Local Full Fibre Network programme evaluation plan

Question 1

1. Introduction

Accepted Answer

1.1 Purpose of this document

Building Digital UK (BDUK) has commissioned GC Insights, Belmana and Darren Kilburn to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of waves two and three of the Local Full Fibre Networks (LFFN) programme. Wave one pilot projects were covered by the Local Full Fibre Networks programme wave one final evaluation which was published in December 2023. LFFN was a £200 million programme which aimed to stimulate commercial investment to deliver more gigabit capable digital connectivity across the UK.

The evaluation will aim to identify and value the programme’s outcomes and impacts, examine the effectiveness of its delivery models, and explore how the lessons learned can inform future digital infrastructure initiatives, including Project Gigabit. The evaluation will provide evidence-based insights to support policymaking, improve value for money, and advance the UK’s broadband strategy. The evaluation will be conducted in a phased manner through six ‘work packages’, with each focusing on a different aspect of programme delivery or impact.

This evaluation plan outlines the framework and methodologies that will guide the research. It sets out how the evaluation will be conducted, including the specific work packages, data collection methods, and analytical techniques. The document will serve as the foundation for aligning the evaluation with BDUK’s objectives.

1.2 Overview of LFFN

Programme rationale

The LFFN programme was launched in 2017 in response to the UK’s inadequate provision of full fibre networks which was not meeting the country’s future digital connectivity needs. In 2016, only 2% of UK premises had access to full-fibre connections, placing the country near the bottom of EU league tables for critical digital infrastructure. ^{[footnote 1]}This challenge was compounded by a lack of significant commercial investment in fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) networks, with major providers focusing on less future-proof technologies such as fibre-to-the-cabinet (FTTC). The programme’s rationale was to stimulate the broadband market by reducing barriers to investment, encouraging competition and innovation.

The LFFN programme formed part of a broader package of measures introduced under the National Productivity Investment Fund (NPIF) to support full fibre rollout across the UK. Alongside LFFN, this included initiatives such as the Digital Infrastructure Investment Fund (DIIF), regulatory reforms, business rates relief, and efforts to reduce local and central barriers to deployment.

Delivery models

LFFN employed three distinct delivery models to achieve its objectives (in addition to a national voucher scheme which has since been separated from LFFN and is therefore outside the scope of this evaluation).

The Public Sector Anchor Tenancy (PSAT) model brought together public sector organisations to act as long-term “anchor tenants” for gigabit-capable broadband infrastructure. By aggregating demand for fibre connectivity across multiple locations, PSAT reduced the financial risk for suppliers, incentivising them to invest in new infrastructure. In some cases, this involved separating the procurement of infrastructure from service delivery, creating opportunities for greater competition and innovation.

The Public Sector Buildings Upgrade (PSBU) model focused on delivering one-off full-fibre connections to individual public sector buildings, such as schools, hospitals, and local authority offices. Unlike PSAT, these sites were not interlinked as part of a wider network. This provided immediate connectivity benefits to these sites while extending the fibre footprint to the immediate surrounding areas, making it more commercially viable for suppliers to offer services to nearby homes and businesses.

The Public Sector Asset Reuse (PSAR) model leveraged existing public sector assets, such as ducts and dark fibre, to reduce deployment costs for fibre infrastructure. By reusing or upgrading these assets, this approach aimed to lower the financial barriers for suppliers and increase the reach of gigabit-capable networks, particularly in underserved areas.

These delivery models were designed to target different challenges within the broadband market while collectively addressing the programme’s goals of increasing fibre coverage, stimulating competition, and enabling long-term market sustainability.

1.3 Evaluation scope

The evaluation of LFFN will provide a comprehensive assessment of its outcomes across multiple dimensions. This builds on key learnings from BDUK’s other evaluation work, but primarily the LFFN wave one evaluation and the Rural Gigabit Connectivity programme (RGC) and GigaHubs evaluation as these evaluations explored similar products. This evaluation will be delivered through six interconnected work packages, each addressing specific aspects of the programme’s design, delivery, and impacts:

Work package one examines the programme’s impact on local and national broadband markets, including market competition, supplier expansion, and delivery models, and consumer outcomes such as improved affordability and choice.

Work package two explores scalability and learning, identifying how lessons from LFFN have been applied within BDUK, local authorities and to other government departments digital infrastructure programmes.

