Good progress seems to being made on tackling excessive research bureaucracy. It’s time to bring a similar focus to the remainder of the regulatory burden.

I’ve written here before  about the challenge and cost of the regulatory burden facing the UK’s higher education sector, and particularly in England. 

It’s good to be able to report a decent bit of progress following the important focus on tackling research bureaucracy over the past few years. 

Adam Tickell was charged with leading a review back in 2021 which would identify any unnecessary bureaucracy across the research system which has become a barrier to effective working and efficiency. Following the publication of his group’s report in July 2022, the government has now issued a response. James Coe, writing for Wonkhe, reported on the response and noted the sheer range of activities and actors involved.

Given the time which has elapsed since the report was published, some actions have already implemented and there has been positive movement in some areas. You could argue that the government response, although it welcomes and supports Tickell’s conclusions, doesn’t add a huge amount here other than giving a helpful nudge to all those involved to get on with it. 

However, this is all undoubtedly a positive thing which should, ultimately, make more research easier, more productive and all of the administration more co-ordinated, cheaper and streamlined. It’s all good.

Beyond research 

For those concerned with other aspects of regulatory and bureaucratic burden beyond the research domain the findings will be familiar. For example, the findings around assurance bureaucracy where the review identified a range of key issues, including: 

•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;

•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.

Institutional bureaucracy

According to the review there are strong links between bureaucracy related to requirements of funders, regulators and government and each institution’s own systems, processes and approaches. Universities’ own bureacracy is part of the problem and, in the case of research at least:

•Risk aversion has, in some cases, led to unnecessary approval hierarchies which can cause major delays and operational difficulties

Communications and platforms

Moreover, Tickell identifies a number of communications issues in relation to unnecessary bureaucracy where a lack of clarity on the part of regulators can lead to “gold plating” by institutions which are trying to manage regulatory and other requirements.

Furthermore it is noted that there is a challenge in creating digital platforms that are capable of supporting institutional diversity and keeping pace with change and there is therefore scope for greater harmonisation of digital platforms. 

All of these issues, although drawn from the research domain, have real resonance in the broader regulatory environment in which universities operate.

Tickell’s magnificent seven

Tickell developed a set of seven principles for cutting unnecessary bureaucracy:

Harmonisation – Reducing the volume of administration through the use of common processes between different funders to make essential work easier.

Simplification – Reducing the complexity of individual processes to address unnecessary bureaucracy.

Proportionality – Ensuring that the obligations placed on researchers and institutions are commensurate with the size of the risk or reward.

Flexibility – Supporting and embracing excellence wherever it is found and not excluding research that does not fit within narrowly defined parameters.

Transparency – Communicating the rationale for systems and processes which have a bureaucratic burden.

Fairness – Developing approaches to systems and processes that support fairness, rather than erode it.

Sustainability – Cutting bureaucracy in ways that avoid destabilising the system to deliver a more efficient system over the long term.

A bigger bonfire

So – harmonisation, simplification, proportionality, flexibility, transparency, fairness and sustainability – all of these are principles which can and should be brought to bear in considering the need to reduce the overwhelming bureaucratic burden facing higher education beyond the research environment.

Here’s hoping that Professor Tickell is invited to repeat his review magic in relation to the wider regulatory landscape. We need a bigger bonfire.