Session (3/3) - Scanning for Solutions: The PRoTECT project's approach
7:58AM Jul 17, 2020
I think we can start.
good morning, everyone. We will wait just one more minute
Okay, great. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the THIRD web seminar on the protection of public spaces in the framework of protect project. My name is Pilar de la Torre. I'm here with my colleague Tatiana Morales, and we represent the European Forum for Urban Security in the PRoTECT Consortium. For those who don't know EFUS, we are the only European network of local or regional authorities dedicated to European security. It includes nearly 250 members from 16 European different countries. The management of public security, security of public spaces has been central topic for municipalities and regional authorities, the protection of public spaces has become an important topic for our network since terrorism have been a reality in many European countries. In the last decade, we have observed urban cities from all sizes have been affected by terrorism. So that's why EFUS participates in projects like PRoTECT and in other initiatives that seek to support and to provide tools to local authorities to improvement of security. public space is to improvement of public space security. EFUSs was role in the project is to make make a project results accessible or known by other actors beyond the project Consortium, but also to share lessons learned and promote cooperation and exchange with other similar initiatives. With this end, we organized a series of seminars in coordination with the Dutch Institute for Technology, Safety and Security (DITSS), which is the organization leader of our protect project. This web seminar is the THIRD one of the project. Due to the current situation. We are organizing this edition online. And today web seminar and title we have entitled technological a human centered solution to protect public spaces against terrorism threats. It aims to promote a discussion of the role of local authorities can play in improving security of public spaces and the challenges they are confronted with especially with regard to the use of new technologies and other kinds of solutions. They web seminar have been divided in three sessions. The first one that took place on Wednesday was a high level discussion one panelist representative from representing the European Commission to the helm. Local secure local or regional governments in the framework of The Urban Agenda, practitioners field escape we had analysts discussed how to cooperate with different stakeholders in order to mitigate emerging challenges. From the interesting discussion, it emerged that concrete being used mechanisms and tools for enhancing cooperation at the multiple levels to exist, offer a number of possibilities for exchange and dialogue. during this session was also on was also note that ways to make a such cooperation effective still needed and have to be seen as an ongoing debate as a number of local authorities still experiencing some difficulties in establishing a public private partnerships due to a series of legislative and administrative barriers and the divergence are in operational procedures and working cultures.
The second session held just today, it was dedicated to the existing practices used by by local authorities. We had a presentation of an overview of the identified best practices by protect project, followed by two case studies implemented by municipalities. The first one was the saboteur project from the Metropolitan Police of London. And the second one was the Berlin model for a super recognizer indication presented by Berlin police and the University of framework. interesting insight from yesterday's session such there is no one size fits all solution available among market Academy and municipalities approaches on technology. That technological solutions are part of a range of complimentary solution. Use protecting public spaces and they should be not considered on their own. important to pay attention to pay more attention to human centered solution invest in train staff were able to associate communities and private sectors. Working with community is a vital part of the protection of public spaces. And also, it was mentioned that when selecting a solution, it is important to ensure that it does not have the opposite effect on people feeling of insecurity. Today, in our words, our third and last session, we will focus on some of the protect tools to support local authorities in the evaluation and selection of accurate solution to respond to the mitigation of public spaces vulnerabilities. In the session, the solution that protect project cities have selected to demonstrate in the public spaces will be announced. Before giving the floor to our partner to our project partners, our colleague and BBN rambin back from this will present some house rules and then I will give the floor to Peter van de Crommert, who will present very quickly the project project. Vivian.
Good morning everyone. First of all, I would like to thank everyone that has been in the first two webinars for actively asking questions. They were very interesting. And I would urge you to, to do so also today. We have a q&a option which you can find below in your zoom window. If you click that q&a option, it will go to the q&a window. Whenever you ask us a question one of our hosts will reply to you. And our host might ask you if you would like to ask that question live, if you wish to do so they will give you the floor and you can Ask it through your microphone. Click Next slide. If you are experiencing technical issues, you can either ask a question in the q&a or email me at Vivian Ben's have many disciplines now and I will help you. Okay.
Thank you, baby. I know, Peter, the floor is yours.
The mic is muted. Okay.
Okay for those at issue in this webinar for the first session or for this session, and we're not in session one and two, and I think it's good that I give a quick overview of what the projects project is about. We are a project that is funded by the European Commission via the isfp funds, which is the internal security funds police. And the protects project is there to strengthen the municipalities and their capabilities in protecting public spaces by by putting in place, a concept where tools technology, but also training and demonstrations will eventually lead to a sort of a situational awareness that that can be resulted from all this tools and training and demonstrations into a more secure public space. Pre so before in an after a terrorist threat. That was the challenge that we took on as a project and as a consortium And if you go to the next slide, then you can see the consortium members, which the core for our purposes are, of course, the actual local authorities, municipalities that are involved. And we have the luck that we have five beautiful cities like ain't over mala galleries are Vilnius and rush off who are being supported by research technology and industry partners coming from also more or less the same countries. So, today you will get a presentation from from TNO about the evaluation framework and later on from Tamiya about the RFI process. And then I will present the results of this RFP process at the end of the session.