Work package three assesses the benefits delivered to public sector sites and local authorities, including cost savings, digital transformation, and alignment with local strategies.

Work package four evaluates the additional uses of LFFN-funded infrastructure by suppliers, such as extended coverage, support for mobile connectivity, and integration with wider public services.

Work package five investigates the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the programme, focusing on key case studies to highlight tangible benefits and outcomes.

Work package six synthesises evidence from the earlier work packages to provide an overall assessment of the programme’s value for money, impact pathways, and lessons for future digital infrastructure initiatives.

1.4 Intended users of the evaluation findings

The findings will be valuable to several key stakeholders:

BDUK

As the programme’s sponsor, BDUK will use the evaluation findings to refine its delivery models, enhance its benefit realisation framework, and inform ongoing initiatives like Project Gigabit.

UK Government Departments

Insights from the evaluation will inform national strategies for digital infrastructure investment, helping to shape future policies and programmes.

Local Authorities

Lessons from LFFN will guide local authorities in designing and implementing future broadband and connectivity projects, particularly in underserved areas.

Wider policy and research communities

Findings will contribute to the broader evidence base on the impact of public investment in digital infrastructure, offering lessons applicable to similar programmes globally.

1.5 Structure of the Evaluation Plan

The evaluation plan is structured as follows:

Evaluation framework

Outlines the evaluation objectives, research questions, and the theory of change underpinning the programme.

Methodology and data sources

Details the evaluation methods for each work package, including contribution analysis, quasi-experimental methods, and qualitative and quantitative research techniques. This also describes the primary and secondary data sources, including management information, qualitative interviews, case studies, and broadband datasets, and their role in answering the research questions.

Implementation

Provides detail on how we will ensure the evaluation is delivered to a high standard and on schedule, outlining the project timetable, key milestones, management and monitoring processes, quality assurance measures, data security measures, and risk management strategies.

This evaluation plan sets out the overarching framework, objectives, and proposed methods for the evaluation of the LFFN programme. However, due to the phased nature of the work and the interdependencies between work packages, it is not possible at this stage to define all aspects of the evaluation method in full. In particular, the precise focus and lines of enquiry for certain work packages (e.g. work package five) will depend on the evidence and themes emerging from earlier research activities.

Where changes are made, such as the development of new theories of change, evaluation frameworks, or updates to data collection methods, these will be documented and shared in the form of short addenda to be read alongside this main evaluation plan.

Question 2

2. Evaluation Framework

Accepted Answer

This section sets out the key elements that will guide the evaluation:

The theory of change defines the expected pathways through which LFFN interventions lead to outcomes, which the evaluation will need to investigate and measure.
Evaluation objectives establish the core purpose of the study, ensuring alignment with BDUK’s priorities and policy needs.
Research questions specify the key areas of inquiry for each of the work packages, providing further detail of the focus for each.

Together, these elements provide the framework for the evaluation, shaping the data collection, analysis, and synthesis detailed in later sections.

2.1 Theory of Change

The figure below illustrates the programme-level theory of change for the LFFN programme, encompassing its main components: inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts. Given the programme’s complexity and the wide range of intended outcomes and impacts, the diagram is necessarily simplified. It has also been designed to broadly align with the evaluation work packages and BDUK’s benefits realisation framework.

To explore impact pathways and their underpinning assumptions in greater detail, the evaluation will develop separate theories of change for each of the primary LFFN delivery models and selected work packages (e.g. work package one, focused on market impacts). These tailored theories of change will provide a deeper understanding of the specific mechanisms at play for each work package and form the foundation for designing robust impact evaluation methods and research tools.

The main elements of the theory of change are discussed below.

Inputs

Inputs are the resources, funding, and expertise that underpinned the delivery of the LFFN programme. These included BDUK funding and resources, comprising the £200 million provided by BDUK alongside staff time and expertise used to offer oversight, technical guidance, and other forms of support throughout programme delivery.

They also included knowledge and insight from both BDUK and local authorities—drawing on BDUK’s understanding of market conditions and delivery models, and local authorities’ knowledge of local connectivity needs, infrastructure opportunities, and strategic priorities. This category also reflects early engagement activities, such as the 2016 call for evidence, which helped shape the programme’s design.

