1. EdReNe Strategy meeting, Copenhagen Andrew Kitchen – Senior Architect, Becta 7 th October, 2010 Europeana for Learning proposal

2. Europeana for Learning Aspects to cover… o What was the opportunity? o Why bid? o The risks! o What was in the proposal? o Why it didn’t win the approval required to proceed….this time.

3. What was the opportunity? The generic opportunity: o CIP ICT PSP call 4 o Significant funding ~30m Euros for the Digital Libraries initiative o Enhancing/Aggregating content for Europeana o A best practice network

4. What was (is) the opportunity for EdReNe/Europeana? o Bring EdReNe expertise to Europeana for the repurposing of their content within the learning society o A real focus and direction for pan-European cultural content within Education o Enable Europeana resources to be actively used by teachers and learners o A vehicle for continuing the highly valuable EdReNe network in the future o Gives EdReNe an expanded horizon with repositories outside traditional education

5. Why bid? A combination of reasons: o Why not? o There was a time window to respond to the call that could be made, even if that window was tight o Things are more difficult to do without monetary backing, so any opportunity that provided funding needs to be grasped o EdReNe funding had just ended o Current financial circumstances will unfortunately mean some organisations can no longer come to an unfunded EdReNe meeting schedule

6. The risks! Why the proposal submitted may fail to attract funding: o Scope – there was a severe risk that the proposed work was not ‘aggregating/enhancing’ Europeana in the way the European Commission envisaged… o Time – everything was written in the space of about 5 days… o Quality – everything associated with turning around a 100+ page proposal in 5 days…

7. What was in the proposal? The basics: o A ‘Best Practice Network’, by definition o 3 years o 13 partners o Led by the Collections Trust (UK Europeana aggregation lead) o 7 work packages (1 project management, 3 content enhancement, 2 strategy and user alignment, 1 wider engagement and advocacy)

8. The aims and objectives of the proposal (1) o Work with identified scientific heritage resource providers to aggregate their content into Europeana o Provide support and advisory services to help a wider range of content sources contribute to Europeana o Proactively seek to align national and European policy for cultural content and the learning society o Develop an EfL Commons to support commercial & non-commercial use of Europeana content for learning

9. The aims and objectives of the proposal (2) o Provide facilities & tools which enhance Europeana content for use by the learning society o Produce validated scenarios and use cases for the use of Europeana content for learning o Engage with established national and European networks and communities of practice o Develop models and approaches to promote the sustainability of these outcomes

10. Why it didn’t win the approval required to proceed….this time. Why the proposal submitted may fail to attract funding: o Scope – the severe risk was well predicted and realised! o Positive about the overall concept just not in scope…. o Various comments surrounding IPR/licensing of the content and the approach to project management. o Evaluator was ‘unsure’ of the potential to secure the content detailed within the proposal.

11. Why we have reason to be confident at the next opportunity. o The commission were positive and constructive about the proposal’s concept. o We knew all along that this proposal was put together in a rush and that a future opportunity would be more effectively written. o Europeana are keen to ensure their content is used! o The learning society is the ideal place for their content to be used in anger. o Future calls will be more aligned to what was being proposed and therefore the severe risk will vanish….

12. Contact… Andrew Kitchen Becta Millburn Hill Road Science Park Coventry CV4 7JJ T+44 (0)24 7641 6994 F+44 (0)24 7679 7122 Eandrew.kitchen@becta.org.uk www.becta.org.uk