So the core of our project implementation is threefold. The first and the last work packages are more supporting to accomplish what we had in mind. And, but the real work has been done or will be done in work like a stew, which was in 2019. We executed together with those five cities and supporting partners, a vulnerability assessment workshop or actually five workshops in the five cities
where we looked at the vulnerability
in public spaces, if it comes to soft targets. And together with the cities, we identified, what the vulnerabilities were and what potential measures were to mitigate this vulnerability, then work back is three which is ongoing, I would say until today, more or less Is the technology assessment? Well, we published a request for information. Some people in the audience actually participated in this. So but for those who didn't, we published this request for information to find an alternative solution solutions that might help the local authorities in mitigating the vulnerabilities and being better prepared before in an after a terrorist threat. So that's worth like three. And then for the second half of this year, we will move on to actually the demonstrations in the five cities where we will execute well demonstrations by the by the selected solution providers in those five cities for a proof of concept
And the expected impact that we are aiming for is that after all projects, we will also deliver a roadmap for all European cities to be used and to create awareness that local authorities can work on on a better protection of public spaces using security concepts and the use of technology. And in particularly, we didn't choose for the for the metropolitan cities like like, let's say Berlin, Paris, London, Madrid and others, but more for the cities that have a well and a number of inhabitants somewhere between 200 and 500,000 people. So and that for them. We would like to share best practices and lessons learned that have actually been learned by those bigger cities, who actually also had How do you say the the disadvantage of actually having terrorist attacks in their cities. And so to learn from that, and to hand over that, that knowledge is also an important part of our project. And last but not least, we would like to work on a more permanent collaboration between the local governments and law enforcement using the existing networks that are in place already for that. And within our project, we have alerts and aphis Ls is a European network for law enforcement agencies for technology services, and aphis has been explained by by Pilon, just in the beginning as a up In forum for urban securities, where they have 250 European cities as a member of their organizations. So just In short, that's what the protect project is about. So let's move to the actual program or unless. There you go.
Thank you, Peter. As I have mentioned before today's session, we will present the protection project tools to support local authorities in the evaluation and selection of solutions. As a speaker as represented by feature in the framework of the project, we seek to provide local authorities with the tools that facilitate their action on the protection of their public spaces, ranging from the identification of their budget abilities to the identification, evaluation and selection of solution that allowed them to prevent or mitigate the impact of the terrorist attack. threats. Today, we will start we presented the technological technology evaluation framework, our partners brain bank board, house and from Netherlands organization of for Applied Science Research to know we present an overview of the tool which aims to facilitate a facilitated evaluation of potential technological solution for the improvement of public space security. After that, our partner your knees, just your case from the Center for security studies in Greece as we come in, will present a request for information which is a method of method for collecting information about specific issues or facilitating decision making the scanning of solution. After that, we will have a session have questions and answers and at the end of this session, the announcement The selected technological solution coming out for the AI will be presented by Peter again. So without further delay, I would like to give the floor to Graeme.
Thank you very much, Peter, for the introduction and good morning everyone attending this session. Yes, I'm going to give a short presentation on the framework that we developed for, for protect for evaluating technology. I'll just switch over to the presentation as we go.
here we go.
Okay, there we go.
Just quite familiar with soon, but I guess this changes No, it doesn't.
Okay, there we go.
So, as we developed the we call it the TIF technology valuation framework to evaluate potential solutions for a vulnerability in public and public space of interest basically identified by the council or a municipality as some place that has maybe a vulnerability against terrorist threat. def was developed to be used by municipalities and usually in conjunction with various stakeholders within the municipality. As mentioned here, urban planners, security departments crime prevention unit, municipalities have various names throughout Europe. They call these functions but generally they're there. They're covered by this. The framework was developed to take care of actually one vulnerability at a time. So it's important that the council decides which vulnerabilities specifically in a particular event or a particular square has to be addressed. And then the idea is that the framework is applied then just to find technology, and to evaluate technology for this one particular vulnerability. important part of the of the using the framework is actually identifying the participants. These could be people from within the municipality but also outside we'll get into that a little bit later. There are various steps in the framework and over these steps, many are optional. They can be applied to various degrees and not all of the team of expert members will actually be carrying out all the steps in the framework. Now there are eight steps and total as I said them some are optional has also mentioned a little bit earlier on as that there is something called the vet vulnerability assessment tool, which was also was actually an EU product that we developed in the context of protect, it's necessary to apply the framework that you have to have already done a vulnerability assessment and you could use for this the vulnerability assessment tool. Basically, the steps taken by the tool are as mentioned in the green boxes here. you characterize the the, the site and the current security measures. You look into scenarios that could exploit the vulnerabilities and you've assessed the wrong wrong liabilities. This will give you a list of basically To list off vulnerabilities and maybe some priority, the psi as the public space of interest, which is this particular, very specific place a very specific event. The vulnerability assessment will deliver you a number of vulnerabilities and maybe prioritize. This is the set of vulnerabilities that you enter the framework with the basic groups of functions of the framework expressed below on the orange areas. Basically, you're going to choose one of the vulnerabilities. As I mentioned earlier, the framework just tackles one vulnerability, you determine some characteristics of of the various solutions. This gives you an idea like where you should think of in lines of a solution. Do you want a some software solution or do you want an actual Physical solution. These are things you have to discuss with the team and make decision on. Within project, we developed a project cube, which is basically a collection of threat types and associated solutions. And these can help you to decide which which direction you want to take your solution.
fourth group of steps is acquiring the solution information. Basically, this is the ROI area, which we'll get into later on. We'll talk about that. So there are various solutions out there and you have to get some information about them. And eventually, maybe you want to demonstrate some solutions. And this all happens in this area. The last group of functionality within the TIF is evaluating the solutions. We'll get into that a little bit. more detail later on the the end of the whether the TIF actually delivers to you is some Well, hopefully, at least one solution which is a viable for solving or mitigating the vulnerability that you started off with. There will be some recommendations maybe how to apply the solution or some conditions in which the solution can be applied. They can also result from the framework. As mentioned earlier, there is a team of experts formed from municipal D staff and outsiders. But they're all people involved in this particular public space of interest. Functional descriptions of these are given in the framework document. But you can imagine, I guess it's pretty well self explanatory. The event organizer of course, it can be someone within the municipality of Google services. From outside of course there is police have to be involved in are involved in the protection of the area generally, and should also be seen as someone who you might want on the team or some of the steps, maybe not all steps but some of them. And then there is a security manager and this could also be someone inside the municipality also could be an external partner.
The steps, I hope it's visible, it's difficult to get them all onto one screen.
