Final Report Summary - ESC (European security challenge)
Executive summary:
The ultimate aim of the project was to advance European security innovation by exploring ways that competitions could be applied within the sector and the scenario plans were intended to give the European Commission (EC) the option of implementing such projects. The competitions were designed to deliver valuable innovative solutions that could assist European security efforts. These competitions aimed also to improve the overall innovation system within the industry. Significantly, the plans outline competitions that could help to involve European Union (EU) citizens within the innovation process and that should enjoy high levels of participation and visibility.
Project results:
The goal of the competitions and security report was to evaluate how prize competitions could strengthen and stimulate technical innovations in the field of security technology within the EU. The report aimed to prepare all necessary background information for the EC, to enable informed decision-making about running prize competitions to foster innovation in security technologies. Accordingly, data from previous competitions was analysed, a survey across 523 British Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) was conducted and 24 international innovation decision makers were interviewed.
The analysis showed that both applicants/innovators and prize promoters/sponsors can benefit from prizes. Applicants and winners achieved incredible media coverage and easier access to funding to spur the commercialisation of the innovation. Promoters and sponsors of the competitions had the possibility to attract innovators from non-conventional fields that would have not been reached using traditional methods such as internal Research and development (R&D) or grants; to reduce the overall costs of finding innovation while at the same time gain publicity and obtain higher quality of innovation. Other methods for finding innovation such as research grants or patents are discussed in the report and compared to prize competitions. The report ends with a suggestion to integrate prize competitions in the existing funding schemes of the European Union.
The three submitted competition packages:
The Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) crisis response challenge aimed to advance Unmanned aerial systems (UAS) technology and to inspire the development of an Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) system that can assist emergency response to disasters. The phrase 'crisis response', in the challenge title, carries a double meaning. It not only refers to the ability to respond to crises such as natural disasters or technological catastrophes but, crucially, it also refers to the ability of UAS to deal with crises within their own systems. The challenge tests the capacity of UAS to react to unexpected dangers: to take evasive action to avoid mid-air collisions; to cope with damaged equipment or disrupted communications; to make emergency landings in unfamiliar environments; and to re-organise the system intelligently in the face of these difficulties.
After the competition was formally announced at a launch event, potential contestants would have 18 months to prepare themselves for Mission 1. The mission would take place over an area of land set up to simulate a disaster zone. Simulated casualties were strewn across the landscape, vehicles lay overturned in the roads, buildings smoulder, infrastructure crumbled in ruins and smoke machines billow foggy plumes across the sky. Contestants should send their flying robotic fleets to the rescue to search for survivors, scour for hazards, provide key information on the crisis and assist with the rescue efforts. All this should be completed whilst competition organisers' attempt to sabotage their efforts by deploying rogue aircraft and demanding difficult emergency landings. The fleet that was best able to survive these ordeals, whilst accomplishing a range of complex mission tasks, would be the winner of the first round. The final mission took place a year after the first and will be very similar, but with additional demands and an increased level of difficulty. The winner of this event will be declared the overall competition winner.
There was also a sub-prize offered for effective collaboration and innovative community-building, to help inspire cooperation amongst competitors. 'Maverick Prizes' rewarded useful, unique and interesting technologies and innovations displayed during the mission events.
The citizens' frontline emergency management competition challenged participants to create an open source software application for emergency management that makes use of social media and modern communications technology. The winning application would integrate pre-crisis, mid-crisis and post-crisis elements, and would be an innovation with the potential to save lives across Europe and the world.
To start off, a platform application would be constructed - this would be the central structure that will eventually hold/contain the contestants' submissions. The platform would need to define the overall architecture of the system, including the protocol and the way in which sub-applications communicate with each other.
Once the platform was established, the first stage began. The practical prizes at this stage were divided into four sub-categories, rewarding the best pre-crisis, mid-crisis and post-crisis applications, as well as a data-mining/information extraction prize. There was also an Ideas Prize, to inspire participation by innovators who have a good idea, but lack the technical skills to transform this into a working application. All submissions should be explicitly open source and will ultimately be submitted to a common pool of public intellectual property associated with the challenge. Effectively, this first stage acted like a global-scale brainstorming session.
In the second stage, all contestants had complete access to this common pool of innovations and a grand prize would be awarded for the entry which best integrates the pre-crisis, mid-crisis, post-crisis and data-mining sub-applications into a coherent, streamlined and efficient overall emergency management application.
At each stage the entries were assessed by a panel of expert judges according to pre-specified, subjective criteria. There was also be an opportunity for the innovation community to vote for their favourite application and award the Citizen's Prize.