Public sector assets and resources formed another key input, encompassing the investment, staff time, and infrastructure made available by public sector partners such as local authorities. This included existing infrastructure (e.g. ducts and other publicly owned assets) that facilitated programme delivery.

Finally, private sector investment played an important role, bringing financial resources and technical expertise from broadband providers involved in the programme.

Activities

Activities represent the actions and processes undertaken to deliver the intended outputs of the LFFN programme.

A key activity was engagement with local authorities and suppliers. This involved supporting local authorities in the procurement process, helping them engage with suppliers, and working with suppliers to ensure they understood and could operationalise the delivery models being promoted.

Another core activity was the implementation of BDUK’s programme and assurance processes. This included the internal Gateway Review Process, which provided ongoing oversight as projects developed, and the evolution of project selection mechanisms, from an initial Challenge Fund model to a more collaborative Investment Pipeline approach. BDUK also worked closely with local authorities to shape proposals prior to submission, improving their alignment with programme objectives and increasing the chances of successful delivery.

The design and implementation of the three LFFN delivery models (PSAR, PSBU, and PSAT) formed a central part of the programme. These models were developed to leverage public sector demand to improve the commercial viability of fibre deployment and reduce barriers to entry for smaller providers, for example by separating infrastructure from service contracts and using shared public assets to lower costs and risks.

Finally, the programme involved allocating funding to LFFN projects, with grants and financial support provided to local authorities and delivery partners to enable the rollout of gigabit-capable broadband infrastructure.

Outputs

Outputs represent the immediate results of the LFFN programme’s activities. These have been categorised into two main types of output.

Infrastructure outputs are the tangible physical and technical deliverables resulting from the delivery of LFFN projects that directly contribute to enhanced connectivity. They include:

public sector buildings connected
Km of fibre installed or ducting installed/refurbished
points of presence: establishment of network access points that can act as hubs for providing onward connectivity
premises passed: the number of premises where it is possible to access a gigabit-capable service for the standard price and be connected in the standard timescale

Learning outputs are the frameworks, tools, processes or other knowledge assets developed through the implementation of the LFFN programme that can be applied to future projects or initiatives. They include:

procurement frameworks: improved procurement models tailored to broadband infrastructure projects
new commercial/contractual models: creation of innovative approaches to encourage private sector investment, including local authority led ventures and co-operative models

One additional output that flows from the learning outputs above is the successful implementation of competitive procurement processes that attract bids from a range of suppliers.

The theory of change diagram separately identifies a number of categories of outcomes, to align with the work packages for the evaluation.

Outcomes: market outcomes (work package one)

Work package one focuses on the market impacts of the LFFN programme, which aimed to create a more competitive broadband market to benefit suppliers and make it easier to achieve government gigabit coverage targets while delivering better outcomes for consumers.

At the time LFFN was designed, barriers to entry for smaller providers included high infrastructure deployment costs, low investor confidence in full-fibre networks (FTTP), and uncertain demand in less commercially viable areas. By reducing these barriers to entry, the programme aimed to increase the build of fibre infrastructure, through mechanisms that appealed to both established suppliers and smaller providers.

This was intended to promote innovation and competition in the wholesale market, especially given that smaller providers often faced greater challenges in raising investment to enter new markets. Where projects were delivered by larger providers this could still yield positive market outcomes by enabling competition in the retail market through increased infrastructure access for Internet Service Providers (ISP).

The programme sought to drive the development of new commercial and delivery models, supporting sustainable private sector investment and addressing gaps in broadband provision.

These efforts are expected to enhance consumer outcomes by improving affordability, increasing choice, and delivering more reliable, high-speed broadband services.

The long-term impact of these changes should be a more competitive, resilient broadband market in the UK, made up of a greater number of sustainable providers, offering consumers greater choice and more affordable broadband packages.