There are eight steps in total. You will see some of the elements on the left which you saw in the earlier diagram. The first step is actually describing the vulnerability that you want to address.
This has various different aspects to it.
Well, as I said, you end up the the framework with a list of vulnerabilities and you have to make slowly Which one do you actually want to go out and get solutions for, it's a very time consuming process or going through these steps, it could take you months even if you're getting to organizing demonstrations. So and there's a lot of effort being put in by you and all your partners. So you want to focus on one form or ability. And step one, it's important to describe that vulnerability and as much detail as possible giving a tech scenarios description of the what actually the capability is that that you find is lacking. There could be a physical measure or there could be some software or it could be a communication issues you have at the site.
It could be detecting a threat.
These you have to describe in some detail. This will be used in the other steps, especially in the communications with a solution providers because you will have to be able to tell them what you're looking for. And basically step one is describing the vulnerability Step two is setting out goals. For the evaluation process, what do you hope to get out of it? These will be later on when you get to writing the conclusion step eight, you want to be able to say the goals have been met of your evaluation. Everyone should be clear about what you hope to achieve with the evaluation. And this is taken care of basically by describing it in step two. There also be all kinds of requirements, these are not necessary requirements to the solution itself. But requirements. Well, they can be but generally the requirements for the whole evaluation process. Do you have requirements regarding the solution providers themselves and their particular types? Do you want very innovative technology that has maybe anybody familiar with the term TRL technology readiness level? Do you want proven technology or something that's maybe very much new but maybe not quite so proven? operationally, these things you've got to decide on and define and step two of the of the framework. Move on to Step three. There, you will choose how you're actually going to evaluate these solutions. It could be that you've defined some solution requirements and step two, and you wish to test them as part of the issue metiria. It could be that you have constraints on the amount of money, the budget that you want to spend on them, or delivery times or there could be many things, maybe you're looking at specific
physical measures, or the consequences for your organization. If you are going to implement this solution. These are things that you have to decide when you're choosing the criteria for what you're going to how you're going to evaluate The solutions. Step four is getting information from the providers in this step, that basically is the ROI. It involves writing a document that you're going to provide to them. That could be through a website, or it could be through email or various options. Of course. Basically, you want to announce that you're doing this process, then you want to gather the information from them, maybe if it's some physical measure, maybe you want to provide the providers with the possibility of having a site visit to familiarize themselves with this particular vulnerability or a particular
public space of interest.
They might also have some questions about the document that you wrote the announcement, so maybe you should provide them provide the providers with possibility to ask questions and then some answers. This is not an acquisition. But it is following sort of the rules of fairness of an acquisition. So there should be enough opportunity for each provider to get the information they want. And the information should be shared with all the providers equally. From that, we move into evaluating the information as provided by the providers. So this is basically a paper exercise that's looking at the information that they provided generally specifications on the products and deciding whether they meet or to what degree they actually meet the required valuation criteria that you set out to use. Also here you can weigh evaluation criteria. So some things you might find more important than others. And eventually this will give a scoring system more scores for each solution. This can be seen in parallel to six and seven. There are actually three types of integration. That's the framework covers is the paper exercise, which is step five. There are Step six, which I'm going to move to now is the operational use. And there is step seven, which is actually the demonstration these three Step five, stick, Step six, and step seven. Three can be seen as three ways. Looking at it from three different sides, if you like, of how you can evaluate the solution. As I said, Step five is the paper exercise just based on information get from the five. Step six, is looking at an operational use maybe through for instance, tabletop exercises. So you have your, your solutions. For each solution. You're gonna run some exercises with some people in your organization about how This product will work out if it is used. Do you need extra personnel to use this product? What is the information that the police get if they're involved at all in this product? What does need to be set to set up? will it give the information you require timely? These things you do just a little operational exercise quite often tabletop exercises are used for this. Step seven is evaluate evaluation through demonstration. So you have looked at the paperwork and maybe decided okay is these three of the five really great done the operation and use exercise and come to the conclusion that two of the three are really great. And now you end up with the possibility to demonstrate say those two solutions as for the one vulnerability, so in step seven, you will you will look into actually doing a demonstration And seeing what the result of that is for all these 356 and seven, you're set separate goals for the evaluation process, and you will evaluate or assess whether you've met that goal or not. That applies to the operational use. And that applies to the demonstration. So also in the demonstration phase, goals will be set. And at the end of the demonstration, you'll see whether the goals have been met or not. The final step of the framework is writing a conclusion. In fact, you'll just be looking at the three above mentioned reports from the three evaluate types of evaluation. Again, they're not they're optional, so it's not you, you have to do the favorites and you have to do operational use and you have to do the demonstration. You can decide what's best. And if you're only looking at say one solution, and you have already seen a demonstrated then you might not need the demonstration at all. And the end, you will write the conclusion including the results from the three separate evaluations. processes, and you will look back at the original goals that you set for the whole evaluation process and report on that. So, that will also include any recommendations or findings regarding maybe one product or maybe two or three products that have gone through this whole thing. Eventually you will also address our effects. is the is the vulnerability satisfactorily mitigated? That's basically the the framework. I don't know whether any questions
there is not any questions yet. And and I propose that you did you finish your presentations.
explained that all but there were there was just this this last slide, which is the what I've just described just in writing.
I suggest that we finish this presentation and we can jr with the commands presentation and then we will open the floor for potential questions.
Thank you very much.
Okay, thank you. Thank you very much for presenting the test. I think this is a useful tool to avoid potential technologies. With distill, I think municipalities can determine determine what degree existing produce cool mitigate a specific vulnerability as you mentioned, we can evaluate, we can treat vulnerability about at the time. So when these municipalities they were able to produce recommendation concerning the use today, the specific solution to mitigate essentially cific a vulnerability and I think for this will facilitate the decision making process when selecting a solution. So I will like to give the floor to command
Hello, hello, hello, very much. This is Yanis casualties from Kima. And we are going to be providing a general overview of the Request for Information process that we run in the context of from protect, for evaluate for, let's say, focusing and pinpointing exactly what Graham just explained to us any solutions available in the market and or research area available for facilitating local governments into addressing
Any vulnerabilities that they have?