The overall competition therefore comprised seven sub-competitions. Live events were held throughout the challenge, with a launch event to begin the first stage; a second event to award first stage prizes and launch the second stage; and a final event to award the final integrated application prize.
The Cloud Castle Challenge drove participants to contribute to an open source software repository, or 'toolbox', which provided developments in cyber security and cloud protection. Entrants competed against each other to continuously improve the defences of three 'Cloud Castles' over the course of the year-long contest.
The three 'Castles' were online sites that resembled public facing production services and each utilised a different operating system. All sites contained hidden information and cyber-attackers must locate, access and change the key pieces of concealed data in order to be considered to have stormed the Castles' defences. A successful stormer then becomes the protector, building upon the existing defences of their Castle. The remaining field continued attempts to overcome this improved security in the hope of becoming the protector, with this process of storm and defend repeating itself as a way of continuously enhancing the Castles' cyber security. Thus the competition structure includes offense and defence each is essential in improving cyber security. At the same time, rewards were heavily defence orientated, to reflect that this competition would only reward constructive innovations. The first sub-set of prizes went to contestants who can defend the Cloud Castles for a period of ten days. Every time this is done, the defence is made more challenging as the sites Exposed Surface Area Levels increase. A second sub-set rewards entrants who can defend Castles during specified 'stress test' periods.
All attacking and defensive activity must explicitly utilise open source software that would eventually be contributed to the competition toolbox. Subjective prizes for the most positive contributions to the toolbox would be awarded by expert judges and the innovation community itself. A final prize is awarded for the effective organisation of the toolbox, in order to make it a useful, usable and valuable resource for applying innovations beyond the competition, and developing cyber defence well beyond current standards.
Potential impact:
The competitions and security report should provide a specific opportunity for European policy-makers to assess the potential for innovation competitions to improve the security innovation system. The three competition scenarios present EC with the chance to quickly implement one, or all of the plans as they see fit. If implemented, the competitions should achieve multiple innovation targets and should have a significant impact both on the European security industry and on the safety of the citizens of EU.
The UAV crisis response challenge aimed to improve European security by advancing civilian UAV technology. The competition aimed to provide Europe with the technology required to develop a UAV crisis response fleet that could be deployed to save lives during emergency situations. The project should also advance UAV Systems (UAS) technology because innovators are required to design a multi-agent robotic system that is more sophisticated than any currently available. This should have positive implications for innovation in the wider field of robotics, computer vision and artificial intelligence. The UAV innovation system should experience a considerable boost from all the information sharing/collaboration-facilitating advantages maximised by this competition. Most importantly, the project aimed to resolve the serious safety issues that hold back the civilian UAV industry. UAVs should be developed that can sense and avoid other aircraft as well as make emergency landings and these advances should finally enable the European civilian UAV industry to properly get started. Because of the advanced state of UAV technology, it is expected that the market will absolutely explode after this serious 'bottleneck' innovation barrier is removed. This should have dramatic positive economic implications on a holistic level, because UAVs can be useful in numerous roles across multiple sectors. This is the primary reason that the project is expected to achieve such dramatically impressive returns on investment.
The citizens' frontline emergency response challenge also aimed to provide tools to protect European citizens during crisis situations (such as natural disasters or terror attacks). The competition should inspire the development of a computer/smartphone application that genuinely saves lives during an emergency situation. Furthermore, the project developed a platform that invites continual further development and progress in the advance of open-source, emergency management technology. The competition aimed to facilitate improvements in the overall innovation system that should have a lasting impact. The competition medium should help to involve the European public in the innovation process, as well as increasing their awareness of crisis management issues and encouraging them to plan their own response. When considering wider implications of the project, the development of a new innovation model (combining innovation competitions and open-source strategies) should not be overlooked as potentially significant. The online data-extraction element of the challenge holded out the possibility of considerable wider implications, as any winning innovation could potentially be applied to other areas where data-extraction is relevant (of which there are very many).
The cloud castle challenge aimed to generate significant advances in cyber security technology. The 'game' scenario should provide the most ruthless forensic testing of website security ever undertaken and so should deliver real returns in terms of innovation solutions. The open-source repository should provide European cyber security professionals with a range of useful tools that they can freely deploy as appropriate to their individual context. By positively engaging with a talented innovation community the EC should be able to generate improvements in the overall Information technology (IT) security innovation system. The wider implications of improved cyber security technology are significant in virtually all economic, political and social areas of concern.
All three competitions were designed to maximise value for money and running the whole package would likely result in significant advances in the security innovation system.