Outcomes: learning outcomes (work package two)

Work package two focuses on the scalability and learning outcomes generated by the LFFN programme. These outcomes reflect how lessons from the programme’s implementation can inform and improve future projects and initiatives. The programme’s learning outcomes are expected to benefit multiple organisations, including BDUK, local authorities, and wider government bodies. Key intended outcomes include:

Stakeholder	Outcome
BDUK	Lessons learned about programme delivery: BDUK gains a deeper understanding of what works in digital infrastructure programmes, including the effectiveness of different delivery models and approaches. Integration of tested approaches: Insights from LFFN are successfully incorporated into future programmes such as Project Gigabit, enhancing their design and delivery. More efficient programme delivery: Lessons from LFFN improve BDUK’s capacity to design and manage digital infrastructure programmes with greater efficiency and effectiveness.
Local authorities	Improved understanding of digital infrastructure programme delivery: local authorities develop greater knowledge of how to manage and implement broadband projects, including effective procurement and stakeholder engagement, as well as greater insight into coverage gaps, high-demand or opportunity areas and barriers to network build. Application of learning to other initiatives: local authorities apply lessons from LFFN to similar infrastructure projects, saving time and resources and improving delivery. Sharing knowledge across local authorities: Increased collaboration and sharing of best practices between local authorities, which helps to spread the benefits of LFFN across regions.
Wider government	Cross sector learning: models for public-private collaboration, procurement frameworks, and leveraging public sector assets inform approaches in other sectors (e.g. transport, health infrastructure). Adoption of tested approaches in other programmes: approaches piloted through LFFN are adapted and scaled to other national or local government programmes. Improvements in public service quality and efficiency: enhanced infrastructure delivery translates into more effective public service delivery, resulting in cost savings and wellbeing benefits.

These outcomes align with BDUK’s goal of enhancing public sector efficiency by improving the implementation of infrastructure programmes, and building greater capacity within the public sector.

Outcomes: Public sector outcomes (work package three)

Work package three will focus on benefits to public sector sites and local authorities, exploring how enhanced digital infrastructure has contributed to improved service delivery, operational efficiencies and delivery of local strategies.

A key outcome is the enhanced delivery of public services, with better connectivity enabling the digitisation of services such as online education, telehealth, and local government processes. High-speed broadband ensures that these services are more accessible, reliable, and efficient, improving outcomes for residents and reducing operational barriers for service providers.

The infrastructure also supports the use of digital infrastructure for other technologies by local authorities, such as enabling 5G deployment, IoT applications, or smart city initiatives. This could facilitate innovation across a range of public sector functions, from transport and environmental monitoring to utility management and emergency services.

In addition, the programme may have contributed to digital or other local strategies, helping local authorities integrate connectivity improvements into broader economic development, sustainability, or social inclusion plans. For instance, improved broadband infrastructure may support regeneration efforts or help to attract businesses and investment to regeneration areas or Enterprise Zones.

Finally, the LFFN programme seeks to deliver cost savings from digital delivery, allowing public sector organisations to reduce expenditures associated with broadband costs, dated systems or processes, or inefficient service delivery. Therefore, these outcomes also align with the goal of enhancing public sector efficiency.

Outcomes: additional uses of infrastructure (work package four)

These outcomes relate to the enhanced infrastructure’s role in driving improved connectivity, and enabling wider benefits for communities, businesses and public services. These are the infrastructure related outcomes that extend beyond the initial fibre deployment, which can contribute to other policy objectives. It should be noted, however that these outcomes will be more relevant to certain LFFN projects than others. Some projects focused on achieving targeted improvements for specific sectors or user groups, rather than widespread residential fibre coverage, meaning that success should be evaluated in line with these specific objectives.

A key intermediate outcome for those projects where this is relevant is increased commercial viability of broadband networks, particularly in areas where market failures previously limited investment. By leveraging public sector support, the LFFN programme de-risks fibre deployment, encouraging private sector involvement and creating opportunities for increased fibre investment and deployment in LFFN areas. This accelerates the roll out of gigabit capable broadband and improves access for households and businesses. As businesses and households take up improved connections, this improves the speed and reliability of broadband in underserved areas.

In addition, the infrastructure facilitates 5G deployment, providing the necessary backhaul to enable the expansion of next-generation mobile connectivity. This creates further opportunities for innovation, such as the development of smart cities, improved public services, and new business models relying on mobile and IoT technologies.

By improving connectivity in underserved areas, these outcomes align with BDUK’s goal of reducing the digital divide. It also enables the achievement of wider social, economic and environmental outcomes and impacts described below.

By improving access to gigabit capable broadband, the LFFN programme is designed to deliver significant benefits for both households and businesses, and wider benefits for the environment. Improving access is expected to lead to increased levels of take-up, which could transform how individuals and organisations use digital connectivity, driving improvements in daily life, economic activity, and more sustainable behaviours.

