Does the UK Innovation System Need a Revamp?
James Reeves
Chief Executive Officer | Driving Faster Growth for Engineering & Manufacturing Businesses | Performance Unlimited
The UK has long been recognized for its strong commitment to fostering innovation. With funding from Innovate UK, particularly through smart grants, and initiatives like the Catapult network, one might assume that the innovation landscape is robust and accessible. However, industry voices are increasingly suggesting that a significant revamp might be necessary to truly democratize innovation and ensure that all companies, regardless of size, can benefit.
The Challenge of Accessing Funding
One of the primary mechanisms for funding innovation in the UK is through Innovate UK’s smart grants. These grants are essential for driving forward new technologies and solutions, but the barriers to access are steep. To stand any chance of securing funding, applicants must achieve an exceptionally high pass rate well over 85%. This requirement often necessitates the hiring of a specialized grant proposal writer, a significant barrier for many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The current system, therefore, favours those who can afford the additional resources needed, or have significant experience, to navigate the application process successfully.
Additionally, Innovate UK issues specific "Calls" for R&D grants focused on themes and topics deemed important for the UK to invest in. While targeted funding helps ensure that crucial R&D areas are encouraged, the wait for the next relevant call can delay projects by years.
Furthermore, these themed calls usually insist on a collaboration. While collaboration is generally beneficial, it can sometimes lead to extra work to justify a partner’s involvement, potentially reducing the value for money for taxpayers.
?A Look Back: Regional Development Agencies
Before the establishment of Innovate UK, Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) played a pivotal role in funding local R&D. These agencies helped ensure a good regional diversity to grant funding, making it more accessible to various parts of the UK. The RDAs’ localized approach supported innovation at a regional level, ensuring that smaller companies had a better chance of securing funding and contributing to regional economic growth.
领英推荐
?The Catapult Network: Exclusive or Inclusive?
The Catapult network, plays a crucial role in advancing innovation. These centres are intended to bridge the gap between academia and industry, providing state-of-the-art facilities and research outcomes. However, there is growing concern that the balance has tipped too far towards commercialization. While it is recognized that Research and Technology Organizations (RTOs) like the Catapults need to generate income to be sustainable, many in the industry believe they are now protecting their intellectual property too aggressively and rather than disseminating knowledge for the greater good.
?Collaboration and Knowledge Sharing
Another critical issue is the level of collaboration within the Catapult network, across the industry and with RTOs in other countries. The Catapults cannot have all the facilities, technologies, and knowledge, so it is essential to understand what is happening in industry and also internationally. There is a growing call for Catapults to take the lead in fostering these external relationship and to signpost opportunities beyond their own organizations. While the facilities and expertise within Catapults are exceptional, there is a vast reservoir of knowledge and capacity outside their walls that should be leveraged more effectively.
?Conclusion
The UK’s innovation system has the potential to be one of the most dynamic and inclusive in the world. However, to achieve this, we need to address the current barriers that prevent equal access to funding and resources. By lowering these barriers and fostering a more inclusive approach, we can ensure that innovation thrives across all sectors and company sizes, driving economic growth and competitiveness in the UK.
MD at Lucid - design, regulatory and manufacturing expertise for digital and physical medical devices, life safety and wellness systems.
5 个月James Reeves I'm 100% behind your questioning of diversity, inclusion and value added for UK plc in publicly funded innovation. My business growth is helped by numerous successes in grant competitions. We work hard to win and are very grateful, but the experience leads to concern that the siloed scope of some funding limits the value delivered. Targeting public money at priorities and inequality should be beneficial. Hovever, scan current grant opportunities and there is clear discrimination in access and preferential treatment of delivery partners from certain sectors. If I have Britain's best idea for machinery, a current IUK competition only subsidises development with a University, not other competent partners? Why? With a great digital healthcare idea will I only be supported if located in certain postcodes? Surely if it works out the nation gets the tax take? Why is application for low value competitions like Design Foundations as long-winded and burdensome as awards with 10x the funding? With <10% success rates in competitions, i'm suspicious that UK plc losses more productivity in small-business application time, admin and promotion costs than winners gain in value? Who's going to fund that research?
Managing Director at JH Engineering Recruitment
5 个月Innovation is the key to future success.
Owner, Quigley Design
5 个月Answering your question, yes, to some extent. Innovate UK are changing the way they do things but it is taking time, and they have some hits and some fails, particularly in the area of sector focussed funding. In particular, the latest Design Funds are questionable value in my opinion, as are the (literally) hundreds of very niche sector funds that probably only apply to a handful of organisations and are clearly set up as a back door funding mechanism for institutions. I’ve tried to push the idea of tiered funding to many over the last few years. Tiered in the sense that access to the grant system is cumulative and requires ongoing proof that you do what you say you will do, and deliver towards a commercial outcome. There is simply no way the public fund should finance a ￡800k award to companies that have never delivered a grant outcome before, but this happens constantly. The point of a grant is to bridge that chasm of funding at the early stages where you cannot attract private investment because you are developing the proof of concept and business case. But the biggest change I want to see is UK PLC taking equity. It should be part of the award criteria, based on the size of the award and number of awards.
Engineer and owner of UPTIME Consultant Ltd?
5 个月Well balanced article James, having dipped my toe in the 'innovation by numbers' water I soon realised it was a club that I was never going to a member of ?? My view is that the most worthwhile innovation comes from partners that want to collaborate with each other without the hurdles of applying for grant funding from the tax payer. I believe it ends up crowding out the private sector by the misallocation public funding ??