List of websites:
www.europeansecuritychallenge.com
The ultimate aim of the project was to advance European security innovation by exploring ways that competitions could be applied within the sector and the scenario plans were intended to give the European Commission (EC) the option of implementing such projects. The competitions were designed to deliver valuable innovative solutions that could assist European security efforts. These competitions aimed also to improve the overall innovation system within the industry. Significantly, the plans outline competitions that could help to involve European Union (EU) citizens within the innovation process and that should enjoy high levels of participation and visibility.
Project results:
The goal of the competitions and security report was to evaluate how prize competitions could strengthen and stimulate technical innovations in the field of security technology within the EU. The report aimed to prepare all necessary background information for the EC, to enable informed decision-making about running prize competitions to foster innovation in security technologies. Accordingly, data from previous competitions was analysed, a survey across 523 British Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) was conducted and 24 international innovation decision makers were interviewed.
The analysis showed that both applicants/innovators and prize promoters/sponsors can benefit from prizes. Applicants and winners achieved incredible media coverage and easier access to funding to spur the commercialisation of the innovation. Promoters and sponsors of the competitions had the possibility to attract innovators from non-conventional fields that would have not been reached using traditional methods such as internal Research and development (R&D) or grants; to reduce the overall costs of finding innovation while at the same time gain publicity and obtain higher quality of innovation. Other methods for finding innovation such as research grants or patents are discussed in the report and compared to prize competitions. The report ends with a suggestion to integrate prize competitions in the existing funding schemes of the European Union.
The three submitted competition packages:
The Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) crisis response challenge aimed to advance Unmanned aerial systems (UAS) technology and to inspire the development of an Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) system that can assist emergency response to disasters. The phrase 'crisis response', in the challenge title, carries a double meaning. It not only refers to the ability to respond to crises such as natural disasters or technological catastrophes but, crucially, it also refers to the ability of UAS to deal with crises within their own systems. The challenge tests the capacity of UAS to react to unexpected dangers: to take evasive action to avoid mid-air collisions; to cope with damaged equipment or disrupted communications; to make emergency landings in unfamiliar environments; and to re-organise the system intelligently in the face of these difficulties.
After the competition was formally announced at a launch event, potential contestants would have 18 months to prepare themselves for Mission 1. The mission would take place over an area of land set up to simulate a disaster zone. Simulated casualties were strewn across the landscape, vehicles lay overturned in the roads, buildings smoulder, infrastructure crumbled in ruins and smoke machines billow foggy plumes across the sky. Contestants should send their flying robotic fleets to the rescue to search for survivors, scour for hazards, provide key information on the crisis and assist with the rescue efforts. All this should be completed whilst competition organisers' attempt to sabotage their efforts by deploying rogue aircraft and demanding difficult emergency landings. The fleet that was best able to survive these ordeals, whilst accomplishing a range of complex mission tasks, would be the winner of the first round. The final mission took place a year after the first and will be very similar, but with additional demands and an increased level of difficulty. The winner of this event will be declared the overall competition winner.
There was also a sub-prize offered for effective collaboration and innovative community-building, to help inspire cooperation amongst competitors. 'Maverick Prizes' rewarded useful, unique and interesting technologies and innovations displayed during the mission events.
The citizens' frontline emergency management competition challenged participants to create an open source software application for emergency management that makes use of social media and modern communications technology. The winning application would integrate pre-crisis, mid-crisis and post-crisis elements, and would be an innovation with the potential to save lives across Europe and the world.
To start off, a platform application would be constructed - this would be the central structure that will eventually hold/contain the contestants' submissions. The platform would need to define the overall architecture of the system, including the protocol and the way in which sub-applications communicate with each other.
Once the platform was established, the first stage began. The practical prizes at this stage were divided into four sub-categories, rewarding the best pre-crisis, mid-crisis and post-crisis applications, as well as a data-mining/information extraction prize. There was also an Ideas Prize, to inspire participation by innovators who have a good idea, but lack the technical skills to transform this into a working application. All submissions should be explicitly open source and will ultimately be submitted to a common pool of public intellectual property associated with the challenge. Effectively, this first stage acted like a global-scale brainstorming session.
In the second stage, all contestants had complete access to this common pool of innovations and a grand prize would be awarded for the entry which best integrates the pre-crisis, mid-crisis, post-crisis and data-mining sub-applications into a coherent, streamlined and efficient overall emergency management application.
At each stage the entries were assessed by a panel of expert judges according to pre-specified, subjective criteria. There was also be an opportunity for the innovation community to vote for their favourite application and award the Citizen's Prize.
