GRF · Innovation Nexus
Public interest innovation
Public interest innovation directs research and technology toward goals that markets alone underserve: decarbonisation, health, resilience and inclusive public services. Mission-oriented programmes set a clear goal, mobilise several sectors and adapt their portfolio as they learn. This page sets out how missions are designed and governed, how public value is distinguished from activity, and what evidence ministries, agencies and funders need when they set, steer and end such programmes.
How the work runs.
Regulatory sandbox board
Public interest innovation · Regulatory sandbox · Cohort 6
Cohort
| Parametric micro-cover | Insurance | Agreed | 5 of 12 | Testing |
| Flood sensor data market | Data | Partial | 6 of 12 | Conditions |
| AI permit triage | Public service | Agreed | 7 of 12 | Testing |
| Drone deliveries, medical | Logistics | Agreed | 12 of 12 | Exit test |
Exit criteria
- Consumer harm
- none recorded
- Evidence
- independent evaluation
- Rule change
- regulator decides
- Wind-down
- plan on file
Sandbox cycle
- Applyeligibility
- Admitsafeguards
- Testbounded
- Evaluateindependent
- Exitor rule change
- Publishlessons
Fig.Regulatory sandbox board: example names and illustrative values, not a record or a live system.
Public interest innovation: how the risk develops.
Mission-oriented programmes and public benefit. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Direction, not only rate
Markets set the pace of innovation but rarely its direction toward public goods. Missions use procurement, regulation and funding together to tilt effort toward a goal that private returns do not reward.
Portfolio risk
A mission funds many bets knowing most will fail. Governance that punishes each failure pushes programmes toward safe projects and away from the learning the mission needs.
Capture and drift
Programmes attract incumbents with the capacity to bid. Without open calls, conflict-of-interest rules and published criteria, funding drifts to familiar actors and away from the goal.
Value beyond outputs
Public value includes access, affordability, trust and capabilities built in the state. Counting patents and projects misses whether the public goal moved, and for whom.
How public interest innovation is governed: instruments, mandates and commitments.
The instruments, mandates, actors and accountability arrangements a policymaker, diplomat or development agency works with, citing the agreements that set them. Structures follow the frameworks named. Any state or progress drawn is illustrative, not a record.
Policy instrument matrix
The kinds of instrument available on public interest innovation, by level of government and cooperation.
| Instrument type | Local | National | Regional | Global |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory | Zoning, building codes | Laws, standards, licensing | Harmonised rules | Conventions and treaties |
| Economic | Local levies, grants | Budget lines, taxes, insurance schemes | Risk pools, regional funds | Financing mechanisms |
| Information | Local warnings | Disclosure, early warning, statistics | Data sharing arrangements | Global monitoring and reporting |
| Institutional | Local committees | Lead agencies, coordination councils | Regional bodies and secretariats | Multilateral mandates |
| Cooperative | Community agreements | Partnership compacts | Memoranda and joint programmes | Agreements and joint commitments |
What is measured, and how well.
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government budget allocations for R&D by socio-economic objective | national currency and percent of total allocations | annual | National budget data (GBARD) | Published statistics |
| Public R&D funding through mission-oriented programmes | percent of public R&D budget | annual | Programme budget records | DECLARED |
| Public procurement of innovation | national currency per year | annual | Procurement registers and tender data | Published statistics |
| Programme milestones met against the mission goal | count of milestones met and missed | per review | Programme monitoring reports | REPORTED |
| Projects stopped or redirected at review | percent of portfolio | per review | Programme governance records | REPORTED |
| Participation of new entrants | percent of recipients without prior awards | annual | Grant databases | Published statistics |
| Independent evaluations published | count of evaluations | annual | Evaluation registers | Published statistics |
Where the evidence comes from.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators (GBARD) | Government R&D budgets by socio-economic objective | Open, attribution (OECD terms) |
| EC-OECD STIP Compass | Mission-oriented and other STI policy initiatives with instruments and budgets | Free, attribution (OECD terms) |
| CORDIS (European Commission) | EU mission projects, participants and deliverables under the research framework programme | Free reuse, attribution |
| Tenders Electronic Daily (EU) | Public procurement notices, including pre-commercial and innovation procurement | Free reuse, attribution |
| National grant and evaluation registers | Awards, reviews and evaluation reports of research and innovation funders | Open government licences, terms per funder |
Who decides, and what the evidence serves.