Let's see indicated Well,
what is an ar fi basically, it aims it constitutes a flexible method for collecting information. about specific issue doesn't actually have to do with, with the with the context of protect. However, this tool can be this method can be adapted and has been adapted for the purposes of our project into scanning for solutions to a given security problem that we have identified as, as being in scope of our project on the basis of vulnerability assessments. In this regard, local governments may be able to exploit the verify methodological approach towards identifying ideas basically, for addressing threats, mitigating risks, and in generally enhancing the sense of security not only to the not only achieved, let's say the level of security by the law enforcement agencies and all stakeholders being responsible for this high Moreover, enhancing the general sense of security to citizens. Furthermore, this tool could be used for evaluating and prioritizing basically the identified solutions and aiming in the end to proceed to the validation No demonstration of those solutions that are more that are deemed to be more suitable for its local government.
So summarizing, and
the quest for information could prove to be useful for ultimately, as we have said, increasing the sense of security to the general public. Identifying and increasing the cost efficiency and cost effectiveness of the security measures either being currently applied and or how these are going to be affected through the potential exploitation of investigated solutions. At the stage prior to actually exploiting those Moreover, this could, let's say, provide An early indication on improving the law enforcement state law enforcement agencies for
for addressing attacks let's say. Furthermore, we could in generally select solutions to be demonstrated and identify whether there are solutions to given for a built in the first place. This presentation will be divided in three main sections. These refer to the RFP process characteristics, the valuation guidelines and then we will conclude through a question and answers section. Now, the edify process in the context of protect has been based into the level Have a regulatory, let's say document, detail process description document that was written in order to provide interested parties with all the context of what we have been looking for, and how we were to let's say, prioritize the solutions that have participated in the process. This prioritization, this, let's say regulatory document has been greatly has greatly reflected the needs and the and the research context that was dictated by the municipalities reflecting their individual particularities. Visit regards. The certified document has provided all participation valuation details that were beyond others communicated to the participants in a clearly clearly defined context. And also the actual demonstration context itself. Through scenarios that, let's say describe what was actually needed. The aim was to locate high TRL solutions and ideas that could address the demonstration needs. And when we say high TRL solutions were mean, those that were at demonstratable level. And selected ideas were to be compensated to become stated. Their travel costs up to a certain maximum. Now dissemination of the RFID has used various channels in order to maximize the communicated
the target audience I mean, the audience that
didn't know of the process and the complete process has been facilitated through ICT means developed by kimia. Regarding the publication, the end the receipt of interested the participants and the receipt of proposals by interested participants. Now, the demonstration aspects of the refi had accommodated hypothetical scenarios
demonstrated by the cities dictated by the cities that
have been presented in a structured way. There's a God all scenarios have been Presented have been divided into presenting, let's say the background and presented prerequisites, the actual unfolding of what is happening and the context of deployment of innovative solutions in the sense of how did each municipality expects solutions to help them address the problem. The last one of course being near merely indicative with just let's say to provide an indication of what was anticipated. In any case, abstract side characteristics have been used, not revealing sensitive info. However, they retain the two characteristics qualitative characteristics of demonstrations that would like to be received by the The municipalities the process basically a can be divided the the complete process can be divided into three large steps. As you can see, we have completed the two of them. Were now we today are completing the evaluation process and we move on to the validation step which refers to the actual delivery of the demonstrations COVID-19
well, a the ecosystem protect the ecosystem. As far as work package and actions, relevant actions are being let's say, concerned is this one where we can see that exactly. demonstration sessions are the last
The last step, the last step to be delivered.
Now, the RSI and the ICT means that facilitated the process, as we have described earlier on refers to the development of a specific web two for providing, through registration, all the necessary documentation and segmenting segmenting the process for the facility for the facilitation of the participant in two distinct steps for completing and submitting the proposal. If we were to call this that wage, it was an application basically, and that through filling in specific web forms and attaching the necessary compliance moments and additional technical info leaflets that were to clarify and further the application were possible. Upon completion of which process. It's an I am nicety generated report was produced for, let's say, combining all the submitted information and providing this information to the municipalities that were, let's say, the corresponding recipients. Now, the proposals submitted as you can see, we have received proposals from nine different countries.
these are the numbers basically of proposals that were
replying to the scenarios as dictated by each of the five participating cities. So, I would like to remind you that this process that each participants have, each participant has the opportunity to indicate to which scenario, the solution his or her solution was capable of dressing which scenario was capable of addressing. And through this scenario association with the cities its solution where was awarded to the relevant city for being evaluated. Now, the modified document did include specific evaluation mechanism that according to what Graham said had been in corporate the document God, we have to say that based on what Graham described us earlier on, we have focused into primarily steps three, four and five. In know, that have been, let's say, adapted from the general valuation framework, the general technology evaluation framework to the particularities of the specific RFP process. Now, the complete evaluation methodology is being depicted here where each of the five cities
provide a full evaluation ranked list of solutions as evaluated by each one ranking which has been aggregated and confirmed through the project success Assembly that took place a few days ago. Now, the evaluation process, if we have to focus did include the the delivery of individual workshops, evaluation workshops hosted by each of the cities. The process for each individual city comprised of a set of steps that have been communicated as guidelines to the cities beforehand and incorporated two major sets of actions that those refer to pre workshop auctions and to the valuation workshops, workshops, actions referred to the formulation of the evaluation committees that did take into consideration specific aspect aspects These are written here, we are not going to go in detail but they will be available to you through the presentation that is going to be made available after the webinar. As we have said, besides the formulation of the evaluation committees and the gathering of the participants in participating proposals, it city proceeded to the evaluation workshop where the ranking process the evaluation ranking process of the participating solutions to place through a sequence of basically three phases. Now the first phase was horizontal, check the completeness and compliance of its solutions
as regards to specific add ons
Which did check the existence of the claymation whether the whether its participation was complete in terms of info and required of prerequisite information prerequisites required and whether the response the application has been submitted in a timely manner. Phase two did focus on the assessment of solutions against
it it's relevance as perceived by the
by the evaluation committees as against the the dictated scenarios and threats, as indicated in the RFP document.
