Peer Reviewer’s Perspective

Prof Brian Turton

n  Dr R Srikant, University of Illinois,

n  Prof Kun Sun, George Mason University

n  Prof Peter Willett, University of Connecticut

§  Dr Robert Ulman, ARL, US Gov representative

n  Dr Robert Hoffman Institute for Human and Machine Cognition in Pensacola Florida.

n  Prof Sushil Jojodia, George Mason University

n  Prof Randolph Moses, Ohio State University

n  Prof Thomas Sheridan, MIT

n  Dr W Douglas Maughan, Cyber Security R&D, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and former DARPA PM for Coalition Warfare efforts

n  Dr James Llinas, State U of NY

n  Dr Ness Shroff, Ohio State University.

n  Prof Mike Underhill, formerly industry & academia

n  Prof Richard Walton, Former Director CESG

n  Prof Brian Turton, ESII Research Consortium Technical Director

n  Brett Carrier, CIBM Research Consortium Technical Director

n  Jack Lemon, UK Gov representative

n  Prof Paul Cannon, University of Bath

n  Neil Hardinge, former Assistant Director, Army Personnel Strategy

n  Dr Stephen Braim, MOD, BATCIS Delivery Team

n  Dr Andy Low, Industry specialist, FREng, FIET

n  Mr Mike Hill, MOD specialist, UK Embassy, Washington

n  Prof Ursula Martin, VP Queen Mary university

Peer Review

10 Peer reviewers on each Panel 5 UK, 5 US experts ITA research areas

From Academia, Industry and Government

Peer Review Assessment Criteria

Panel assessed each project for:

•  Scientific Quality •  Operational Relevance •  Synergistic Value of Collaboration •  Likelihood of Exploitation •  Scientific, Technology and Innovation Challenge

BLUE (Very High

Risk)

GREEN (High Risk)

AMBER (Medium Risk)

RED (Low Risk)

RED (Unacceptable)

AMBER (Fairly Good)

GREEN (Very Good)

BLUE (Exceptional)

Science Quality

Tech

nica

l Cha

lleng

e

4

2008 Results

BLUE (Very High

Risk)

GREEN (High Risk)

AMBER (Medium Risk)

RED (Low Risk)

RED (Unacceptable)

AMBER (Fairly Good)

GREEN (Very Good)

BLUE (Exceptional)

Science Quality

Tech

nica

l Cha

lleng

e

5

2009 Results

BLUE (Very High

Risk)

GREEN (High Risk)

AMBER (Medium Risk)

RED (Low Risk)

RED (Unacceptable)

AMBER (Fairly Good)

GREEN (Very Good)

BLUE (Exceptional)

Science Quality

Tech

nica

l Cha

lleng

e

6

2010 Results

BLUE (Very High

Risk)

GREEN (High Risk)

AMBER (Medium Risk)

RED (Low Risk)

RED (Unacceptable)

AMBER (Fairly Good)

GREEN (Very Good)

BLUE (Exceptional)

Science Quality

Tech

nica

l Cha

lleng

e

7

2012 Results

BLUE (Very High

Risk)

GREEN (High Risk)

AMBER (Medium Risk)

RED (Low Risk)

RED (Unacceptable)

AMBER (Fairly Good)

GREEN (Very Good)

BLUE (Exceptional)

Science Quality

Tech

nica

l Cha

lleng

e

8

2014 Results

BLUE (Very High

Risk)

GREEN (High Risk)

AMBER (Medium Risk)

RED (Low Risk)

RED (Unacceptable)

AMBER (Fairly Good)

GREEN (Very Good)

BLUE (Exceptional)

Science Quality

Tech

nica

l Cha

lleng

e

9

Combined slide All Years

High Impact Areas

§  Future Hybrid Ad Hoc Networks Guiding the development of the next generation of mobile, agile, and highly interconnected tactical networks

§  Information Fabric & Distributed Tactical Cloud Right information, at the right time, to the soldier at the edge

§  Crypto, Security and Applications Keeping coalition secrets safe for data storage, transmission, and interactive computation

§  Applications of Controlled Natural Language Simplified intelligence gathering and analysis; going beyond the semantic web capability

§  Collaborative Information Analysis and Planning Provides evidence for a justifiable course of action

Summary

§ The NIS ITA programme has been a great success, meeting the objectives of:

•  Collaboration •  Significant advances in Science & Technology •  Military value

§ Future collaborative research programmes should use this programme as a template.