The July 2022 UK
Independent Review of Research Bureaucracy Final Report comments
Unnecessary bureaucracy diverts and hampers research, and the work of individual researchers and research teams. Ultimately, it diminishes the returns from research funding. This is why the Prime Minister’s package of science announcements on 27 January 2020 included:
...launching a major review of research bureaucracy and methods, including unnecessary paperwork, arduous funding applications and research selection processes. This will free up and support the best researchers to focus on ground-breaking, ambitious and meaningful research...
Following this, Professor Adam Tickell, now Vice-Chancellor of Birmingham University, was asked to lead this Review which launched in March 2021.
Seven Principles
The Review developed the following seven principles for cutting unnecessary bureaucracy:
Reducing the volume of administration through the use of common processes between different funders to make essential work easier.
Reducing the complexity of individual processes to address unnecessary bureaucracy.
Ensuring that the obligations placed on researchers and institutions are commensurate with the size of the risk or reward.
Supporting and embracing excellence wherever it is found and not excluding research that does not fit within narrowly defined parameters.
Communicating the rationale for systems and processes which have a bureaucratic burden.
Developing approaches to systems and processes that support fairness, rather than erode it.
Cutting bureaucracy in ways that avoid destabilising the system to deliver a more efficient system over the long term.
These principles are embedded in the Review recommendations and should inform the government response and future action across the sector.
Key Findings and Recommendations
The Review has focussed on aspects of the research system where there was consistent feedback on the need and scope for change. Perhaps inevitably, this has emphasised research funders’ systems, processes and assurance. There are areas where cutting bureaucracy will involve recognising trade-offs and there will need to be careful consideration of how best to manage these. However, it is clear that universities and other research organisations, and individual researchers and their groups, must also play their part in driving efficiencies and delivering on the potential outlined in this Review.
The Review has identified the following six themes where there is scope for significant positive change:
Assurance
This comprises the information provided to funders and regulators to demonstrate that research is carried out in accordance with funding terms and conditions. The principle of ‘ask once’ should be paramount throughout the assurance system.
Findings
The Review has identified the following key issues with regard to assurance bureaucracy:
• Overall, there are too many requirements relating to assurance bureaucracy and they are often complex and duplicative;
• Uncertainty in the sector about how to manage assurance issues contributes to risk aversion and over-compliance in institutions' internal assurance processes;
• A lack of trust, coordination, partnership working and knowledge exchange on assurance throughout the research sector;
• An incremental growth of bureaucracy – changing priorities have meant that, over time, new assurance requirements have been introduced. However, few attempts have been made to remove or reduce redundant assurance requirements.
Recommendations
To address these issues we recommend that:
• Government departments that fund research should work together to ensure there is greater alignment of assurance approaches, removing duplication. UKRI should take forward action to achieve greater alignment and coordination across UKRI Councils;
• Government should facilitate closer working with other funders, including charity funders, to increase coordination and reduce assurance burdens on the sector;
• Funders and research organisations should develop collective approaches and resources to support institutions in managing their assurance processes; and
• Funding bodies should explore the function and benefits of self-certification and/or earned autonomy for institutions with a robust track record of assurance.
Applying for Funding
Funding applications were one of the most cited causes of unnecessary bureaucracy by organisations and individuals in the Review’s call for evidence.
Findings
• The Review heard concerns from researchers and research managers about the length and complexity of application processes;
• The overall success rates for research grant applications are low - often around 20%. Given this, single stage processes which require applicants to provide all the information at the outset mean that for a majority of applicants this information is unused and ultimately wasteful;
• Two stage application processes may deliver improvements across the system but may present funders with resourcing challenges or take more time and UKRI and others are piloting these approaches now. The Review received a range of views on how best to manage the prospect that more streamlined application processes could lead to higher numbers of applications;
• There is already evidence of funders tackling these issues in a variety of ways, but there is scope to go much further.
Recommendations
To address these issues we recommend that:
• Funders should experiment with application processes to reduce burdens for applicants, (including two-stage application processes) where the information required increases in line with the likelihood of being funded;
• Funders should work together to increase standardisation across their application processes in terms of the use of language and the questions they ask where appropriate. UKRI should facilitate this across Research Councils in the first instance;
• Funders should review what adaptations will be needed to assessment processes to take account of changes to application models. This should include the information necessary for national security assessments alongside innovative approaches from the use of peer reviewer triage to limit the number of applications requiring full peer review to experimenting with new models such as randomly allocated funding;
• Funders should ensure that application processes support their commitments to equality, diversity and inclusion;
• Funders should remove the requirement for letters of support from applications in most circumstances.
Grant Implementation and In-Grant Management
Given the inherently unpredictable nature of research, there are a number of areas where more flexibilities may be beneficial, once a research project is underway:
F
Findings
• The period between issue of award letter and start of a research project can be too short, leaving little time for procurement, recruitment and financial administration;
• Conversely, the time taken to get agreement from research funding organisations to changes to a project or to the profile of funding can be too long;
• It is often unclear to funding recipients what the purpose is of information requested in project monitoring;
• Contracting and collaboration agreements are a major source of delays because many research organisations prefer to use their own version rather than standard formats such as Brunswick or Lambert Agreements.