And finally, phase three
referred to the scoring of the actual responses against a set of criteria that were, let's say, based upon the technology evaluation framework and adopted as per the A as per the needs the specific needs of the process. And that was agreed among all participating municipalities, thus reaching a unified evaluation approach between the cities. So it's the where to evaluate in the end the participating solutions according to predefined and unified manner. All of these have been part of the actual RFID document and have been clearly communicated to each and every participant.
Now, in order not to
not to leave vague areas as to what each criteria was examining. These criteria have been mapped to specific fields of the forms of the ICT, two that have facilitated the submission process and have been, let's say, analyzed and described within the document available to the participants as well as the evaluation committees of what actually they correspond to and what actually they're trying to address. So was the point numerical rating scale that have been considered. So again, it's a grading eighth grade did reflect specific aspects on how well it's criteria. how well the come the investigators solution did reply to each of the aforementioned criteria. Again, this only reflects the perception of the evaluation committee. And this is how it was facilitated. Now, where we are at the moment is the 17th of July and we are now entering the more let's say practical
phase of the project for let's say arranging
the demonstrations that are going to be held in the upcoming process in the upcoming period. Following this, we will start we will enter a phase where all administrative procedures in the five sittings are going to be settled. Followed by which is going to be the demonstrations are going to take place demonstrations that are foreseen to start, let's say sometime in September and proceed up to let's say November. However, these all depend upon the situation and how this is going to be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. In any case, anything that deviates from the timeline will be timely communicated to participants in order to adopt let's say the scheduling of the task foreseen. Before we proceed to a summary of the presentations, I would like to first answer any questions and answers if there are and then proceed to the fire to the conclusion of the presentation.
Thank you. You are nice. Yes, I think we have some questions.
Yes, thank you very much.
We have received the two questions. One is concerning the test
framework so I will I will do floor to boil at Bluhm and if you could just say in two words, your your affiliation and ask the question that you have. You should now have the right to speak
All right. Hello, morning, everybody. Um, just to say, first of all really enjoying this series of workshops. It's very rewarding. Um, yeah, I think my my question on the the teff as a has largely been answered by the, the second presentation, I was just asking in the evaluations do they address multiple requirements in a systematic way, for example, trade offs with privacy, with aesthetics, social inclusion, business, friendliness, and so on. And looking at the list of evaluation criteria, I think the answer is probably yes to that one.
Yes, it definitely is. The team basically decides for you Evaluation which ones they consider most important? Maybe you don't want to evaluate everything, you can make it as difficult or as easy as you want. But if say aesthetics is important, then that will be on the list and you will assign a value to it or how you're going to evaluate it in a way to compare to the other other evaluation criteria.
Right, that's good. Okay. Should I just go on with my second question?
Yes. Is that it's more concerning the RSI.
That's right. Now, I'm having worked for a number of years with designers, they're strange bunch of people and they can be awkward and difficult for the clients, particularly around the the idea of reframing in some cases that the designers find the original requirement that the clients asked of them was later shown to be making the wrong assumptions. And an example of that. in Sydney, the rail company asked designers please can you produce an explosion resistant waste bin for us to put on our stations? The designers could have just run off and done exactly what they were asked. But being good designers, they, they grilled the clients intensively. And it turned out that what the rail company really, really wanted was to reduce the number of false alarms. So with the agreement of the clients, the original requirement was changed to include false alarm reduction, as well as harm from explosions reduction. So I've just wondered if there's any room in the RFID process for a bit of rethinking and reframing at any stage.
Well, first of all, let me clear let me clarify that the RFI process does not, let's say include or referred to a procurement process. So in this regard, we are not aiming into providing into a detailed set of technical and functional requirements, that kind of, let's say, being finalized prior to initiating any development process. So in this regard, we have let's say, a or an our phi is mainly concerned with an accurate although not an accurate, let's say problem statement. of award. Let's say you are trying to assess or address or oppose or anything In this regard, that is why we have early talked about high TRL level solutions. In this regard, we were looking into a readily or almost readily available tools that could be demonstrated through possibly, let's say,
adaptation effort to that could be, let's say, applied towards mitigating the process. So in this regard,
the RFP process
does not intend to provide, let's say,
of let's go
deep, let's say or exhaustive list of
functional requirements. That is why we have provided the demonstration leads into in the context of over scenario because we were looking of in in multiple directions. I don't know if that answers your question.
Excuse me? Um, okay. Yes, I think it
it does provide. I mean, I, I would be pleased to see some sort of, maybe downstream later in your process when you're actually engaged with the individual demonstrators. They have the opportunity for any rethinking to be built in, but the way you've explained it, the procedure so far, that seems fine. Okay.
Thank you very much, Paul. Just to let you know that in the final seminar that is planned today in the framework of a full international conference next year, we will have this feedback after the demonstrations. I have a question I allow myself to ask a question to Uranus as we have many local authorities and municipalities participated in this session. And you have already used the tool and the method on the test to evaluate solutions. And I when we were implementing the first stage that was the vulnerability assessment, I remember that we had identified some challenges that they had in terms of knowledge concerning the threats or the the existing technologies. So I was my question is where what was the main challenge for forum protect municipalities when they were using this all the time when they evaluating the solutions.
