The report evaluates the early impacts of the Productivity Institute Programme's investments: The Productivity Institute (TPI) and the Programme on Innovation and Diffusion (POID). Including questions about knowledge, policy and business impacts, utilising document review, bibliometric analysis, interviews and a workshop. The report also provides a process evaluation of PIP's thematic investments, assessing their implementation and delivery.

Evaluation of the Productivity Institute Programme

Early impact and process evaluation

Dominic Yiangou, Pamina Smith, Susan Guthrie, Federico Cilauro, Radhika Goel

ResearchPublished Jul 12, 2024

This document is an evaluation of the Productivity Institute Programme (PIP), which encompasses The Productivity Institute (TPI), the Programme on Innovation and Diffusion (POID), and a series of thematic investments. The report presents the findings of the third phase of the evaluation, extending the previous process evaluation to the recently established thematic investments. It also provides an early impact assessment for TPI and POID, focusing on outputs and early outcomes from these investments. The evaluation is structured around a framework that includes process evaluation questions and impact evaluation questions related to knowledge, policy and business impacts.

Key Findings

The key findings from our process evaluation of the thematic investments are as follows:

  • The thematic investments within the PIP share the common goal of improving productivity but they lack formalised mechanisms to facilitate synergies and avoid overlaps.
  • Wider engagement with policy and business stakeholders is occurring and informing research agendas.
  • Thematic investments have demonstrated a commitment to mobilising existing multi- and interdisciplinary knowledge and engaging the wider UK and international research community, although the effectiveness of these efforts varies.
  • Capacity building within the thematic investments is at an early stage.
  • Some thematic investments have demonstrated varying degrees of adaptability to changing landscapes.
  • Environmental and social governance approaches have not been developed specifically for these investments.
  • The Thematic Investments’ engagement with ESRC has been straightforward.

The key findings from our review of early knowledge impacts from TPI and POID are as follows:

  • The key unique added value of PIP is twofold: its multidisciplinary approach, bringing together research conducted on productivity across disciplines in the UK; and its efforts to improve the accessibility of productivity research.
  • PIP's multidisciplinary approach and synthesis of disparate evidence also makes productivity research more accessible and relevant to business and policy stakeholders.
  • The quality of research conducted by TPI and POID is internationally excellent.
  • PIP has contributed to building UK capacities and capabilities for productivity research.

The key findings from our review of early policy impacts from TPI and POID are as follows:

  • TPI and POID have demonstrated examples of delivering high-quality, relevant and actionable policy recommendations around productivity.
  • PIP has had a moderate impact on the capacity and capability of policymakers to engage with productivity research, as well as on researchers' capacity to produce policy-relevant research.

The key findings from our review of early business impacts from TPI and POID are as follows:

  • The interaction between PIP and businesses has primarily involved TPI.
  • Engagement with the programme has been beneficial for businesses.
  • We did not find evidence of new specific interventions identified by the programme that business leaders or industry bodies could take to improve productivity (or other tangible impacts of engagement).

Recommendations

  • Improve coordination and collaboration across PIP: This should be focused on creating opportunities for knowledge sharing and coordination, allowing collaborations to emerge organically.
  • ESRC should reflect on what the expectations are regarding environmental, social and governance considerations for investments.
  • Maintain a focus on the key strengths of the investment: multidisciplinary and making evidence accessible.
  • Improved coordination: Following the recommendations set out above in the process evaluation would enable PIP to better build on and leverage its strength in bringing together knowledge on productivity across disciplines and sectors.
  • Access to data: This is outside the control of ESRC and PIP, but both could look to advocate for improved accessibility to ONS and HMRC given their role in the ecosystem.
  • Position research for use and be agile in a changing political landscape: This will involve continuing to map and review the landscape and ensure targeted communication and relationship building with key stakeholders, who may change over time.
  • Consider how to translate the increased engagement and knowledge of businesses on productivity into more tangible actions they can take.
  • Use TPI networks to help facilitate business impact across PIP: TPI is a hub for interaction with industry. These networks and relationships should be leveraged to enable the thematic investments to engage effectively with business stakeholders and hence maximise the impact of PIP as a whole.

Topics

Document Details

  • Copyright: UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)
  • Publisher: RAND Corporation
  • Availability: Web-Only
  • Year: 2024
  • Pages: 87
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.7249/RRA2013-2
  • Document Number: RR-A2013-2

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Yiangou, Dominic, Pamina Smith, Susan Guthrie, Federico Cilauro, and Radhika Goel, Evaluation of the Productivity Institute Programme: Early impact and process evaluation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2024. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2013-2.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

The research described in this report was commissioned by the UK Economic Social and Research Council (ESRC) and and conducted by RAND Europe.

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the copyright holders.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.