The overall competition therefore comprised seven sub-competitions. Live events were held throughout the challenge, with a launch event to begin the first stage; a second event to award first stage prizes and launch the second stage; and a final event to award the final integrated application prize.
The Cloud Castle Challenge drove participants to contribute to an open source software repository, or 'toolbox', which provided developments in cyber security and cloud protection. Entrants competed against each other to continuously improve the defences of three 'Cloud Castles' over the course of the year-long contest.
The three 'Castles' were online sites that resembled public facing production services and each utilised a different operating system. All sites contained hidden information and cyber-attackers must locate, access and change the key pieces of concealed data in order to be considered to have stormed the Castles' defences. A successful stormer then becomes the protector, building upon the existing defences of their Castle. The remaining field continued attempts to overcome this improved security in the hope of becoming the protector, with this process of storm and defend repeating itself as a way of continuously enhancing the Castles' cyber security. Thus the competition structure includes offense and defence each is essential in improving cyber security. At the same time, rewards were heavily defence orientated, to reflect that this competition would only reward constructive innovations. The first sub-set of prizes went to contestants who can defend the Cloud Castles for a period of ten days. Every time this is done, the defence is made more challenging as the sites Exposed Surface Area Levels increase. A second sub-set rewards entrants who can defend Castles during specified 'stress test' periods.
All attacking and defensive activity must explicitly utilise open source software that would eventually be contributed to the competition toolbox. Subjective prizes for the most positive contributions to the toolbox would be awarded by expert judges and the innovation community itself. A final prize is awarded for the effective organisation of the toolbox, in order to make it a useful, usable and valuable resource for applying innovations beyond the competition, and developing cyber defence well beyond current standards.
Potential impact:
The competitions and security report should provide a specific opportunity for European policy-makers to assess the potential for innovation competitions to improve the security innovation system. The three competition scenarios present EC with the chance to quickly implement one, or all of the plans as they see fit. If implemented, the competitions should achieve multiple innovation targets and should have a significant impact both on the European security industry and on the safety of the citizens of EU.
The UAV crisis response challenge aimed to improve European security by advancing civilian UAV technology. The competition aimed to provide Europe with the technology required to develop a UAV crisis response fleet that could be deployed to save lives during emergency situations. The project should also advance UAV Systems (UAS) technology because innovators are required to design a multi-agent robotic system that is more sophisticated than any currently available. This should have positive implications for innovation in the wider field of robotics, computer vision and artificial intelligence. The UAV innovation system should experience a considerable boost from all the information sharing/collaboration-facilitating advantages maximised by this competition. Most importantly, the project aimed to resolve the serious safety issues that hold back the civilian UAV industry. UAVs should be developed that can sense and avoid other aircraft as well as make emergency landings and these advances should finally enable the European civilian UAV industry to properly get started. Because of the advanced state of UAV technology, it is expected that the market will absolutely explode after this serious 'bottleneck' innovation barrier is removed. This should have dramatic positive economic implications on a holistic level, because UAVs can be useful in numerous roles across multiple sectors. This is the primary reason that the project is expected to achieve such dramatically impressive returns on investment.
The citizens' frontline emergency response challenge also aimed to provide tools to protect European citizens during crisis situations (such as natural disasters or terror attacks). The competition should inspire the development of a computer/smartphone application that genuinely saves lives during an emergency situation. Furthermore, the project developed a platform that invites continual further development and progress in the advance of open-source, emergency management technology. The competition aimed to facilitate improvements in the overall innovation system that should have a lasting impact. The competition medium should help to involve the European public in the innovation process, as well as increasing their awareness of crisis management issues and encouraging them to plan their own response. When considering wider implications of the project, the development of a new innovation model (combining innovation competitions and open-source strategies) should not be overlooked as potentially significant. The online data-extraction element of the challenge holded out the possibility of considerable wider implications, as any winning innovation could potentially be applied to other areas where data-extraction is relevant (of which there are very many).
The cloud castle challenge aimed to generate significant advances in cyber security technology. The 'game' scenario should provide the most ruthless forensic testing of website security ever undertaken and so should deliver real returns in terms of innovation solutions. The open-source repository should provide European cyber security professionals with a range of useful tools that they can freely deploy as appropriate to their individual context. By positively engaging with a talented innovation community the EC should be able to generate improvements in the overall Information technology (IT) security innovation system. The wider implications of improved cyber security technology are significant in virtually all economic, political and social areas of concern.
All three competitions were designed to maximise value for money and running the whole package would likely result in significant advances in the security innovation system.
List of websites:
www.europeansecuritychallenge.com
