)? Which ones?
PM².
Synergies with other actions
will be actively sought.
1.1.5.7 Interlinked
Question
Answer
Does the proposal directly
Contribution to “Boosting competitiveness through
contribute to at least one of the
interoperability and standardisation”. Less
Union’s high political priorities such duplication of research means more original research
as the DSM? If yes, which ones?
funded, hence some impact on competitiveness.
What is the level of contribution?
1.1.6 PROBLEM STATEMENT
The difficulty to perform prior art search before evaluation of grant
The problem of
proposals
The amount of evidence useful to assess whether a particular proposal
affects
should be funded or not.
the impact of
No evidence-based decision-to-fund.
which is
Provide a semantic similarity platform that will automatically deliver
a successful
to the evaluator a set of documents similar to the proposal under
solution would be
evaluation.
The problem of
Variety of local IT legacy systems.
affects
Technical interoperability
the impact of
Difficult to link systems together and exchange data
which is
A centralised repository for data on grants, accessible through a
a successful
semantic web application easy to integrate or embed in existing
solution would be
processes, with data exchange using RSS format and specific
semantics and syntactic.
The problem of
Heavy workload related to processing of research projects.
affects
Efficiency of funding agencies.
the impact of
Reduced capacity for sound decisions and to accompany applicants.
which is
a successful
Give access to a semantic platform to applicants may help in reducing
solution would be
the number of proposals for funding.
Limited access of applicants to data on previously funded research
The problem of
projects or to other relevant scientific documents.
affects
The quality and novelty of research projects.
Proposals entering the evaluation process are of lower quality and
the impact of
novelty than expected, which has an impact on competitiveness and
which is
innovation potential.
a successful
Give access to a semantic platform to applicants may help in
solution would be
increasing the quality and novelty of proposals for funding.
The problem of
High fragmentation of many funding schemes operating in Europe.
Cross-border collaboration, which is low, and exchange of data, which
affects
is rare, and therefore the capacity to detect multiple funding of research
and overlap of research grants.
the impact of
Lack of novelty in proposals, overlap between research grants, and
which is
duplication of research.
a successful
Give access through a semantic platform to a corpus of data on
solution would be
research projects funded in EU Member States, at EU level, or outside.
1.1.7 IMPACT OF THE ACTION
1.1.7.1 Main impact list
By
Impact
Why will this impact occur?
when?
Beneficiaries
(+) Savings in
Detection of overlaps in research
Q1 2020 Funding agencies
money
projects (scientific and financial)
(Member States and
and subsequent reduction in
others)
overlaps and research duplication.
(+) More
More innovative R&I projects.
Q2 2020 Member States
innovation
(+)
There is no interoperability in this
Q4 2020 Funding agencies (MS
Interoperability
field.
and others)
(-) Integration
Any new tool is associated to
Q1 2020 Funding agencies (MS
or usage cost
some costs: training, integration in
and others)
IT, licensing, data exchange…
But costs will be limited, as the
platform will consist in a web
application. Impact on agencies
will be minimal, in particular
because the use of the platform
will have no impact on the IT
systems in operation locally.
By
Impact
Why will this impact occur?
when?
Beneficiaries
(+) More
Evaluators would have access to
Q1 2020 Funding agencies (MS
evidence-based
prior art documents retrieved
and others)
funding
through a semantic process.
decisions
(+) Open access Catalyse open access to grant data
Q4 2020 All innovation
to data on
and provide a central access point
stakeholders.
research grants
1.1.7.2 User-centricity
Users are at the core of the project. They have accompanied the project since its inception.
User requirements have been collected prior to starting the development and will be
continuously collected to maximise the usefulness of the tool. A panel of experts, specialised
in grants evaluation process accompanies the project (e.g. experts from Science Europe). The
community of practice will ensure that future developments stay in line with user
requirements and will help with the dissemination and use of the platform.
1.1.8 EXPECTED MAJOR OUTPUTS
Outputs are described in section "Reusability of action’s outputs"
1.1.9 ORGANISATIONAL APPROACH
1.1.9.1 Expected stakeholders and their representatives
Stakeholders
Representatives
Involvement in the action
Hungarian
Member of the advisory board, providing
Innovation Agency
expertise in the evaluation process of research
(NKFIH)
proposals, test pilot platform, provide data.
Spanish foundation
Member of the advisory board, providing
for science and
expertise in the evaluation process of research
technology (FECYT)
proposals, test pilot platform, provide data.
