Ministers are drawing up new ¡°specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound objectives¡± for UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) to help ensure taxpayers receive value for money from science spending.

Details of the forthcoming targets were revealed in a new report by the National Audit Office (NAO) which notes how UKRI¡¯s five-year strategy had ¡°set out its high-level priorities but it and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) have not yet set measurable objectives for UKRI¡¯s spending¡±.

Without these more concrete measures in place, it was ¡°difficult to understand what outcome UKRI is seeking to achieve¡±, explains the report,?

DSIT had told the review¡¯s authors that it intended to publish more specific objectives with ¡°corresponding key performance indicators¡± for the ?9.6 billion research funder this summer.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

Next month Ian Chapman, now chief executive of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, will take over as UKRI¡¯s chief executive when Ottoline Leyser steps down after five years in charge.

¡°UKRI will therefore not have a finalised and measurable set of objectives to guide advice and decisions on its future direction in Spending Review 2025 Phase 2 [which ends in June],¡± notes the report, though the department had communicated ¡°information to UKRI on ministerial priorities during this work¡±.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

Noting the ¡°lack of joined-up direction [to UKRI] from government departments¡±, the report notes how government expects UKRI to support the delivery of a range of objectives yet these policy priorities were made clear in a variety of ways such as ad hoc and routine meetings, government strategies, mission statements and spending review budgets.

¡°But these are not consolidated or ranked, which means the overall picture of what government is asking UKRI to do is unclear,¡± explained the report, which called on ministers to ¡°streamline the mechanisms through which the government communicates its priorities to UKRI¡± and, by December, ¡°map out government priorities and objectives whose delivery UKRI is expected to support¡±.

The study also flagged how not all UKRI-funded projects were routinely evaluated in terms of their impact and outcomes.

While UKRI undertakes evaluations on projects or programmes that meet specific criteria ¨C those that are over ?20 million or considered politically or strategically important, novel, complex or contentious, or have potential to aid UKRI¡¯s understanding of what works, these thematic evaluations were ¡°not consistently applied across the organisation and as a result the cumulative learnings and impacts of these grants may not be effectively captured¡±, the report says, recommending greater use of such evaluations.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

Gareth Davies, head of the NAO, said UKRI had ¡°played a key role in supporting a globally respected research and innovation system¡± but ¡°there is more it could do to maximise value for money¡±.

¡°Our recommendations are designed to help UKRI ensure its culture supports well-managed risk-taking; develop better data to support decision-making; and work with DSIT to define more clearly the overarching outcomes sought from its research and innovation spending.¡±

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com