Conclusions and recommendations
Catapults
1. The Catapult network
has made a promising start, with Catapults undertaking a range
of activities in a range of fields. To capitalise on this, it
is important that best practice is shared across the Catapult
community so that existing work can be embedded more consistently
across the network, as recommended by the Hauser review. (Paragraph
11)
2. We recommend that
the Government commit to acting on the recommendations of the
Hauser review, and to securing cross-party agreement for this
action. As part of that commitment, we recommend that the Government
conduct a light touch review that identifies effective examples
of collaboration between universities and industry throughout
the Catapult network, and ensures that this information is shared
amongst interested parties to encourage and support further interaction.
This review should be driven by the National Centre for Universities
and Business and Innovate UK, building on the work of the Hauser
Review. (Paragraph 12)
Public sector procurement and the SBRI
3. In its evaluation
of the Small Business Research Initiative, the Government should
explain why it failed to meet the £100 million target for
contracts awarded through the scheme in 2013-14. It should also
use this review to assess the assumptions made in setting targets
for the scheme, in order to confirm that there is reasonable basis
for believing the £200 million target for 2014-15 can be
met. If the evaluation demonstrates that the Small Business Research
Initiative is not on track to meet its £200 million target,
the Government should make clear the corrective steps it will
take to address the underperformance. The results of this evaluation
should be made public. (Paragraph 16)
Innovate UK's funding
4. We recommend that
Innovate UK routinely publish the total number of applications,
proportion of applications that merit funding, and proportion
of applications that receive funding as part of its annual report.
We further recommend that Research Councils UK publish comparable
data on applications for, and successful securing of funding for,
their initiatives that are designed to support and promote business-university
collaboration. (Paragraph 21)
5. The Secretary of
State has set out the case for doubling Innovate UK's budget.
The Autumn Statement and planned Science and Innovation Strategy
are opportunities for the Government to give a statement of intent
about increasing funding for Innovate UK over the course of the
next Spending Review. Investing in innovation brings about demonstrable
economic returns. We therefore expect the Minister to be arguing
strongly for increasing Innovate UK's funding, in addition to
protecting the financial support for science and innovation more
broadly, in forthcoming Spending Review negotiations. Any increase
in funding for Innovate UK should not be secured by diverting
funding away from, or diminishing the remainder of, the science
budget. (Paragraph 22)
Gateway to Research
6. The Gateway to
Research was intended to help SMEs access information about the
research base. We are aware that this portal is still being developed.
However, we are concerned about the lack of a capability to monitor
who is using the Gateway, and therefore whether it is reaching
its desired audience. This capability should be developed as a
matter of priority, with the resulting data being used to inform
the Gateway's future development. (Paragraph 27)
7. We recommend that,
in its response to this report, RCUK provides details of the monitoring
and evaluation of Gateway to Research users that will be undertaken,
a timetable for data collection and an explanation as to how this
data will inform future iterations of the Gateway. (Paragraph
27)
Collaborative online platform
8. It is of paramount
importance that research capability and funding opportunities
to support collaboration are easily accessible, clear and navigable
through a single interface. The new NCUB online platform should
be developed to complement, rather than complicate, the existing
information systems. However, it is unclear what processes or
structures, if any, are in place to build on the capability of
the Gateway to Research as part of this new platform. (Paragraph
31)
9. As much of this
work is being conducted by the National Centre for Universities
and Business (NCUB), we recommend that the NCUB set out its plans
for the development of the online collaborative platform. This
should include an assessment of existing platforms and their respective
capabilities, so that NCUB can demonstrate it is building on,
rather than duplicating or complicating, existing capabilities.
We also recommend that the NCUB includes in these plans a clear
statement of objectives, planned functions and information on
how it will engage with interested parties in the platform's development,
alongside an estimated timetable for launch. The ability to monitor
or classify users by type should be built into the platform's
capability from an early stage. (Paragraph 32)
Single point of contact
10. The single point
of contact can be a useful point at which universities can gauge
demand from industry for interaction and capacity to meet that
demand. This single point of entry should be designed to enhance
the other ways in which universities are encouraging interaction
with industry. (Paragraph 35)
11. Every university
should have a single point of contact for businesses that are
seeking to collaborate. The forthcoming NCUB online portal should
clearly signpost contact information for each university, so that
businesses looking to collaborate can easily find someone to talk
to as a first point of call. (Paragraph 36)
Higher Education Innovation funding (HEIF)
12. There is widespread
support for increasing HEIF to £250 million per annum. HEFCE
is currently assessing the evidence base for increasing HEIF.
(Paragraph 40)
13. If the evidence
base presented as a result of HEFCE's review of HEIF funding is
strong, the Government should prioritise additional funds for
HEIF in the next Spending Review. (Paragraph 40)
Measuring 'impact' of academic research
14. Done properly,
assessing impact as part of the Research Excellence Framework
should help the higher education community to better communicate
the purpose and quality of its work. Impact criteria should therefore
enhance research quality assessments, not detract or distract
from basic research, which may not have an immediately obvious
commercial application. Our understanding of "impact"
therefore needs to include social, economic and cultural factors,
as well as how research can transform thinking within a field.