+ funding agencies
Member of the advisory board, providing
Science Europe
expertise in the evaluation process of research
proposals
Joint Research
Member of the advisory board, providing IT
Centre
expertise (text mining, data, …)
Ensure alignment to RTD grant policies +
RTD
provide data
Member of the advisory board, providing
ERCEA
expertise in the evaluation process of research
proposals, test pilot platform, provide data.
1.1.9.2 Identified user groups
Public R&I funding agencies in Member States
Public R&I funding agencies in H2020 Associated States.
R&I agencies at international level.
Applicants to R&I grants.
Private funding agencies.
1.1.9.3 Communication and dissemination plan
The key to getting Compared used by evaluators is to create a community of practice. This
will be facilitated by the existing network of Science Europe (partner of the project), which
brings together 40 national funding agencies from all Member States. These agencies are the
primary users if Compared and will be approach through Science Europe. Presentation of the
tool to the Science Europe working group on grant evaluation took place in Q4 2019 and the
working group recommended the scaling-up and wide adoption.
Dissemination will also be done through the ESOF conference 2020, where JRC will have a
450m² dedicated to technology transfer and the funding of research. ESOF is a major
scientific event in Europe where researchers and administrators of science will be present.
Further dissemination will be done via the funding agencies themselves. Simple online
presence will be ensured. ISA² communication channels (e.g. ISA² website, ISA² Newsletter)
will also be used to reach potential users of the platform. Corporate dissemination via the
ISA² network of Member States coordinators will also be considered as a means to
disseminate.
1.1.9.4 Key Performance indicators
Description of
Expected delivery
Target to achieve
the KPI
(months after k-o)
Meetings with the
2 meetings
+M1, +M11
partners
Platform
New developments will be added to the platform.
+M12
Users
10 funding agencies using Compared in the first year
+M12
Community of
1 workshop to exchange best practices
+M12
practice
Data
At least 3 new datasets of grants in the first year
+M12
1.1.9.5 Governance approach
To limit the cost in case of project failure, COMPARED was designed as a two-phase
project. As the pilot phase 2018-2019 was completed successfully, the project is now entering
its full operation phase. Experts will be involved throughout the whole pilot project by
monitoring and driving the developments. The project will be managed by JRC which will
consult and rely on an advisory board composed of representatives from JRC, the Hungarian
Innovation Agency (NKFIH), the Spanish foundation for science and technology (FECYT),
and Science Europe. Compared will be sustainable if the user requirements are continuously
monitored and taken into account and if grants data are updated regularly. This means that,
irrespective of where the Compared servers are hosted, there will always be a cost related to
software maintenance and data updates. This cost can be estimated to 1.5 full time
equivalents of IT experts (~210k€/year), for the whole duration of the Horizon Europe
programme. Needless to say, a review of the project after the 1st year of the scaling up phase
will take place to decide on a go/no go.
1.1.10 TECHNICAL APPROACH AND CURRENT STATUS
The process for generating the index
containing data about prior art and
grants and the process by which
proposals are compared to the
indexed data are both described here.
Process for generating the
index containing data about
prior art and grants
Process
comparing
incoming
proposal documents to the index
containing data about prior art and
grants.
IT development for the full operation phase is scheduled to start as soon as funding is made
available. Some developments are already foreseen following recommendations and needs
expressed by the expert group. Adapting modules developed in other JRC projects (TIM,
EMM) will be considered in priority to avoid duplication of work.
1. Automatic Detection of Authors, Title, etc of the Proposal
- Develop AI module to "understand" the structure of a grant proposal and to extract authors,
organisations, title, etc. This will prevent manual work of the users/evaluators of the grants. A
specific GUI will be developed to allow users to verify the result of this step and make
corrections if needed.
- Automatically match authors of proposals to existing companies, universities, etc to which
they belong.
- Develop algorithms to detect conflict of interests between authors of grant proposals and
evaluators.
2. Dictionaries / Data indexing
- Implement utilization of acronyms.
- Implement utilization of N-words (currently only one single word/lemma is used for TF-
IDF).
- Implement utilization of synonyms and adapt similarity computation to take into account
this aspect.
- Optimization of search. Optimization in the algorithm used for similarity detection (which
can be slow/computationally intensive for some requests like plagiarism detection).
- Ability to easily and seamlessly incorporate other Reference Corpus (such as additional
database of granted research projects from different National Authorities).
3. Translation
- Implement JRC solution for translation ( EMM translation system).