First of all, the first let's say challenge is to reach to the right mixture of criteria that surely reflect what you're trying to let's say prioritize. I would say that according to the needs and goals of each of which municipality, attention should be given to select those criteria or adopt technology valuation from this man is so that it will rank highly exactly what you're looking for. And the second, let's say challenge will be to to, let's say, endorse the right mixture of expertise within the context of the evaluation committee, you have to engage people with the sort of expertise required to identify the usefulness of which solution in the context of the evaluation process. Again, I remind that we are not talking about procurement. So we're not talking about commitment in this context here. But we need to identify the information we are looking for in this regard, so both of these challenges mentioned above need to be addressed before let's say proceeding to the before proceeding to the verify and holding on the evaluation workshops.
Thank you honest, I think we have another question. But yes, we just received a question from Nick better and to both of the speakers. So,
Nick, if you wish to take the floor, you
might want to morning. Yes.
Good morning. Good morning, both. to both panelists, please. I've been involved in similar frameworks within the UK with different challenges. But
consistent in both was the need for a strong decision maker to keep momentum in what is a change in market? Because some of these processes can take a lot of time and within that time, as Paul mentioned, things change. So you do need someone who can actually make a decision, be it financial or operational, and just to keep the momentum going.
Oh, I don't know who reactors, but go
Okay. Thank you. Yes, I totally agree. And in the in the framework, we suggested someone from an instability, but it is definitely the like the team leader who coordinates all these activities, make sure that the right people are involved in the right steps, and monitors the whole process that I've mentioned it in during the presentation, but it is a very important aspect. And this coordinator has to be on board the whole time, of course. And yeah, and yeah, and wants to monitor the process. Yes, things do change. Also, as Paul mentioned, sometimes you have to rethink things halfway. And maybe do it differently. Maybe all the solutions that you get, or the feedback that you get from the market is not exactly solving your problem and what are you going to do next? And these are very important
steps that have to be taken.
man add something here fully agree with both of you. The The particularity of our case has been, however to that we have a specific a limited, let's say timeline in order to reach to solutions and looking in multiple directions. Again, we have, let's say, engaged five different cities to perform this task into, let's say, a specific amount of time. I fully agree with Nick that process even can can follow the market for long periods of time. So yes, a motivator and moderator or facilitator of the process is required in order to keep up the momentum. So yes, I would agree with you.
Thank you very much.
If I may add,
And since this project project is aiming at looking at new, innovative solutions, and which for local governments also is a challenge because they also look at how operational is a solution at the moment. And we sometimes got applications for solutions that were not yet already on the market, although most of them were. And what you see during the evaluation committees that that problem owners who should be in charge, and indeed should show strong leadership in looking for the solutions that have the best and the highest rate of success and they are not always just Looking at the innovative side, more on the practical and operational side, so that was within the the evaluation committee is always a discussion. Okay. Are we now looking at something that can be bought tomorrow? Or are we something that we think wow, if this would work, then it would help enormously, but it's not available today. So there's always a balance there on how we assessed that information. hope you understand and again, we, the RTI process is not about procurement, it's about looking at possible solutions that could be used in the future to mitigate the terrorist threats in public spaces and soft targets.
Thank you, Peter. As we don't have any more question, I suggest that Thank you. I noticed you, I think you have another part of your
Yes. I only have just a summary table to conclude the presentation with it's only that the verify constitutes, let's see basically what has been used as a flexible tool for scanning solution to given security problem. It can be used for facilitating the decision making process the words exactly defining a future strategy according to the organization that exploits it, that definition of future strategy of course, for each of the municipality has not fallen scope or protect it only. There's a limited set of prerequisites. Of course, we have covered most of the Through the discussions earlier on, referred to NACA problem statement, we have to make sure that we engage the right mixture of resources. And we, we, let's say for si E, an accurate process, risk mitigation plan because timelines can slip. And in order to, let's say, take longer than planned, we have to foresee certain actions and And finally, an ICT means for facilitating the whole process would be I wouldn't say a prerequisite but surely
a big plus.
For let's say, reaching accurately and easily To the desired outcome. That's all from my side. Thank you very much for your time.
Great, thank you. Thank you very much. You're nice. I think you have made a great conclusion. And we're going to repeat.
Now we like to give the floor to Peter
to announce the selected technological solutions coming out for from the Request for Information process.
Thank you, pillar.
And thank everybody in the audience for being there.
Just to let you know, sort of picked up Do you have around 1517 minutes?
Yeah, I know.
I will try to do it. Wait a minute.
There you go. Okay,
so some in the audience are actually representing the solution providers that participated in this request for information. So I'm pretty sure they are anxious to hear the results.
let's try to do it as quickly as possible. Let me change my screen a little bit. Yeah. So as Graham and a Lana's already explained the whole process and not going through in those kind of details. And, and, as mentioned, each municipality had its own independent evaluation committee, and they use the evaluation framework for evaluating all the incoming solutions that were given to them. So and that also meant that the Evaluation workshops took place in different dates. And you can see the dates, some of them used two days, I was actually three and some were able to do it in one day. And as you can see, and I know for the most of them, they started with a virtual meeting and then had a physical meeting. And the picture shows the workshop in Larissa and and the results of these five individual evaluation committees from the five cities were then being discussed during the General Assembly we had a couple of days ago in coming up with a final list of solution providers that will be invited to perform a demonstration proof of concept in that city. And although some solutions were selected by more than one city. We decided based on optimizing the project results and the efficiency of spending the available funds to give as many as possible solution providers the opportunity to demonstrate that solution in one of the five cities. So,
as mentioned before, we had
quite a lot of proposals we were pleased with the results. They, the solution providers could indicate for which of the scenarios cities, that project could be a solution. So you see the number of proposals, we get the evaluation workshops, we did the aggregation during the General Assembly and the results I will show you now city by shitty trying to explain In one or two sentences due to the time, what the solution is. So, the results final results aggregated results for the city of Larissa, which in the document was explained to scenario one is that the following five providers will be invited by the city of Larissa to come and demonstrate. So,
I know some of you are in the call
to go into a little bit more detail.
