Study on the factors influencing the uptake of EU-Funded Security Research Outcomes

Researchers identified hindering and enabling factors for security innovation uptake.

Photo by Andrey Kuzmin/Adobe Stock

What is the issue?

The purpose of the study was to improve the understanding of the factors that hinder or foster the uptake of the results delivered by the civil security area of the overall EU-funded programme for research and innovation (R&I). It is also intended to help the European Commission understand how uptake of research outcomes can be systematically identified, monitored and, ultimately, supported.

How did we help?

The study used a targeted document review, semi-structured interviews, a stakeholder survey, and quantitative data collection and modelling to produce its findings. This methodology produced the following four outputs:

Output 1: Examples of research uptake
Output 2: Innovation assessment guidance
Output 3: Proof-of-concept quantitative model
Output 4: Recommendations for data collection.

These outputs were largely based on an analytical framework devised during the project.

Additionally, the project created the inaugural Security Innovation Award to recognise excellence among EU-funded security research projects.

What did we find?

The report identified the following hindering and enabling factors for security innovation uptake:

Hindering factors:
- Market fragmentation
- Quality of information flows
- Insufficient output maturity for uptake
- Lack of foresight and evolving end user requirements
- Protection and clarity of IP Rights
- Challenges associated with public acceptance
- Restrictions of an institutional market
Enabling factors:
- End user involvement
- Partnerships and collaboration
- Testing and demonstrations
- Funding and procurement mechanisms
- Communication and dissemination of information

The project team used these hindering and enabling factors to create an analytical framework, which fed into our innovation assessment guidance and the proof-of concept quantitative model for assessing the likelihood of innovation uptake. This framework also helped to inform our additional requirements for data collection.

Complex circular graphic depicting the framework, with three rings of data for factors, contextual indicators, and project-level indicators

Factors	Contextual Indicators	Project-Level Indicators
Market fragmentation	Level of harmonisation in different security policy domains Presence of frameworks for license-free prototype use European certification standards/system	Geographic clustering of partners
End-user involvement		Number of end-user organisations involved Nature of end-user department Stage at which end-users become involved in project
Funding mechanism		Presence of non-EC fundings sources Type of funding call within H2020
Partnerships and collaboration		Size of consortium Collaboration between different sized companies Commercial non-commercial collaboration
Access to follow-on resources	Availability of follow-on funding facilities, and resource for prototyping, follow-on development, demonstration, testing, integration, commercialisation etc.	Discussion of access to funding of facilities for follow-on development
Understanding of research uptake		Type of organisation leading consortium Number of EU-funded projects consortium participants and or have been involved with
Protection and clarity of IP rights	Protection and clarity of IP rights	Clear process for participant rights to IP outputs Number of patents filed for project outputs
Information flow and sharing	Clear articulation of security requirements in calls Confidentiality requirements Presence of collaboration/communication between different members of the scientific community	Clear discussion of evidence of communication/collaboration between different members of the scientific community Type of deliverables
Project maturity		Market creation potential Elapsed time since start of project

What can be done?

Several recommendations emerged from our qualitative research regarding concrete steps that could be taken to improve outputs of ongoing security projects funded by the Commission. These recommendations derive from our research but have not been tested in any way. Further exploration may be needed to determine how they can best be implemented. Additionally, in some cases, these comments may derive from a lack of awareness among participants regarding particular areas of effort.

Recommendations at the call stage

There may be scope for improvement in how calls for proposals are formulated, namely:

A clear articulation of security requirement in calls to ensure shared understanding from the start of the project.
Examination of the proposal process in order to streamline any unnecessary steps, ensure that projects with less experience writing proposals have access to the opportunities provided by EU funding, and to allow projects to retain flexibility to adapt to changing requirements.

Recommendations at the award management stage

We also identify areas where the Commission may be able to provide better support and guidance for award holders:

Support award holders to deliver meaningful end user engagement and avoid this stage becoming a ‘tick box exercise’. Specifically, this could include providing tailored advice regarding the appropriate type of engagement and ensure early and meaningful interaction with end users. A capability-driven approach could be one way to do this and support useful engagement. It may be that DG HOME could also facilitate some of these links where necessary by leveraging their networks.
Promoting collaboration and communication among various members of the scientific community. This could include continuing and building upon existing opportunities that the Commission provide for networking and communication, developing and diversifying a community of shared interest and practice.
Encouraging consortium members to better prepare for the sharing of rights to intellectual property (IP) and take advantage of routes to IP protection. DG HOME could potentially provide guidance and examples of good practice regarding different models for this that are relevant to the context of security research.

As noted in the broader report, many of these areas are already drawing efforts from the European Commission generally and DG HOME specifically. However, the project team hoped that by confirming the importance of these areas, they could help to encourage continued attention and resource being directed in these areas.