Innovation research impact on UK and European water policy and regulatory practice
Submitting Institution
University of ManchesterUnit of Assessment
Business and Management StudiesSummary Impact Type
PoliticalResearch Subject Area(s)
Economics: Applied Economics
Commerce, Management, Tourism and Services: Business and Management
Studies In Human Society: Policy and Administration
Summary of the impact
University of Manchester research during 2005-2012 into water sector
technological innovation
provided an evidence base that changed UK and European policy and
practice. The research led
to an extended remit for an independent review of UK water sector
competition to include also
innovation; underpinned sections on innovation in new UK water policy;
inspired incentive reforms
by the economic regulator, Ofwat and informed strategy for two high-level
European
innovation/technology platforms. Lead researcher Thomas advised key
stakeholders at House of
Commons All Party Parliamentary Water Group sessions, at an independent
review, via keynotes
and opinion pieces for industry roundtables, conferences, trade journals,
the media, and on an
Ofwat advisory panel.
Underpinning research
The underpinning research was done 2005-12 at the University of
Manchester led by Thomas,
including a book [3.1] and a key externally funded research project [3.2]
commissioned by UK
water sector collaborative research body UK Water Industry Research
(UKWIR; co-supported by
DTI, Defra, Ofwat) then subsequent activities by Thomas using this
research. The 2006 UKWIR
[3.2] research's objective was to characterise, and to quantify for the
first time, technological
innovation enablers and barriers in the UK water industry, starting from
Thomas' previous
qualitative assessment [3.1], then to make policy and practice
recommendations to accelerate the
development and uptake of new products and processes in the sector. The
research provided an
evidence base where before there were only unexplored or unconfirmed
features. UK water utilities
were previously considered to be risk-averse, low-risk/low-return
operators with an antagonistic,
blame culture towards innovation. The research challenged these
stereotypes with in-depth case
studies of functionally equivalent pairs of innovation successes/failures.
Key research insights
included:
- Discovery of significant, unsuspected inventiveness in the
supply-chain.
- Underutilised but key strategic leadership and partnership roles for
water companies in
accelerating innovation development and adoption.
- Longer innovation timescales than comparable industry sectors, i.e.
slow response times to
long-term challenges like climate change.
- Lost skills as key innovation champions retired and were not replaced.
- Lack of a sector-wide collaborative and open innovation vision.
The research correlated these insights with institutional, financial and
regulatory dynamics, and
explored practical consequences for the UK's role in a global water market
under sustainability and
climate change constraints.
The 2006 UKWIR research [3.2] expanded earlier foundational qualitative
case study data
collection by Thomas, including his water innovation strategy PhD
(1998-2002) and his Principal
Investigator role on a pilot EU FP6/JRC-IPTS water research policy mapping
(ERAWATCH, 2004-2005).
The result was a rich, novel dataset of interviews and surveys, opinions
and evidence from
over 200 stakeholders and 50 organisations. Thomas continued to build this
evidence base via
invited presentations and evidence submissions for: water policy and
industry events around the
UK (2006-09); the Cave Review of competition and innovation in water
markets [3.3] (2008-09);
the All Party Parliamentary Water Group (2007-09, 2012); trade journals
[3.3,3.4] (2008, 2012); his
blog (waterstink.com, 2009-);executive education on innovation for UK
water companies (2009,
2012); and interactions with Ofwat (with the Chief Executive, Director of
Strategy, Head of Policy
Development, and Future Regulation Advisory Panel).
Thomas has been a PhD (1998-2002), Research Associate (2002-05) and
Research Fellow
(2006-Date) at the University of Manchester. A University of Salford
colleague, Prof. Roger Ford,
provided technical validation and water technology commentary, and was
second author for both
the 2006 UKWIR report [3.2] and 2005 book [3.1].
References to the research
1. Thomas, D.A. and R.R. Ford 2005. The Crisis of Innovation in Water
and Wastewater.
Cheltenham, UK and Northampton MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishers.
3. Thomas D. 2008. Will the Cave Review address the UK water sector's
innovation deficit?
Water & Wastewater Treatment, 51(9), 14.
4. Thomas, D. 2012. Don't just talk about water success, achieve it. Utility
Week, 3 February,
11.
Copies of outputs 1-4 available on request.
Crisis of Innovation [1] has 18 citations on Google Scholar and
was peer reviewed pre-publication.
