Thematic area: Information Society, Research and Innovation

EU Programme: Framework Programme 5, IST-99-1-1A

Name of project: Cultural Objects in Networked Environments (COINE)

Lead Institution/Consortium of Partners:
The Manchester Metropolitan University, CERLIM (MMU) UK
Fretwell-Downing Informatics Ltd (FDI) UK
The National Microelectronics Applications Centre Ltd (MAC) IE
eircom Ennis Information Age Town (Ennis) IE
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) ES
University of Macedonia Economic and Social Sciences (UM) (GR)
The Jagiellonian University (UJAG) (PL)

Selection of possible EU programmes; finding, collecting and analysing calls for proposals

A particular member of the coordinating organisation has the specific task of monitoring the relevant EU calls for proposals: specifically, the second author, with support from the University's research office. The organisation already had experience in designing proposals for EU calls through the precursors to IST such as the Libraries Programme under previous Framework Programmes. In this particular project, it made full use of all the available information on the EU website announcing the call for proposals. To reinforce its proposal, it used the literature in the field, as it always does as a basis for its research.

Other sources of funding

For this project, 33% of resources had to come from the partner organisations' own resources. However, the fact that EU funding was obtained did not open up other sources of funding.

Partners

The consortium was constructed for the purpose of this proposal, although we had worked with most of the partners before. Two partners (FDI and MAC) provided technical expertise (e.g. programming). Both had been involved in previous projects led by MMU. The other partners provided professional/demonstration expertise. Thus MMU, FDI & MAC had worked together before on EU projects; UOC and UM had met at "Libraries Without Walls" conferences; and UJAG were introduced to the lead partner by a colleague.

All partners had involvement throughout, and shared responsibility for the project, though the technical partners' effort was frontloaded. The internal communication between partners was conducted almost entirely by email, supported by an internal website which allowed document exchange. The consortium worked very well together and all partners contributed what had been expected of them without difficulty.

Aims/purposes of the project

The idea of putting a proposal to the EU first arose goes back to several partners' initial involvement with the Libraries Programme (in 1993). The idea for COINE arose from discussions between professor Brophy and the Director of MAC. In 1998 in Luxembourg, during a lull in an EC meeting, John O'Flaherty of MAC described to Peter Brophy a project which had been taking place in Irish schools. Each child had been given a box and invited to fill it with objects of interest to them. The resulting contents would tell something of the story of their lives. The project was a huge success - but of course each child could only share their story with a limited number of others. It occurred to them that here was a marvellous opportunity to exploit information and communications technologies. Virtual black boxes held enormous potential. Others who they talked to at that time were equally enthusiastic about the idea. The origins of the COINE project thus lie in discussions between participants in a series of projects which were funded under the EU's Framework 4 programme.

The basic objective of the project was to create a generalised infrastructure for managed digital cultural domains which is exploitable as both a personal and a community space.

So-called "minority languages" (Catalan, Irish) were included in the project thanks to the desire to be as inclusive as possible: the point of COINE was to provide a tool useful at the local level and driven by the end user.

Collecting and taking into account experiences of other projects

The organisation did not contact those responsible for projects which had already been funded under earlier calls for proposals in the same programme or budget line, simply because there were no relevant ones at European level.

Problems and/or difficulties when designing the proposal

Analysis of stakeholders

To identify the stakeholders, and their interests and opinions regarding the problem to be solved, or the challenge to be addressed, a study or survey was carried out prior to the designing process, to identify the potential beneficiaries of the project. The lead organisation used work it had been involved in within the UK, focused mainly on public libraries. The general public, particularly school children and local history societies, across Europe was directly affected by the specific problem or challenge you aimed to address. The interests of the various people or organisations with regard to the problem or challenge involved local community services, local history. Each group perceived the problem or challenge with great interest. Time and effort, on a voluntary basis, were to be committed by each group to treat the problem or meet the challenge.

No formal organisational or institutional responsibilities were given to each group. Some of the groups tested the interface prior to a system being built; all groups tested the prototype demonstrator system and provided feedback. Demonstrations and training sessions on the system were carried out to meet the interests of the each group.

Analysis of the present situation (problem tree):

The project arose from the belief that local cultural heritage could be stored and shared across Europe using ICTs in new ways. Objects and stories from local culture need to be captured, displayed, published, shared and preserved. All of these needs were selected to be transformed into specific project objectives.

Choosing the topic

The EC had to be persuaded that the area needed to be included in the Call for Proposals. Previous attempts had failed to get the project funded; this was the third attempt, and the Call was by then particularly suited to our idea.

Setting up a team to devise and design the proposal

All partners took part in the drawing up of the proposal, but mainly MMU, FDI, MAC. The team members already had experience in developing similar proposals. No help was requested from other organisations with experience in European projects. The distribution of tasks among the team members was decided by the three main partners (having consulted with the others), on the basis of their previous experience of EC projects. No problems were encountered in trying to coordinate or integrate those involved in designing the proposal.

Risk Analysis

The potential risks on the success of the project were mentioned, but were not considered to be a serious issue. The team expected to handle this within the normal mechanisms of the EC if the issue arose.

Working language(s)

There were no problems in relation to the working language(s) between the partners involved at the project and for writing the proposal. English was used throughout, and a potential partner unable to communicate in English would not have been invited to join the team.

Literature review/relevant documentation selection

References were made to the published literature to support to EU proposal; heavy emphasis was placed on relevant standards. Letters of support to the proposal from relevant institutions or experts in the field were not requested.

Determining the work plan and time

The proposed work plan was drafted by the coordinator and then discussed with each partner.

Budget issues

The EU financial statements of the call for proposals were duly read, and care was taken to follow the EU standards related to travel and accommodation expenses, honoraries fees, salaries by category and per day, etc. No problems were encountered in relation to the distribution of the budget by partner.

There were two problems, however, when it came to filling in the EU forms: Firstly, their terminology keeps changing and isn't at all clear. And secondly, their proposal submission software (the Electra system) had errors in it and didn't work! Nevertheless, the proposal was completed in time, taking in mind the deadlines of the call for proposals.

European principles and criteria such as the multiplier effect, dissemination of results, evaluation criteria, European add value, European dimension, etc, were included in the proposal. The team emphasised the proposal's contribution to social inclusion. Moreover, dissemination and evaluation were included in the proposed work.

Contact:
Geoff Butters: g.butters@mmu.ac.uk
Prof. Peter Brophy: p.brophy@mmu.ac.uk

Website: www.coine.org