Recommendations
To address these issues we recommend that:
• Funders and recipients should ensure there is adequate time for the completion of all necessary tasks (including providing assurance information) between the issue of the award letter and the start of the project;
• Universities and research organisations should wherever possible use standard templates for contracts and collaboration agreements, recognising that this would not just be faster, but would also facilitate third-party collaborations;
• Wherever possible, funders should build in flexibilities including no cost extensions within manageable parameters to reduce delays in addressing project changes and the number of queries funders receive;
• Ethical and other regulatory approvals should be the responsibility of the lead partner on a multi-institution research project and counterparties (including in the NHS) should not require additional duplicative approvals.
Digital Platforms
Every aspect of research bureaucracy depends on digital platforms and the extent of the sector’s reliance on them can heighten the impact of any flaws in their design or function.
Findings
• There is a challenge in creating digital platforms that are capable of supporting institutional diversity and keeping pace with change in UK research without being overly complex;
\• There is scope for greater harmonisation of digital platforms. However, this will also be limited to a degree by the differing nature and objectives of individual funders;
• Greater inter-operability and data sharing between systems could significantly reduce bureaucracy;
• There is currently a window of opportunity to deliver vastly improved services across key funders as UKRI, NIHR and Wellcome amongst others move away from older platforms;
• Funders are continuing to drive forward programmes to reduce bureaucracy in their systems and processes. Through the Simpler and Better Funding programme, UKRI is piloting a new digital platform – UKRI Funding Service - which from 2024 will deliver end to end functionality for all Research Council grant applications.
Recommendations
To address these issues we recommend that:
• For the higher education sector, Jisc should lead on the creation of sector-wide groups responsible for overseeing the development and further integration of the research information ecosystem, including research management data;
• Funders, universities and regulators should ensure interoperability and improved data flows are considered as integral to the design and implementation of any new digital systems;
• For existing systems, approaches to improving the flow of data between different platforms should be explored using, for example, application programming interfaces, point to point integration and machine learning.
Institutional Bureaucracy
There are strong links between bureaucracy related to requirements of funders, regulators and government and each research institution’s own systems, processes and
approaches. Research organisations, particularly universities, need to address their own unnecessary bureaucracy to support the Review’s aim of freeing up researchers to focus on research.
Findings
• Institutional bureaucracy was the most cited source of unnecessary bureaucracy by individuals in the Review’s call for evidence;
• There is a culture of risk aversion within universities. Whilst much of this is understandable, it has a negative impact on the processes for decision making;
• Risk aversion has, in some cases, led to unnecessary approval hierarchies which can cause major delays and operational difficulties;
• Use of generalist professional services department to provide key elements of research support – for example, legal services – can lead to longer delays because of a lack of familiarity or confidence with handling research grant agreements or contracts
Recommendations
To address these issues we recommend that:
• Wherever possible, research organisations should examine the feasibility of delegating research-related approvals to research managers and officers who are closer to research;
• Universities UK should bring universities together to find new platforms and methods for working together on research management issues such as increasing risk appetite, streamlining burdens including through greater standardisation;
• If they do not already have them, research organisations should establish “Trusted Funder” policies to enable projects to proceed at risk, within certain parameters.
Communications
There are a number of communications issues in relation to unnecessary
bureaucracy. Funders can address antipathy towards necessary bureaucracy by communicating more clearly why it is required and what they do with the information. A lack of clarity can lead to “gold plating” by institutions who are trying to manage regulatory and other requirements.
Findings
• Frustration with necessary bureaucratic requirements may be related to how widely the rationale and role of particular R&D funding systems and processes are communicated and understood;
• There is also scope to increase awareness of existing tools and methods that can reduce bureaucratic burdens, e.g. persistent digital identifiers;
• Uncertainty about the introduction and approach to implementing new requirements could be addressed through proactive communication and engagement by funders and regulators;
• In addition, the review heard that government and funders could go further to engage with the sector on the specifics around implementation of new requirements to identify the most efficient approach;
• There were a series of specific concerns with regard to the approach to communications with the sector including use of jargon and inconsistent language, working to ensure communications are received by the right audiences (for example, not just Vice- Chancellors or Pro Vice-Chancellors of Research) and timeliness in relation to submission deadlines.
Recommendations
To address these issues we recommend that:
• Government, funders and regulators should undertake wide ranging consultation with research organisations prior to the introduction of new regulatory or other requirements;
• Government and funders should proactively communicate on new and emerging regulatory issues. The Research Collaboration and Advice Team (RCAT)i model providing support on national security matters is good practice in this regard;
• Funders should ensure important messages about research are sent to research office contacts as well as Vice Chancellor/Pro-Vice Chancellor Research.