For households, take-up of an enhanced connection should lead to improved access to online services, including essential services such as healthcare, government portals, and digital education. Faster broadband also facilitates the increased use of the internet for education, work, or leisure, supporting activities such as remote working, online learning, and entertainment. Additionally, gigabit broadband creates time and money savings by reducing the need to travel, and enabling households to save money by shopping online. These should all contribute to an improved quality of life for residents, aligning with BDUK’s objective to reduce the digital divide and deliver public value.

For businesses, the programme supports the adoption of new technologies and applications, such as cloud computing, video conferencing, and large file sharing, which drive innovation and operational improvements. This enhanced connectivity enables changes in business strategies and processes, such as remote working, digital collaboration, and more efficient supply chain management. Furthermore, businesses benefit from increased market reach and improved efficiency, as gigabit broadband allows them to expand their customer base through e-commerce, access global markets, and streamline their operations. The long term impact of these changes should be improvements in productivity (contributing to Gross Value Added), higher levels of employment and the growth of the digital economy.

The LFFN programme may also lead to environmental outcomes by enabling more sustainable practices across various sectors. Enhanced connectivity should support higher levels of remote working, reducing the need for commuting and lowering associated carbon emissions. The reuse of public assets, such as ducts and infrastructure, minimises the environmental impact of deploying new networks by reducing the need for resource-intensive construction. Fibre networks are also more energy-efficient than copper for data transmission, which can reduce energy consumption over time and contribute to net carbon savings when considering manufacturing and installation impacts. Additionally, the programme could facilitate the adoption of IoT and other applications, such as smart energy management, environmental monitoring, and cloud computing which help optimise resource use and further reduce emissions. Together, these advancements align with BDUK’s goal to reduce the impact on the environment,

It is also important to acknowledge that deploying new fibre infrastructure involves manufacturing, transporting, and installing equipment, all of which generate emissions and resource use. These will also need to be measured by the evaluation in order to assess the net impact on carbon emissions.

LFFN theory of change

2.2 Evaluation Objectives

The evaluation has two overarching objectives, each supported by several sub-objectives:

Objective 1: to establish the outcomes and impacts of the LFFN programme and provide the means to value and estimate them

Identify and value the individual benefits and disbenefits of LFFN projects, the infrastructure subsidised, and any resulting effects in the intervention areas, distinguishing unique and generalisable impacts.
Examine how and why these outcomes occurred, exploring the mechanisms and contexts that led to the observed impacts.
Assess whether LFFN represented good value for public funding, providing evidence to inform future Treasury spending decisions.

Objective 2: to present evidence in a way that can be used by BDUK and supports its current priorities

Inform and adapt future BDUK programmes, including Project Gigabit, by identifying successful elements of LFFN that can be scaled or replicated.
Enhance BDUK’s understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with delivering connectivity improvements in areas with poor existing infrastructure.
Refine and improve BDUK’s benefits realisation framework by challenging existing assumptions, identifying gaps, and improving models used to estimate and demonstrate benefits.
Disseminate lessons learned to internal and external stakeholders to promote best practices and support the delivery of future digital infrastructure initiatives.

2.3 Research questions

The specification for the evaluation of LFFN identified a large number of ‘example questions’, grouped by work package, to be addressed through the evaluation. We have provided an overview of how each question will be addressed, along with any anticipated challenges or limitations that may affect our ability to fully answer them. Further detail on the exact methods is provided in the methodology and data sources.

Work package one: local and national broadband market impacts

New suppliers and local market diversification:

To what extent have suppliers brought in through LFFN contracts diversified their local market?
Have new suppliers entered local markets as a result of LFFN funded projects, and are they committed to further expansion in the area?
Are suppliers utilising LFFN subsidised infrastructure to provide new or enhanced broadband services?
How effectively have LFFN interventions addressed barriers to market entry?

This is a key focus of the evaluation. Evidence will be drawn from:

analysis of Think Broadband maps to assess coverage and presence of LFFN-supported suppliers in intervention areas
analysis of Open Market Review (OMR) data to assess levels of competition and changes in market entry
qualitative interviews with suppliers to explore the role of LFFN in supporting market entry, infrastructure use, and expansion plans

Limitations: OMR and Think Broadband data provide limited baseline or longitudinal data, so supplier interviews will be critical. There is a risk of bias if suppliers understate the role of public support in enabling their entry and expansion. Attribution may also be difficult in areas where other investments or market changes occurred alongside LFFN.