Innovation Nexus prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Ministries of finance and of science and innovation | Whether to fund a mission, at what scale, and on what review cycle | Mission designs with stop rules; comparative reviews of similar programmes |
| Innovation agencies and mission boards | Which projects to continue, redirect or stop at each review | Portfolio monitoring against milestones; independent evaluation designs |
| Public procurement authorities | When to buy innovation through pre-commercial or innovation procurement rather than off the shelf | Procurement records and the experience of comparable authorities |
| Supreme audit institutions and parliaments | Whether a mission delivered public value for its cost | Public-value evaluation guides; published evaluations and their methods |
Outputs this topic produces
- Mission programme designs with goal, portfolio logic and stop rules
- Public-value evaluation guides that separate outputs, outcomes and distribution
- Governance templates for mission boards, including conflict-of-interest rules
- Comparative reviews of mission programmes and how they adapted
What experts ask.
The questions concern direction, coordination and measurable benefit.
- Which public problem is the programme meant to solve, and how will progress be measured?
- Who sets the mission, and how are citizens and affected communities involved?
- How are risks and rewards shared between public funders and private partners?
- How does the programme decide which projects to continue and which to stop?
- Who benefits, and is access to the results fair?
Mechanisms and drivers.
Markets underinvest in innovations whose benefits are widely shared or long delayed. Public action corrects this through research funding, procurement of innovation, challenge prizes and missions. Missions work by setting a clear direction while leaving room for different solutions, and by coordinating funding, regulation and demand behind that direction.
Programmes can fail when goals are vague, when they cannot stop failing projects, when they capture benefits for incumbents, or when public bodies lack the capability to manage them. Questions of fairness arise when publicly funded innovations become expensive or exclusive products.
Why now: public institutions are building their own digital and data capabilities, and the question of when public interest innovation needs public ownership is live. Innovation Nexus convenes public innovators and their oversight bodies, and records lessons that can inform Reports.
How it is studied, and where the methods stop.
| Method or data | What it shows | Limits |
|---|---|---|
| Public value and cost-benefit evaluation | Benefits relative to costs | Many public benefits are hard to monetise |
| Theory-of-change and contribution analysis | How programmes are expected to cause outcomes | Plausibility, not proof |
| Experimental and quasi-experimental evaluation | Causal effects of programmes | Often impractical for large missions |
| Portfolio analysis | Balance of risk across projects | Depends on early, uncertain signals |
How it is studied, and what the methods cannot say.
- 01Policy, institutional and decision scienceMandate and gap mapping · Programme evaluation design · Comparative regulatory analysisApplied here
- 02Systems engineeringRequirements traceability for AI governance · Readiness gates for transfer programmesApplied here
- 03Artificial intelligence and machine learningCoding policy and legal texts · Mapping patents and papers to technologiesApplied here
Questions and answers.
What makes a programme mission-oriented?
How is public value measured?
Why include stop rules?
What makes a good mission?
Does Innovation Nexus run missions or award funding?
Contribute evidence from this page.
Reports is the Consortium's quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
- EmailGateway GW-GRFSend it from this pageEvidence, a correction, a case, a method, a review, a translation or profile input. It arrives tagged with this page, so the editor who owns it receives it.
- ZenodoOpen depositDeposit it and submit to the communityPublish your own record on Zenodo with your ORCID iD, then submit it to the Reports community there. Curators review it; the DOI stays yours.
- ReportsGlobal Risks ForumSee every way to contributeThe contribution types, how each is reviewed, what credit you receive, the licence and what is never accepted.
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
Bring a governance question to the Forum.
Information and enquiries are open today. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.
Legal documents.
Show all 18 legal documents
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.