Assessment Policies and Standards for Innovation Continuity Loans: Strand 1, 2 and 3 November 2020

The request was partially successful.

Dear Innovate UK,

Please could you provide the following information with regards to assessment policies and standards for the recent loan competitions, specifically the Innovation Continuity Loans: Strand 1, 2, and 3 November 2020.

1. Strand 1 – Continuation of a live project
2. Strand 2 – Follow on from a recently completed Innovate UK project
3. Strand 3 – Continuation, completion or follow on of a project not supported by Innovate UK

Part 1 – Guidance and Marking Scheme
Can you please provide:

- What guidance assessors were provided with to assess applicants and/or IUK’s expectations how feedback should be provided to applicants.
- The scoring criteria assessors (marking scheme or it's equivalent) used to gauge how assessor’s scored questions.

Part 2 – Assessment Policies and Standards
Specifically, would you please confirm the current policy on how InnovateUK prepares assessors, and the process, for new competitions, and how assessor standards are assessed continuously to ensure accurate and quality assessments for applicants? My particular concern is not about opinions that assessors form that are different from one another, but situations where factual and numerical information, in particular, is missed by one or more assessors, where the other assessors have clearly read the same information, thus hindering the applicant's scores. Observing numerical information, when stated, is imperative as these items are typically required by the guidance Innovate UK publishes on competitions for applicants to provide/adhere to.

To support the public interest in understanding Assessment Policies and Standards, could you please provide additional information from the below:

- What was the average number of applications an individual assessor was likely to receive from the Innovation Continuity Loans Strands 1, 2, and 3 competitions?
- How many assessors were used for Strand 1, Strand 2, and Strand 3?
- What was the average time Innovate UK allocated/allowed per application assessment in the context of the Innovate Continuity Loans for Part A?
- What was the average time assessors took to complete the individual applicant assessment process? Does this vary greatly compared to the minimum and maximum?
- In what way do Innovate UK track the performance of their allocated assessors to ensure quality assessing is carried out? Is this held to any standard in retrospect, i.e., where assessors peer-review an unknown peer to ensure all criteria are captured, or additionally, can you please provide a policy on standards of assessing? For example, are there feedback mechanisms to improve IUK processes from assessor points of view and mechanisms for IUK to provide feedback to assessors on standards/quality of assessment compared to the marking scheme, guidance, or where information has clearly been missed by the assessor?
- Is training provided, or other reference material provided, in how to assess applications?
- What was the average period (in working days) between when assessors received applications to assess, and when were assessments required to be completed? Were there particular calendar dates for assessors to adhere to?
- If competitions are oversubscribed how does Innovate UK manage the additional load, whilst ensuring assessors are not overburdened? Is there a maximum number of applicants any one assessor is allocated by Innovate UK?
- Is there any feedback from assessors where concerns have been raised about not having enough time to assess applicants? What proportion of the assessors is this, and what proportion of applicants is this compared to the total submitted (which are being assessed)?
- Finally, what are the monitoring procedures taken to ensure compliance and accurate assessments within these standards/policies?

In all information requested it would be much appreciated if you could, alongside your answers, direct me to the specific area of text where such policy is mentioned in any handbook or policy document (complete with issue date, and any possible plans for change/past changes to the document or policy within the next/last 12 months).

I believe it is in the public interest for this information to be published, ensuring that UKRI / Innovate UK, and related parties, are held accountable for treating applicants as uniformly as possible and thus ensuring the fair utilisation and allocation of public money.

Thank you for your continued time and efforts on freedom of information requests for the public.

Best,

Mr. Griffiths

Information Rights Team,

Dear Mr Griffiths,

Thank you for your email of 28 April. We can confirm that your email has
been received by the Information Rights team and your query will be
responded to in due course.

The reference number for your request is FOI2021/00229 .

Whilst we are making every effort to respond to all requests within the
usual timescales, we are currently experiencing reduced resource capacity
due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. We appreciate your patience during
these uncertain times and aim to provide a response to your query as soon
as possible.

Kind regards,

Information Governance
Information Rights Team
UK Research and Innovation
[Innovate UK request email] | [email address]

Information Rights Team,

Dear Mr Griffiths

Reference: FOI2021/00229

Thank you for your information access request. I can confirm your request
will be dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

We are currently reviewing your request and will provide a response no
later than 27th May, in line with the 20 working days statutory
requirement.

Please quote your above reference number in all future correspondence.

Kind regards,

Andy Trotter

Information Governance
Information Rights Team
UK Research and Innovation
[1][Innovate UK request email]

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Innovate UK request email]

Information Rights Team,

6 Attachments

Dear Mr Griffiths

Reference: FOI2021/00229

Please find attached our response to your above information request.

Kind regards

Andy Trotter

Information Governance
Information Rights Team
UK Research and Innovation
[Innovate UK request email] | [email address]

Information Rights Team,

6 Attachments

Dear Mr Griffiths

Reference: FOI2021/00229

Please find attached our response to your above information request.

Kind regards

Andy Trotter

Information Governance
Information Rights Team
UK Research and Innovation
[Innovate UK request email] | [email address]

UKRI FOI Requests, Innovate UK

6 Attachments

Dear Mr Griffiths

Reference: FOI2021/00229

Please find attached our response to your above information request.

Kind regards

Andy Trotter

Information Governance
Information Rights Team
UK Research and Innovation
[1][Innovate UK request email] | [2][email address]

This email and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the
named recipients. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use,
disclose, copy or distribute this email or any of its attachments and
should notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your
system. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) has taken every reasonable
precaution to minimise risk of this email or any attachments containing
viruses or malware but the recipient should carry out its own virus and
malware checks before opening the attachments. UKRI does not accept any
liability for any losses or damages which the recipient may sustain due to
presence of any viruses. Opinions, conclusions or other information in
this message and attachments that are not related directly to UKRI
business are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of
UKRI.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Innovate UK request email]
2. mailto:[email address]