Market models and delivery innovations:

Have LFFN projects contributed to the adoption of new commercial or delivery models in local markets?

This is not a primary focus of the evaluation but will be explored through:

supplier interviews, where we will ask about changes in commercial or delivery models resulting from LFFN involvement.

Limitations: Evidence may be limited and dependent on what is shared in interviews. It may not be possible to draw firm conclusions across all projects or supplier types.

Market health and competitive dynamics:

What indicators can be used to assess the health and competitiveness of local broadband markets?
How have LFFN projects impacted market health in the short term, and what are the anticipated long-term effects?

This is an important area of focus, but some aspects will be challenging to assess. We will:

use interviews with suppliers to understand how they define a healthy or competitive market, how this differs in rural vs urban areas, and their views on LFFN’s influence
analyse relevant indicators of market health and competition (e.g. cost of broadband, supplier and package choice, changes in network reach)
benchmark LFFN areas against national averages (e.g. cost of broadband packages)

Limitations: There is no single agreed set of indicators for market health, and data availability may limit analysis in some areas. Anticipated long-term effects will be discussed in interviews but are unlikely to be assessed robustly.

National market impacts:

How has delivery of the LFFN programme/projects influenced the national broadband infrastructure market?
Have the impacts of LFFN on local markets had a measurable effect on the strategies or investments of major providers and alt-nets nationally?

This will be explored qualitatively, but robust evidence of national-level impacts may be limited. We will:

ask suppliers whether LFFN influenced their broader investment strategies or market behaviour beyond individual projects
identify LFFN contracts involving alt-nets and assess where the programme facilitated their entry or expansion and consider these in the context of national market trends
assess the wider trends and factors affecting the UK broadband market (e.g. through a short literature review)

Limitations: The relatively modest scale of LFFN investment may limit its measurable impact at a national level. Quantitative evidence of national market effects is unlikely; findings will rely on supplier perceptions and contextual analysis.

Sustainability and long-term viability:

What is the long-term viability of alt-net providers supported through LFFN funding?
How sustainable are the changes observed in local markets, particularly in areas where LFFN funding has driven diversification or innovation?

This will be explored through qualitative research, but a full viability assessment is beyond the scope of the evaluation. We will:

ask suppliers for their views on the sustainability of their presence in LFFN areas and any long-term plans linked to LFFN-supported infrastructure
consider wider market trends such as supplier consolidation and changing investment conditions to contextualise responses

Limitations: We will not conduct a full financial or market viability assessment of alt-nets. Findings will rely on qualitative evidence and should be interpreted with caution.

Work package two: scalability and learning

Scalability and future delivery:

How effective was LFFN in testing and demonstrating the scalability of its products for future delivery?
What specific products, models or approaches piloted through LFFN were scalable and adopted for broader use?
Were there any challenges or limitations in scaling the products or approaches tested under LFFN?

This is a key focus of the evaluation. We will:

draw on a review of project documentation and stakeholder insights to identify and map the full range of products, models and approaches developed or piloted through LFFN through
develop a framework to assess scalability and adoption, drawing on the Rose Book
conduct interviews with BDUK staff, local authorities, and other stakeholders to understand what was scaled or replicated, and under what conditions

Limitations: There is no central record of what was scaled or adopted, so identifying examples may rely heavily on stakeholder knowledge, meaning there may be gaps. Attribution may also be challenging where learning was informal or influenced wider practice indirectly.

Influence on BDUK products and programmes:

What successes from LFFN have been integrated into other BDUK programmes, such as Project Gigabit?
What are the lessons learned from the LFFN have influenced the design and delivery of other BDUK products and programmes?

This is a key focus of the evaluation. The main evidence source will be:

interviews with BDUK staff which explore which elements of LFFN have been taken forward in later programmes (e.g. Project Gigabit) and key lessons learned

Limitations: findings will rely heavily on staff reflections, particularly the BDUK staff who have been involved in the programme since its inception (if they still work at BDUK). Attribution may be challenging where changes were influenced by multiple factors.