Achieving this understanding will require sophisticated metrics,
as well as an assessment mechanism designed to avoid the submission
of stock answers as evidence to the review. (Paragraph 43)
15. Care will be required
when considering how much weight is assigned to impact within
the overall assessment programme. The ability to produce high
quality fundamental research is a strength of the UK's innovation
ecosystem. This should not be taken for granted. There is a risk
that increasing the weighting assigned to impact within the Research
Excellence Framework beyond 20 per cent could distort funding
away from this type of work, to the detriment of the overall system.
(Paragraph 44)
16. HEFCE should proceed
with caution, and appropriate consultation, in its evaluation
of impact criteria, taking into account concerns about both criteria
design and weighting. Such consultation should include the full
range of academic disciplines expected to engage with the REF,
in addition to other interested parties. HEFCE should set out
plans for such a consultation. (Paragraph 45)
University Enterprise Zones
17. Universities are
in a strong position to be able to drive growth across the country.
Many have been active in local growth initiatives for some time,
for example by engaging with LEPs. (Paragraph 48)
18. UEZs need to fit
within this existing local ecosystem for innovation. How this
is achieved should be built into the evaluation of the UEZ pilot
scheme, using the examples of effective collaboration already
highlighted by previous reviews. (Paragraph 48)
19. LEPs must have
the freedom to work collaboratively to develop innovative bids
for future UEZs that maximise benefits from the low levels of
available funding. (Paragraph 49)
20. The Government
should confirm that future rounds of applications to the UEZ programme
will be less restrictive in terms of who can apply to set up a
UEZ, for example cross-LEP bids. (Paragraph 49)
The proposed NCUB Advisory Hub
21. If the UK is to
have a coherent innovation strategy, it is vital that there is
a UK wide picture of the capacity, capability and coherence of
local innovation ecosystems, and how these contribute to UK wide
growth goals. Smart specialisation should be the means by which
we understand the relative strengths and weaknesses of local,
devolved and national innovation landscapes and strategies. Businesses
operate across these borders and therefore government at all levels
must provide a coherent package of innovation support. (Paragraph
54)
22. LEPs should be
fully consulted as a key stakeholder in developing the NCUB Advisory
Hub. This would allow sharing of best practice and advice on implementing
strategic plans for European Structural and Investment Fund allocations.
These attributes should be built into the NCUB's recommendations
to Government on the way forward for the Advisory Hub. The proposed
advisory Hub should complement and link with the planned NCUB
online platform. In addition, the Hub should link with existing
relevant work, such as best practice guidance and other sources
of Government support for business. (Paragraph 55)
A strategic approach to business-university collaboration
23. We recommend that
the forthcoming Science and Innovation Strategy address each key
relative weakness of the UK's innovation system, as outlined in
the BIS Benchmarking Analysis. The Strategy should identify and
explain which Government policies, programmes and incentives are
designed to tackle those weaknesses, and explain how the effectiveness
of those interventions will be measured, monitored and evaluated.
(Paragraph 57)
24. As the Government
prepares its Science and Innovation Strategy, there is a need
for clarity on how its policies will utilise the strengths of
universities across Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England
within a UK-wide strategy. Businesses operate across the UK, so
coordination with devolved administrations is required to ensure
coherence in the innovation support system. (Paragraph 58)
Measuring success: the R&D scoreboard
25. Many of the Government's
major initiatives are aimed at increasing R&D activity in
the UK and encouraging investment in a wide portfolio of sectors
and technologies. It is important that the Government has a respected
and impartial way to evaluate the success of such initiatives.
This is particularly significant at a time of constrained public
spending. (Paragraph 61)
26. We recommend that
the Government reintroduce a means of monitoring R&D activity,
a function previously fulfilled by the R&D scoreboard, in
order to measure progress in its R&D initiatives. Use of the
scoreboard, or similar indicators, should be built into mechanisms
for measuring progress in implementing the forthcoming Science
and Innovation Strategy. (Paragraph 62)
The structural gap in R&D spend
27. We recommend that
the Government aims for 3 per cent of GDP to be spent on R&D
by 2020. This aim should be built into the Science and Innovation
Strategy as a long-term objective and as an indication of the
UK's commitment to building capability in this area. (Paragraph
68)
Stability in the innovation ecosystem
28. We agree with
the Minister that greater stability in the innovation support
system is required. We expect the forthcoming Innovation Strategy
to deliver on the desire from businesses and universities for
a long-term commitment to, and increasing stability of, mechanisms
to support innovation and business-university collaboration. (Paragraph
71)
Conclusion
29. We urge the Government
to use the Science and Innovation Strategy as an opportunity to
set out its plans to build capacity in the innovation system and
to articulate an ambitious vision for this sector. (Paragraph
72)
| 