It was later reviewed in the international journal R&D Management
and sold several hundred
copies worldwide.
Barriers to Innovation [2] was a competitively tendered externally
funded research project, used an
internationally recognised success/failure methodology (deriving from the
US `Project SAPPHO'),
was subject to scientific advisory panel quality control (senior
regulatory, policy, and water
company board member representatives) and pre-publication peer reviewed by
the UKWIR
Director. It became an UKWIR library bestseller and was of suitable
quality to be cited by Lord
Sainsbury in his Review of Science and Innovation for the HM
Treasury (2007, p.134) to
characterise the UK water sector.
[3] and [4] are invited feature articles based on the key research and
subsequent activities. These
passed editorial review for trade journals with international circulation
(Water & Wastewater
Treatment has an average net monthly circulation of 8,680 [2010]; Utility
Week, a net weekly
average of 3,580 [2011]).
Details of the impact
Pathways to Impact
The pathway to impact began with Thomas' PhD on innovation in regulated
water utility sectors
(1998-2002) and a subsequent book (2005) that enabled him to win
competitive UKWIR funding
(2006) to research barriers to innovation across the whole UK water
sector. This 2006 research for
UKWIR provided a novel evidence base about UK water sector innovation
characteristics and
capacity [5.1,5.4]. It was soon read and cited by high-level water
stakeholders (2006-2007: Ofwat;
House of Lords science and technology committee; Lord Sainsbury/HM
Treasury; Defra/DTI
Environmental Innovations Advisory Group; Commission on
Environmental Markets and Economic
Performance) [5.2,5.3] adding to Defra/HM Treasury pressures for the
upcoming independent
Cave Review of the water sector, scheduled to address only `competition',
to be expanded to
include also `innovation'.
UK Impact 2008-2009
Thomas gave evidence to the Cave Review (2008-2009). Professor Cave and
his team examined
the 2006 research findings `in detail', appreciating this novel evidence
base in an area where little
other research was available [5.4]: "I can say that we examined Dr
Thomas' research in detail and
found it useful to inform some of our Review's recommendations to
Government"
During 2007-2009 the All Party Parliamentary Water Group invited Thomas
to present his
research evidence and to discuss policy reform (e.g. Inquiry into the
Future of the UK Water
Sector, April 2008). In 2009 the Prime Minister's highest
independent strategic advisory body on
cross-departmental science and technology (Council for Science and
Technology) invited Thomas
to discuss his research evidence (see Improving Innovation in the
Water Industry) [5.5]. Thomas
also presented at over 10 high-level UK industry panels and policy events.
UK Impact 2010-2012
In 2010 the Coalition pledged to consider the Cave Review findings, and
as part of the 2011 Gray
Review of Ofwat [5.6] concluded water sector regulation had to account for
its effect on water
sector innovation, thus aligning with Thomas' research findings. A new
Water White Paper was
published in 2011 [5.7] with sections on innovation within its 20-year
forward strategy that echoed
Thomas' research insights (e.g. `key role' for water companies and the
`lack of co-ordination' in the
sector that called for a united vision, p.93) and the subsequent 2012
Draft Water Bill's mentioned
innovation [5.8] (e.g. the need for `market reform and regulatory
mechanisms in driving
improvement and innovation in the industry', p.5).
Thomas understood Ofwat should play a key role in implementing policy
reform, having identified
their practices as a key influence on water sector innovation in his 2006
research. This would
include not only design of incentives but also how to accommodate 15-25
year timescales for
successful innovations, uncovered by his 2006 research, within Ofwat's
five-year regulatory cycles.
Ofwat's Director of Strategy, in charge of Ofwat's response to the Gray
Review, indeed sought out
Thomas' research insights to help with this process, after he heard Thomas
discuss innovation
aspects of the Water White Paper on a 2012 All Party Parliamentary Water
Group panel [5.10]: "It
is fair to say the research of Dr Thomas helped us to formulate ideas
about the pros and cons of
different innovation incentive practices and options, so helped our
on-going policy and strategy
development."