- Flexibility in deployment - full autonomous/on premise with EMM translation versus
general deployment with Internet connection to allow usage of different translation tools -
Google, Microsoft, IBM, etc).
4. Authentication / Authorization
- Implement ECAS identification system.
- Flexible Authentication/Authorization configurable (between ECAS and own protocol -
existing).
- Own protocol of Authentication/Authorization - user management - ability to
create/update/delete users - in process of being implemented.
- Implement monitoring tool for user activities.
5. Usability
- develop features to enable centralized management of all proposals:
- ability of a "manager" to assign grants to different evaluators
- ability of a "manager" to audit the activity of a certain evaluator - see what similarity tests
the evaluator had performed, what were the results, corroborate similarity results with the
general conclusion of the evaluator (suggest to finance or not), etc.
- asses activity of evaluators, for reference / history and subsequent activities.
6. Integration with TIM environment
- further developments based on current modern microservices architecture and closely
integrate with the already existing powerful TIM search environment, such that to offer users
an enlarged set of functionalities drawn from both programs.
- develop a relevant GUI to offer users this united set of functionalities from one single place,
with minimal user input/number of mouse/keyboard clicks.
7. Sustainability
Compared aims at supporting evaluators in funding agencies throughout all of Horizon
Europe, starting 1st January 2021. Sustainability of Compared during this period will be
ensured by paying attention to the quality and freshness of data. Collections will be updated
regularly (frequency will vary from funding agencies) and made readily available through the
platform. It will also be essential to regularly collect requirements of Compared users to
update front-end and back-end components. Sustainability and relevance will be at that price.
The cost of this can be estimated to 1.5 FTE IT expert, but this estimation will have to be
reviewed Q4 2020.
1.1.11 COSTS AND MILESTONES
1.1.11.1 Breakdown of anticipated costs and related milestones
Anticipated
Description of milestones reached or to
Budget
Start
End
Phase
Allocations
be reached
line
date
date
(KEUR)
10k€ IT +
Initiation and
ISA² -
Jan
Jan
Kick off meeting
1man month
planning
JRC
2020
2020
JRC
- Logistics (meetings, missions)
- IT developments.
- Data collection, gathering,
270 k€ IT
formatting, storage, integration,
+10k€
indexing.
missions-
ISA² -
Jan
April
Execution
- Setting up of the community of
logistics
JRC
2020
2021
practice.
+ 2 man
- Interface with funding agencies and
month JRC
business analysis (IT requirements,
data requirements, legal issues related
to data access and sharing, etc.).
Jan
April
IT supervision
IT supervision and architecture
30k€ IT
ISA²
2020
2021
Overall
2 man month
Jan
April
Overall supervision of the project
JRC
supervision
JRC
2020
2021
Anticipated
Description of milestones reached or to
Budget
Start
End
Phase
Allocations
be reached
line
date
date
(KEUR)
Total
320k€
1.1.11.2 Breakdown of ISA2 funding per budget year
Budget
Anticipated allocations
Executed budget
Phase
Year
(in KEUR)
(in KEUR)
2020
Deployment year 1
320€
1.1.11.3 Historical costs and related milestones
Fundings by ISA²
Budget Year
Phase
Past costs (in KEUR)
2018
Pilot phase
250€
2019
Pilot phase
160k€
Total past costs
Anticipated
Start
End
Description of milestones reached or to be
Budget
Phase:
Allocations
date
date
reached
line
(KEUR)
Initiation and
- Kick off workshop
30k€ experts
ISA²
April
May
planning
- User requirements document
+ 32k€ IT
JRC
2018
2018
Execution
- Logistics (meetings, missions)
- Platform design, customisation, testing.
- Data collection, gathering, formatting,
339k€ IT
storage, integration, indexing.
+10k€
ISA²-
April
May
- Setting up of a network of funding agencies
missions-
JRC
2018
2019
from Member States
logistics
- Setting up of network of expert evaluators
+ 15k€
- Interface with funding agencies and
hardware
business analysis (IT requirements, data
requirements, etc.)
- Exploration of legal issues related to data
access and sharing.
- Hardware
Septem
Novemb
IT supervision
IT supervision and architecture
25k€
JRC
ber 2018
er 2019
- Testing of platform.
Closing and Final
30k€ experts
ISA² -
April
Novemb
- Closing meeting
decision
+ 32k€ IT
JRC
2019
er 2019
- Final go / no-go for full deployment.
Total
513k€
Document Outline