This presentation will be available somewhere at the beginning of next week, so you can read all the text in more detail. We will also of course, give all the details in the deliverable which will be published, about the ROI process and the results. And just for all solution providers, it's good to know that you will also be mentioned in the roadmap documents which will be provided at the end of the project. And we will make a sort of a white paper or booklet out of it, so that we can share it with all our European cities. So, CARICOM and with a solution called qR portal. And it's it's sort of an online guarding and patrolling tool to help law enforcement agencies, first responders and other security companies to monitor their premises and equipment in a well in a specific way. The second solution here and the order is random is A company called Nissan, they have a situational, situational awareness platform that makes it possible to stream all sorts of incoming Life video and data
and build a situational awareness.
And on top of that, and sorry, my own pictures into a full text and, and to use that, of course in in getting a good overview of what's going on at a certain and public space and during a certain event that is taking place in that public space. And ex VR simulation is a organization that has developed a virtual reality training tool more or less, and they have offered three different types of modules on top of there. Basic module which is called on scene. And the first one is that they have an interdisciplinary environment to jointly coordinate and simulate scenario thinking using these virtual reality tools and this the combining it with the E learning edition that so they don't need to actually join in civic space. And the third module is that they actually do a head mounted device, library virtual reality glass, so they can train on side the scenario. So it's either either running or it's on side with the HDMI HMD device. The fourth one is epi stack international trading. They have a sort of a human security rating. AR which is a tool with with a two pillars where where where people have to pass and then automatically real time scans
security reasons. So this will be demonstrated in the city of Larissa, together with a fast protect, they have a solution called Terra 4d, which is geo referenced security safety management. And it's about blending attacks and presenting information in a simplified 3d geographical context. So allowing decision makers to visualize and correlate and all sorts of intelligence in via geo Geographical Information Technology. So those four are invited to demonstrate in the city of Russia. I will. Later on I will explain more about the invitation process, the city of Andover. We have also five different solution providers that will be invited to come demonstrate that solution in the city of Andover. first of them is Northgate public services. They have a ICT solution software solution in combination with just a v two which is called Neo face. We have V notion. We have sarama and we have a company called Audi test. And we have first responder going into details here and the North Gate. VO face watch in combination with the enhanced video analytics is about real time facial recognition and behavior analytics using Of course CCTV. And they do crowd estimation and object detection. Free notion is a little bit in the same line of business, but they will implement or demonstrate an AI based product, which is capable of monitoring the movement of people and also bicycles and vehicles in an urban environment. And they are going to try to do that via one camera instead of multiple CCTV cameras. So interesting to see those two solutions. We have so Rama and they have developed over the past year is a so called ceramic listener platform, which is actually sort of Sound camera. So they listen using a device with 64 microphones, they listen to the public domain, I mean the public space without Of course listening to speech but they can detect and loud or x How do you say accelerating vehicles, aggressive, angry people breaking glass also attacking drones if they listen to the to the to the sky. So all sorts of sounds that that are not usual in a safe and attractive environment. Very interesting to see what comes out of that demonstration. And I did this a company from Cyprus and developed a tool for incident reporting and awareness screen. Interesting for that is that it provides a collaborative environment of communication between law enforcement agencies and the public. So it's not only one way but it's also bi directional. Communication between law enforcement and the public, in situations of incidents and crisis is like a terrorist attack. But also, potentially, of course, reporting suspicious situations prior to an attack, so law enforcement and security services can be prepared. The fifth solution to be demonstrated in ain't over is a solution coming from first responder technologies, which is actually a Canadian organization, they have developed are developing a solution where
Crowds pass also sort of a pillar or bullets. And, and in those bullets they have Wi Fi components that are well they claim that are actually able to detect concealed firearms or other weapons. And very interesting to see how that works. So
that was an over
Malaga city of Monica the third city and they selected the following five organizations a arm spana gradient. And there is one I probably stumble in selections is the two of us. Security. That's a bad app. do that properly pillar MC two technologies and martial mono Ltd quite different types of solutions although here they are focusing a little bit more on the drones and on physical various going a little bit into detail arrow, they have a sort of a tool that is able to control all types of drone operations in real time remotely and they have also been developing this this product called civilian which is a drone operation network environment. gradient. They have developed a counter
Unmanned Aerial system
So that they can actually let me see, it's difficult to keep the difference between all the solutions that I've read. And yeah, they use different sensors and effectors in and combined in a command and control environment with visualization, and capabilities. So it's interesting to see how those two arrows and gradient are actually complementing each other or competing. For me that's not clear at the moment. Very interesting to see how that will be demonstrated in Malaga. And so the third one, this again in solutions to security that cabana and solution providers, they developed the ball attack which is a
device that can be
very easily positioned at a certain location and during an event. It's a mobile device which is of steel and concrete but also operates 24 hours so it has some technology inside of it.
Also interesting to see how that works
MC two technologies with the solution called Neeraj. It's it's a jammer so they can interrupt commercial drones and like a sort of a rifle that they aim at the drone and then jam the frequencies in preventing a potential attacking drone and to to operate as the terrorists would like it to do. So, this is also interesting in combination with the first two and the last solution that will be demonstrated in Malaga is going from Marshall a UK organization they have developed a huge range of all sorts of street furniture which is definitely also capable of stopping vehicles at a high speed and and not just a simple car but also trucks and up to a certain How do you say this weight and tonnage. So, but still remaining a high aesthetic quality, and so let's say if you go to the area of designing out, crime, it's not really designing a crime it designing out a terrorist attack. This would be very interesting to look at how they design street furniture is also used to prevent a speeding vehicle to to ram and into certain event.
