DSbD Tech

DSbD Software Ecosystem Competition - How your project will be scored

Reviewer guidance – application questions and scoring 

 

 

Questions will not be assessed in isolation rather relative to their inter-relationship (e.g., justification of resources as a function of the technical approach’s merit as well as the project and risk management approach).  

 

Appendices will be taken into account as part of the response for the assessment of questions. 

 

The following guidance has been developed to help assessors determine the score of each question 

 

 

Question 1. Applicant location (not scored)

 

Question 2. Why and what? 

 

Why does the ecosystem need what you are proposing 

 

  • a clear description of what you are proposing and its security challenge 
  • the motivation for playing your part in the DSbD software ecosystem’s enablement    
  • the benefits of addressing the security challenge within a clearly specified software stack  
  • how your proposal innovates beyond how it is being addressed today and the limitations of the current approach 

9-10 

The response is compelling and credible in its description of the research / industrial research proposition, associated security challenge and motivation. The software stack is clearly specified and the benefits of addressing the security challenge within the software stack are clearly articulated. The limitations of the current approach and the proposal’s beyond state of the art approach are very well described.      

 

7-8 

The response is good but a small number of weaknesses are present.  

 

5-6 

The response is sufficient but there are a number of weaknesses present.  

 

3-4 

The response is of poor quality and there are significant weaknesses present. 

 

1-2 

The response is of very poor quality with major deficiencies and little relevant detail provided.

 

 

Question 3.  Technical approach and innovation 

 

What approach will you take and where will the focus of the innovation in the context of the DSbD software ecosystem be? 

 

  • what your contribution is in terms of enriching the Morello Stacks or expanding overall support including: 
  • how you plan to manage the dependencies of your approach with respect to the Morello Stacks existing and evolving functionality 
  • why and how the targeted software stack and components will benefit the DSbD software ecosystem, if you aim to expand overall support 
  • how the proposed work will align with the identified need and challenge;  
  • the project objectives and how you will evaluate those, including performance requirements 

 

9-10 

The response is compelling and credible in its description of contributing to the enrichment of the Morello Stacks or expanding overall support. There is a clear and credible articulation of how the application plans to manage the dependencies with respect to the Morello Stacks’ existing and evolving functionality. In expanding overall support, the response clearly describes why and how the targeted software stack and components will benefit the DSbD software ecosystem.      

 

The response clearly explains how the proposed work will align with the identified need and challenge. The technical objectives are clearly defined and in a logical structure. There is a clear and credible evaluation methodology against these objectives. Performance requirements to evaluate the performance impact of using DSbD technologies are clearly defined and consistent with the evaluation methodology.      

 

7-8 

The response is good but a small number of weaknesses are present.  

 

5-6 

The response is sufficient but there are a number of weaknesses present.  

 

3-4 

The response is of poor quality and there are significant weaknesses present. 

 

1-2 

The response is of very poor quality with major deficiencies and little relevant detail provided. 

 

 

Question 4. Team and resources 

 

Who is the project team, what are their roles and responsibilities? 

 

  • the role and responsibility of all members of the project team (both named and to be hired) and how they contribute to delivery of the project 
  • justify the use of any external parties, including sub-contractors  
  • justification for the requested quantity of Morello prototype hardware boards both on premise or remotely accessed  

 

9-10 

The response is complete and credible in its description of the role and responsibility of all members of the project team (both named and to be hired) and of how they will contribute to the delivery of the project. Justification of external party usage, including sub-contractors, is clear and sound. The justification for the requested quantity of Morello prototype hardware boards, both on premise or remotely accessed, is complete and commensurate with the technical approach and objectives.  

 

The capabilities and track record of the team demonstrate their ability to deliver the project within the proposed budget and schedule.       

 

7-8 

The response is good but a small number of weaknesses are present.  

 

5-6 

The response is sufficient but there are a number of weaknesses present.  

 

3-4 

The response is of poor quality and there are significant weaknesses present. 

 

1-2 

The response is of very poor quality with major deficiencies and little relevant detail provided. 

 

 

Question 5. Impact 

 

What are your routes to impact of your contribution?  

 

  • your project’s research and development outputs; how and where will your outputs be made available both prior to and on the availability of commercial hardware 
  • how will these outputs impact the growth of the DSbD software ecosystem  
  • how will you manage any dependencies, including any intellectual property (IP) constraints, related to achieving the impact of your outputs
  • how the consortium expects to interact with relevant groups developing DSbD technologies and engage with the DSbD networking workshops organised by the ‘Discribe’ Social Science Hub+ project 

 

9-10 

The project’s research and development outputs are clearly defined and commensurate with the proposed technical approach. The availability of project outputs along with how they will be made available to others using a Morello board and on the availability of commercial hardware are clearly described. The response articulates how the project outputs will impact the growth of the DSbD software ecosystem. Management of dependencies, including any IP constraints, related to achieving the impact of project outputs is well described and complete. The response is realistic in its description of interacting with relevant groups developing DSbD technologies and in engaging with the DSbD networking workshops.        

 

7-8 

The response is good but a small number of weaknesses are present.  

 

5-6 

The response is sufficient but there are a number of weaknesses present.  

 

3-4 

The response is of poor quality and there are significant weaknesses present. 

 

1-2 

The response is of very poor quality with major deficiencies and little relevant detail provided. 

 

 

Question 6.  Project and risk management 

 

How will you manage and execute the project effectively? 

 

  • an outline of each work package of the project, indicating the lead partner assigned to each and allocation of budget and resources 
  • your management structure and reporting 

 

9-10 

Work package descriptions, including the lead partner assigned to each and allocation of budget and resources, are complete and in a logical structure. The management structure and reporting is clearly described and commensurate with the scale and complexity of the project. The project plan is complete with clearly defined technical deliverables and measurable milestones. The project plan’s level of detail enables identification of any link or dependencies between work packages and tracking of associated tasks. The risk register identifies major technical risks along with planned mitigation measures that are clearly defined and feasible.      

 

7-8 

The response is good but a small number of weaknesses are present.  

 

5-6 

The response is sufficient but there are a number of weaknesses present.  

 

3-4 

The response is of poor quality and there are significant weaknesses present. 

 

1-2 

The response is of very poor quality with major deficiencies and little relevant detail provided. 

 

Question 7.  Justification of resources 

 

How much will the project cost and how does it represent value for money for the team and the taxpayer? 

 

  • the total eligible project costs and why they are required to meet the objectives of the proposal 
  • the total grant you are requesting and how each partner will finance their contributions to the project 
  • the balance of costs and grant across the project partners 
  • how this project represents value for money for you and the taxpayer
  • how it compares to what you would spend your money on otherwise 
  • any sub-contractor grant costs and why they are critical to the project. A strong justification is required if the sub-contractor is non-UK based 

9-10 

The project’s total eligible costs are realistic and commensurate with the technical approach and the project and risk management approach. The requested total grant is evident and there is clear justification of how each business partner will match fund their contributions to the project. The balance of costs and grant across the project partners is well justified and appropriate for the project delivery. The project represents very good value for money compared to alternative approaches outlined, including doing nothing and project partners spending their money otherwise. The need for any subcontractors is justified and corresponding costs are justified and appropriate to the total eligible project costs. There is strong justification for any non-UK based subcontracting.            

 

7-8 

The response is good but a small number of weaknesses are present.  

 

5-6 

The response is sufficient but there are a number of weaknesses present.  

 

3-4 

The response is of poor quality and there are significant weaknesses present. 

 

1-2 

The response is of very poor quality with major deficiencies and little relevant detail provided.