Influence on other government departments and local authorities:

How have lessons learned from LFFN influenced infrastructure delivery models across other government departments or devolved administrations?
Have local authorities adopted innovative practices from LFFN in their own projects outside of the programme’s remit?
What elements of local engagement, programme design, or delivery were most effective in enabling local authorities to generate benefits from LFFN infrastructure?

This is a key focus of the evaluation. We will:

conduct interviews with local authorities and relevant stakeholders in other government departments or devolved administrations to identify where LFFN-inspired practices have been adopted or adapted, and which elements of programme design and delivery were most useful for local authorities
explore how knowledge, models, and lessons from LFFN were shared and applied beyond the programme’s direct participants

Limitations: findings will rely heavily on reflections of interviewees and their memories about how LFFN influenced practices. Identifying the most relevant individuals may also be difficult, particularly in those organisations that did not take part in the programme.

Work package three: benefits to public sector sites and local authorities

Influence on other government departments and local authorities:

How have lessons learned from LFFN influenced infrastructure delivery models across other government departments or devolved administrations?
Have local authorities adopted innovative practices from LFFN in their own projects outside of the programme’s remit?
What elements of local engagement, programme design, or delivery were most effective in enabling local authorities to generate benefits from LFFN infrastructure?

This is a key focus of the evaluation. We will:

conduct interviews with local authorities and relevant stakeholders in other government departments or devolved administrations to identify where LFFN-inspired practices have been adopted or adapted, and which elements of programme design and delivery were most useful for local authorities
explore how knowledge, models, and lessons from LFFN were shared and applied beyond the programme’s direct participants

Limitations: findings will rely heavily on reflections of interviewees and their memories about how LFFN influenced practices. Identifying the most relevant individuals may also be difficult, particularly in those organisations that did not take part in the programme.

Benefits to public sector sites:

What site level benefits have emerged through LFFN projects, including those not anticipated in original business cases? Can any of these benefits be quantified or monetised?
How do these site-level benefits scale when aggregated across all project sites within a local authority? Are there specific factors that enhance or limit the scalability of these benefits across sites?

Assessing site level benefits is important for the evaluation, but not a key focus as this is already well explored through other BDUK evaluations. The main focus will be on public sector sites that are bit covered by these evaluations. We will:

gather evidence through a survey and/or interviews with public sector site operators to understand the benefits experienced, including any unintended outcomes
depending on the types of sites and availability of information, conduct deep dive case studies which aim to quantify benefits using information provided by the site operator

Limitations: The ability to quantify or monetise benefits will vary by site type and depend on the availability and quality of data. As seen in the BDUK Hubs evaluation, many site-level benefits can be difficult to isolate and measure in monetary terms.

Local authority actions and strategies:

Have local authorities pursued additional connectivity and digitisation initiatives following LFFN delivery? Have these initiatives been through the LFFN supplier, or pursued independently?
What future plans and strategies do local authorities have for extending or building upon LFFN infrastructure?

Applications beyond fixed connectivity:

How have local authorities utilised LFFN-delivered infrastructure for technologies beyond fixed connectivity at sites (e.g. 5G deployment, LoRaWAN, sensor deployment, free Wifi in public spaces, shared cloud systems, integrated CCTV)?
What innovative uses of LFFN infrastructure have emerged, and how do these contribute to local authority objectives?

Digital strategies:

Where local authorities had digital strategies, how has the infrastructure delivered under LFFN supported the achievement of these strategies?
Did local authorities introduce or adapt digital strategies as a result of LFFN, and how has these shaped subsequent actions?

Differences between LFFN delivery models:

How have benefits varied across different LFFN project types (PSAT, PSAR, PSBU)?

This is a key focus of the evaluation. We will:

explore all of these questions through interviews with local authorities to understand how LFFN infrastructure has been used or built upon, including follow-on connectivity, digital initiatives, and innovative applications (e.g. sensor networks, shared cloud systems)
where there is evidence of further actions or notable benefits, we will develop case studies to explore these in greater depth, including variations by LFFN delivery model

Limitations: Evidence will rely heavily on identifying the right stakeholders in local authorities and their recall of the main benefits. The availability and depth of information for case studies will also vary between local authorities.

Value of infrastructure to local authorities:

What have been the main benefits of the infrastructure for local authorities, such as cost savings/productivity, service innovation or improvement? Can any of these benefits be quantified or monetised?
What is the perceived and actual value of dark fibre or passive infrastructure delivered under LFFN to local authorities?