So, the city of fuel news in Lithuania
they selected the following five or we in for all the five cities it has to be said that this is a result also of the aggregation of the five individual cities, but they have selected Herta Smith detection web IQ level five supplies and Chris Butler associated with the solutions associated to their to their organization and going into a little detail hurt I am They have a high performance video surveillance solution also with facial recognition using all sorts of biotechnical stuff, Smith detection and they have a anomaly detection which is also of course based on cameras and cbrn sensors. And then the data fusion and modeling algorithms is an important differentiator there to create situation situational awareness and decision support. Web IQ is a solution of quite a different order the so called Open Source Intelligence tool in retrieving, analyzing, categorizing information from the internet, the Darknet markets and social media in trying to scan for potential threats. But also to scan that information for after the attack and evaluating
what could be found on these
open source as well. There's not a whole open source, by the way, if you look at documents, but they also go into the document into the debts where they actually are different trading for solutions. And they build actionable intelligence that can of course, be analyzed before and after. It's interesting to see how that works. Then we have a solution called sensor from level five supplies. They do 3d perception using LIDAR sensors, and also use for security in smart city and environments for monitoring. And actually they can also use this for I'm going to doing social distancing. Solution coming from Chris Butler associates called I'm not sure if I pronounce it dr but Skype mon or C mon What do you say this and it tracks changes moving I'll be extracted signatures and auto identified during times and they have within their solution 40 or more behaviors that they can detect. Very interesting also to see so that was Vilnius.
This is just to let you know that you have a maximum two minutes I know
I'm looking at but once I stop explaining the solutions I need to give every provider the same. I know but I will continue brush off and brush off has selected the following five solutions cyber global every area of spatial and chromatic bundoora intelligence and Pittsboro Sabra and actually made a proposal where they offered what we called internally sort of a party package. They put five different types of solutions in one proposal. So they will be invited to come up with these five solutions also, which is the drone hunter and the drone killer director, which is a steel vehicle barrier. And they also have a sort of a guard tower, which can be deployed and mobile and very quickly. And they also do the first responder attack which is the same as as will be demonstrated in handover. Everest is a solution. targeted and crowded places and to scope or cover the entire security cycle, including preparation operation and post event activities. In creating situational event awareness, cromac we'll be demonstrating also in brush off, it's an early detection for a dirty bomb, which is actually radiation detection systems, both gamma and neutron. And looking at classified is tops. So, very interesting to see how this works. actually interesting to see how they are going to demonstrate it, but I'm sure they have done that before. solution for is Pandora, Pandora intelligence, and which is a new way of fighting crime and terrorism. Using scenario models that enable a lot enforcement agencies to look at historic data and actual information and come up with intelligence out of that. And the last selected organization to form and demonstration and a proof of concept is a company called mixed bro. And they use photogrammetry and 3d terrain models to prevent a threat from happening. So, those in total 25 Solutions spread over the five cities will be invited. And the next step for that will be that each municipality each of the five municipalities will contact the solution providers within the next 10 days and discussing aspects like the logistical necessity of stuff and the demonstration needs. That the providers have I mean, do they? Do they need electricity? Do they know the camera in place? Or will they bring a camera actually being installed stuff like that they will be discussing a timeline because, as you as already mentioned, it's not 100% clear at the moment when the demonstrations will take place due to the COVID-19 challenges. And so, and we also of course, will be clarified on the compensation process, which can differ from city to city, because they have their own internal procedures to handle these kind of compensation processes. And, as mentioned, 25 solution providers have been selected or solutions have been selected. And just to explain to all the properties that have not been selected and actually also for those who have been selected but also would like to demonstrate their solution in another city, they can do so at their own expense. But please let the point of contact in that city know that you would like to come and demonstrate your solution not only in the cities where you have been selected but also in the other cities. So, you can contact the point of contact as seen in the table below. The dates and locations as mentions are not yet finalized.
We have to of course, stay on top of that on a daily or weekly basis. It will be communicated timely. So, but please wait before booking your tickets until the date has been fixed. Which then of course, still with the overtime I can unfortunately BBB changed, need to be changed? I think uh, well, we will put a message on the website within an hour and saying again the solutions and the solution providers that have been selected and we will inform each solution provider about the results or whether they have been selected yes or no. Also today, so thank you for your attention and I hope I made a couple of people in the audience is happy, happy that they will be invited.
Thank you, Peter. And I would like to close this session.
Thank you to our partners to present their the toolset to presented the technological evaluation framework and also to present that there The request for information, I think this these tools can be, are very useful for local governments. And they allow them to to address their threats and mitigate the risks, but also to evaluate the solution based on a predefined evaluation mechanism, and to select some solutions in the case of protected solution that can be demonstrated. So this is an option that can increase knowledge of municipalities of what the market can be useful for them. In the case of protect, we have see, as Peter mentioned, many different solutions cover artificial intelligence technologies, sensors, donors, physical barriers with us to be as open source intelligence of different kinds of technologies that can protect us Our public spaces. Just today we mentioned also this a human center component that should balance our use of technologies. And and I think this is this is are going to be tools that can going to enrich the work of our municipal actors. Thank you so much to all for participating in the three days. Thank you for our to our audience to be here to ask questions. I would like to thanks also to our different speakers today, we had three from our protector, project command, you know, these efforts will be here have been here and also just today we have people from the Metropolitan Police of London, the police of, of Berlin. And then we have the first day, the European Commission and many other interesting speakers that enrich our discussion on the protection of political space. So to close, I would like to tell you that this is not the end, we have finalized our web seminar. But the next meeting will be and the F was international conference, and that will take place in May in November, the date is still to be confirmed. And in this conference, we will have the final event of protect. So I hope to see you to see you We hope to see you there. Also, I would like to let you know that you will receive for this afternoon an email with a feedback survey. So please help us to get better. And all PowerPoints will be posed in protect website. Thank you very much to all and hope to see you these tips. Right.
Thank you all for joining