Complementing the Innovation Projects, a series of competitive open innovation challenges identified by problem holders and industry will be set as part of the programme.
One input to this process will be the decisions of the Selection Panel, which will judge submitted ideas to require deeper work before being ready for near-term funding. Such ideas will be fed to the IAB, which will identify suitable targets, to provide opportunities to migrate new areas of SICSA research towards the key needs of industry. Challenge Fellowships will be competed for by researchers (PhD, RA and staff) in SICSA universities and will be units of 6 months’ duration. Decisions on awards will be made by the Selection Panel, as above.
It is envisaged that challenge fellowships will be able to act as a feeder for follow-on into KTP, SEEKIT, TSB, TTOM, Scottish Enterprise Tourist Innovation funding and voucher-funded SME activity, allowing a smoother and low risk transition for development and deployment to the market place.
Previous Challenges
Our most recent challenge was in the area of Navigation.
The Smart Tourism Navigation Challenge: Groups and Narratives
Navigation encompasses several tasks. We need to orient ourselves,
explore, find destinations, and plan itineraries. Tourism, in the
cultural and heritage sectors, benefits hugely from existing systems for
physical and informational navigation. Yet there are still big
obstacles for tourists finding the sites, objects, events and
itineraries that will satisfy them.
SICSA Smart Tourism has identified two specific challenges associated
with navigation for tourists, and we'd like to invite members of the
Smart Tourism community to bid for resources to carry out some
innovative work, and feedback the results to the community. Addressing
the challenges should involve extending some current work - in areas
such as recommendation, search, groupware, mapping, semantic web, speech
systems or augmented reality. Naturally, suggested solutions should be
as cost-effective as possible!
Challenge 1 - Group navigation
Tourists often visit locations in pairs or small groups, and while
there, to plan a set of coordinated activities. Coordination doesn't
mean arriving or sticking together. When some go to the museum, others
go shopping; some go hillwalking, others go cycling; some go to an
exhibition; others catch a show. Splitting up into smaller groups can be
more satisfying, but groups of only one can lessen the fun, since much
of the pleasure in visiting a place comes from the sharing of the
experience. Yet most current tools are designed for single users,
helping them select among options and plan routes, itineraries or
schedules. As a result, when a group needs access to those tools, one
person tends to take charge. When that one person has greater experience
of the options, that can be a good thing. But because it's hard to keep
track of everyone's preferences and constraints, often the choice comes
down to the lowest common denominator - and that can mean that everyone
has an acceptable experience, but no-one has a brilliant time.
So, this is the Group Navigation Challenge:
To develop tools and/or techniques and a demonstrator that can be used
by a small group to plan and execute a diverse sequence of activities
located at a tourist destination, so as to maximise the enjoyment of the
overall group.
Challenge 2 - Narrative navigation
Tourists often visit several different places and things during a single
vacation. If the tourist is following a trail or a human tour-guide,
then the targets will often be interpreted in context: descriptions of
later targets will take into account what has been said about earlier
targets. In effect, the guide will tell a story, linking targets
together the themes, people, and ideas they touch on. Stories are a
brilliant way to help people absorb and remember novel information that
might otherwise be disorienting. Independent travellers - especially at
unstaffed sites - do not get to experience these stories, if they
diverge from a fixed trail and do without a tour-guide. They can make do
with standalone information about particular spots; but without
stories, they lack the glue that will hold that information in place,
and they may also miss out on engaging experiences that lie close by,
but out of sight.
So, this is the Narrative Navigation Challenge:
To develop tools and/or techniques and a demonstrator that can help
individuals to spin a coherent story while visiting a diverse sequence
of places and things at a tourist destination, so as to make their visit
as understandable and memorable as possible.
** Navigation Challenge Call Deadline **
The deadline for the first Challenge was 31 January 2012. This was
the final deadline in Year 1 of the Smart Tourism programme. We will
definitely fund one challenge fellowship for the best proposal
addressing one or other of the two challenges; funding and quality
permitting, we may be able to fund another proposal from this call,
later. Each fellowship will be to a value of £38k, and thus cover
approximately six months of a Grade 7 researcher's time at 80% FEC.
Researchers must be academic researchers located in a SICSA department.
The required format for proposals is at the bottom of this page - the
page count should be around 4-5 pages of A4.
Format of applications
Proposals should be mailed to sicsa-smart-tourism@sicsa.ac.uk. Each proposal
should be around 4 pages of A4, clearly covering the following
points. The aim is to keep this process lightweight: we aren't a UK
Research
Council, each project is not huge - but we do want the best of the
bunch, so
the proposal should be an opportunity to shine. Calls are open to the
SICSA community, but every proposal should have at least one of the
Smart Tourism programme's PIs as a named co-participant.
Structure of a Smart Tourism Challenge Fellowship Proposal
0. Abstract
(100 word summary)
1. This is who's handling the proposal
(Main contact …)
2. The navigation challenge
(State whether it is Group Navigation or Narrative Navigation (or both))
3. There is a specific gap
(Indicate the particular facet of the
challenge you aim to address, and sketch the state of the art, to show
why there is a gap that needs filled …)
4. We have a promising idea
(Specifically: a way of extending
existing, completed research to make demonstrable progress on the
challenge that would be clear to the community)
(EVIDENCE…)
5. We are a very strong team
(Specifically: academic(s). If a
problem holder is to be involved - for example, to share data - please
do not approach them directly at this stage unless you already have
regular contact with them. Instead, contact Alan Settery, who will
carry out any liaison.)
(EVIDENCE…)
6. Here is what we hope to achieve
(In sufficient detail that a reviewer could tell whether project met its objectives)
7. Here is how we plan to build on our idea to achieve it
(Methods, workplan, two deliverables (mid-term and final) - should relate directly to achieving the aims and objectives)
8. Here is what will happen if the project works out
(How the community benefits; how any IP will be exploited or follow-ons funded)
9. Resource requirements/constraints
- SICSA Academic(s):
- Overall value to HEI:
- Staff
costs: up to 47.5k pounds - at 100% FEC, that's roughly a Grade 7 RA
for 6 months; of this, up to 38k pounds (80% FEC) can be claimed from
SFC funds, the rest absorbed by HEI.
- Equipment costs, up to £1500, and travel costs up to £1000, can also be supported.
|