Thomas was invited to meet personally with both the Director of Strategy
and Head of Policy
Development, and to join Ofwat's Future Regulation Advisory Panel, to
advise on the reform
process [5.9]. He was further invited to smaller Panel roundtables
specifically on innovation, his
research insights on innovation in the water sector were taken by the
Director of Strategy to
several key meetings of the Ofwat Board, and he debated policy for
innovation with Ofwat's Chief
Executive on national BBC Radio 4 (Ofwat conceded `the real challenge' was
for the water sector
`to become more innovative in terms of how it delivers for its
customers', Radio 4, You & Yours, 7
June 2012).
Generally a more pro-innovation stance in the UK water sector emerged
during this impact period
as the impact of Thomas' evidence base diffused into various policy and
industry developments. A
high-level Water Sector Innovation Leadership Group and Water UK
Innovation Forum were
formed. The Technology Strategy Board funded a £3.5 million water
innovation platform in 2012;
with the editors of international trade journal Utility Week
approaching Thomas to write an article in
response to it. UKWIR was able to use the evidence base provided by the
2006 research to gain
water industry subscriber support for key follow-on projects (A Road
Map of Strategic R&D Needs
to 2030 [2007], UK Water Innovation: Which Way Forward in
Europe? [2010], Research and
Innovation in the UK Water Industry [2011] and Research and
Innovation Mapping Study for the
UK Water Research and Innovation Framework [2011]). Thomas continued
to inform reform
processes through invited attendance at events (e.g. national water policy
conferences Future
Water 2012 and 2013; WRc Open Innovation Day 2012) and via his dedicated
water blog
(waterstink.com) read by various key UK water stakeholders.
European Impact
Thomas' 2006 research also had impact at European level. The former UKWIR
Director presented
it to the newly formed, high-level European Innovation Partnership on
water in 2012. This DG
Environment sponsored group of key EU water stakeholders, chaired by
Environmental
Commissioner Janez Potočnik, used the research to inform their strategic
thinking about the
European water sector and innovation [5.1]. Thomas was then invited in May
2013 to an expert
panel in Brussels to discuss with representatives of the Partnership how
to revise regulatory impact
assessment methodology to incentivise better water innovation. In his role
as European Water
supply and Sanitation Technology Platform President (until 2012) the UKWIR
Director also
presented the research to the EC WssTP (2004-) to ensure it would address
the barriers to
innovation identified by Thomas' research [5.1]: "I can say that it
definitely played a part in the
group's strategic thinking and that part of the remit of the WssTP that
I chaired was to de-risk water
sector innovation so as to overcome some of the key barriers identified
in your Barriers to
Innovation research."
Sources to corroborate the impact
All sources are cross-referenced in section 4.
- Letter from the Director of UKWIR 2000-2011 and President of EC Water
supply and
sanitation Technology Platform until 2012.
- Environmental Innovations Advisory Group [EIAG] 2006. Environmental
Innovation:
Bridging the gap between environmental necessity and economic
opportunity. London:
EIAG, DTI and Defra, November. Cites the research (p.36) as an evidence
base on UK
water innovation. Also cited in Commission on Environmental Markets and
Economic
Performance; November 2007 (BERR, DIUS, Defra).
- HM Treasury 2007. The Race to the Top — A Review of Government's
Science and
Innovation Policies. London: HM Treasury, October.
- Letter from Professor Martin Cave, Imperial College Business School,
Deputy Chair
Competition Commission.
- Council for Science and Technology [CST] 2009. Improving
Innovation in the Water
Industry: 21st Century Challenges. London: CST, March.
- Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs [Defra] 2011. Review
of Ofwat and
consumer representation in the water sector [a.k.a. Gray Review]. London:
Defra. Notes `a
culture of compliance rather than innovation, with [water] companies
focussing on meeting
Ofwat's requirements rather than their customers' (p.26).
- Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs [Defra] 2011. Water
For Life. White
paper, Cm 8230. London: Defra, December. Section on innovation (pp.92-94)
noting the
`key role' of the water companies; announces £3.5M Technology Strategy
Board fund.
- HM Government and Welsh Government 2012. Draft Water Bill. Cm
8375. London: July.
Press release states the Bill is about `driving innovation' in the sector.
- Ofwat Future Price Limits statement of principles,
http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/future/monopolies/fpl/pap_pos201205fplprincip.pdf;
on `incentives
[that] will encourage companies to find more innovative ways of
delivering, increasing the
opportunity for outperformance from such innovation' (p.16) and price
controls to `not stifle
innovation with inappropriate rules' (p.26).
- Letter from the Director of Strategy at Ofwat