FOI2022/00418: Innovation in Professional and Financial Services Competition Statistics
Case reference FOI2022/00418
Published 14 March 2023
Request
Request Received: 23 December 2022
For Innovate UK's 'Innovation in Professional and Financial Services - single applicants' projects competition (which closed on 9 November 2022), please could you release the following information:
[Part 1]
1. The number of applications.
2. The number of assessed applications.
3. The number of successful applications.
4. The success rate.
5. The minimum successful score.
6. The maximum successful score.
7. Average score of failed applications.
8. Average grant fund value per project.
9. Average score of funded projects.
10. Total funds allocated
11. The score distributions of the applications (e.g. % (or number) of applications which scored <70, 70.1-75, 75.1-80, 80.1-85, 85.1-90, 90.1-95, 95.1-100).
12. The count of assessed applications by innovation area.
13. The count of successful projects by innovation area.
14. The count of assessed applications by research category (feasibility studies, industrial research, experimental development).
15. The count of successful projects by research category.
16. The number of unsuccessful applications, if any, which scored above the minimum funded score.
17. The number of external assessors who assessed the applications.
18. The number of internal assessors who assessed the applications.
19. The average score awarded per question, split by each assessor.
20. The selection method used e.g. applications were recommended for funding descending from the top score until all funding was utilised or a selective portfolio approach whereby certain lower scoring applications have received funding?
21. What constitutes an outlier when moderating assessor scores and what calculation threshold was used to determine valid outliers?
22. The number of applications where one or more outliers in scores were identified during the moderation process?
23. The number of applications where one or more outliers in scores were removed and scores updated? Is it UKRI's policy to inform applicants of these occurrences?
24. The largest change in an individual question score (across all applications) following the removal of an outlier in connection with any question?
25. The number of applicants who were notified that outlier scores have been removed in connection with their application?
26. When an outlier score is removed, how is the relevant score updated? Is this calculated based on the average of the remaining assessor's scores excluding the outlier score?
27. Where outliers are identified, what are the main reasons for not removing them and updating the relevant score(s)?
28. Could you kindly provide 1) the number of applications and 2) successful projects with total project costs within the following divisions and 3) the lowest and highest successful application scores for each division, as shown in the table below:
Finally, I would be extremely grateful if you could provide the following information in relation to the above competition:
[Part 2]
1. In relation to question 2 (Need or challenge), did the proposed solution offered by applicants need to be a brand new discovery or could it utilise existing technology in a new way and/or for a different problem / use case?
2. With regards to question 3 (Approach and Innovation), could the innovation proposed by applicants utilise existing technology but in a different way / use case to what is currently being used?
3. With regards to question 3 (Approach and Innovation), can individual assessors decide on what proposals they believe will work (or won't work) and can proposals be deemed to be 'bad' ideas at this stage i.e. prior to user research being carried out?
4. In respect of question 4 (Team and resources), are smaller UK businesses without large in-house teams at a disadvantage when applying i.e. does Innovate UK prefer / score companies with larger in-house teams?
5. Does question 4 (Team and resources) relate to the applicant's strategy or their team selection and skillset? Could applicants be marked down here if the assessors did not like the applicant's plan of action?
6. In respect of question 5 (Market Awareness), could applicants / businesses at an early stage of development (TRL2) that have not worked within a wide range of different industries be marked down? Could applicants who proposed to start by working with a single sector (before exploring other sectors) be marked down / disadvantaged?
7. With regards to question 6 (Outcomes and routes to market), were the assessors looking for innovative routes to market? And could applicants with more innovative routes be scored more highly?
8. With regards to question 6 (Outcomes and routes to market), does your innovation framework recognise researching, learning, pivoting and iteration as part of innovation development?
9. With regards to question 8 (Project Management), did the applicants' project plan need to have interdependencies and milestones?
10. With regards to question 9 (Risks), were applicants scored in respect to their project's ability to gain long-term mass adoption, or could projects with a more short-term and/or narrow niche score equally highly even if there is a risk of customers eventually migrating to more established market participants with a stronger market position?
11. With regards to question 10 (Added value), were applications scored on their long-term versus short-term competitive advantage?
12. In question 11 (Costs and value for money), are applicants scored down for paying themselves a market rate salary? Is there an expectation that salaried staff members who are working on the project should not incur eligible costs?
Response
Response Sent: 2 February 2023
Full details of this response are provided in the attached documents.
Documents
This is UK Research and Innovation's response to a freedom of information (FOI) or environmental information regulations (EIR) request.
You can browse our other responses or make a new FOI request.