Quantifying benefits is a key objective of the evaluation, but could be very challenging in practice. We will:

look to identify cases where local authorities have secured clear benefits from LFFN infrastructure through our initial engagement with local authorities
develop detailed case studies to quantify those benefits using a modelling approach, using the original value for money models developed at business case stage as a starting point, validating and updating these using financial and operational data collected from local authorities
where monetisation is not feasible, we will assess perceived value through qualitative insights from interviews

Limitations: Quantifying value for money will depend on local authorities’ ability and willingness to share relevant financial and operational data. Some benefits may also be very difficult to monetise (e.g. service improvements) or to attribute to LFFN infrastructure. This means it may only be possible to quantify a small proportion of the overall benefits.

Work package four: additional use of gigabit infrastructure

Wider gigabit connectivity benefits:

To what extent has the infrastructure built through LFFN projects been utilised by suppliers and the wider market to enable further network build?
Has this further network build contributed to increased broadband coverage in LFFN intervention areas compared to non-intervention areas?
Where LFFN infrastructure is located near residential areas or business clusters, has there been a more significant effect on connectivity?

This is a key focus of the evaluation. We will:

use quasi-experimental analysis(QEA) to compare changes in broadband coverage between areas with LFFN infrastructure and matched control areas without LFFN investment
analyse the characteristics of projects and locations where the most significant changes were observed, including proximity to residential and business areas

Limitations: Selecting robust control areas is likely to be complex for some LFFN projects due to the nature and geography of the infrastructure. Connected Nations data may also have gaps or inconsistencies, particularly at small-area geographies, which could affect accuracy of the analysis.

Mobile connectivity:

How has LFFN infrastructure been used to enhance mobile and other form of wireless connectivity (e.g. 5G networks, public WiFi, satellite services)? To what extent can increased mobile connectivity be measured/quantified?

This is covered in the evaluation, but primarily through qualitative research. We will:

explore this issue in interviews with suppliers to understand whether and how LFFN infrastructure has supported enhanced mobile and wireless connectivity
discuss the availability of data to assess the feasibility of measuring the benefits of LFFN

Limitations: the quantitative data needed to assess the impact of LFFN on mobile connectivity is unlikely to be available. Therefore the evidence will rely mainly on supplier perceptions and anecdotal examples.

Future use of infrastructure:

How is LFFN infrastructure expected to be used in the medium and long-term, and what factors influence these future uses?
What plans or commitments have been made by local authorities or suppliers regarding the continued deployment, use or enhancement of this infrastructure?

This is covered in the evaluation. We will:

explore future plans and expectations through interviews with local authorities and suppliers, focusing on how they anticipate using or expanding the LFFN infrastructure

Limitations: Responses will be based on expectations and intentions, which may change over time and may not reflect actual future outcomes.

Differences between LFFN delivery models:

How have uses of infrastructure and connectivity benefits varied across different LFFN project types (PSAT, PSAR, PSBU)?

This is a key focus of the evaluation. We will

compare connectivity outcomes across different LFFN project types (PSAT, PSAR, PSBU) using quasi-experimental analysis to assess variations in impact
explore differences in infrastructure use and benefits through qualitative interviews with local authorities and suppliers involved in each delivery model

Limitations: Differences in project scale, local context, and delivery approach may make it difficult to draw direct comparisons of connectivity benefits using counterfactual analysis. While we will account for these variations where possible, some may be difficult to fully control for in the analysis.

Environmental benefits:

What specific environmental benefits have resulted from the LFFN programme, such as reduced carbon emissions or improved resource efficiency?
What case studies can be found which highlight the environmental benefits achieved?

Social:

What social benefits have emerged from the LFFN programme, such as enhanced digital inclusion, improved health or education, or strengthened community cohesion?
What case studies can be found which highlight the social benefits achieved?

Economic benefits:

What economic benefits have been realised through the LFFN programme, including impacts on productivity, employment, and access to new markets for businesses?
What case studies can be found which highlight the economic benefits achieved?

Mechanism for benefit realisation:

How have the social, economic, and environmental benefits of the LFFN programme been enabled or actualised through the infrastructure delivered?
How do these benefits differ by LFFN project type (PSAT, PSAR, PSBU), and what factors contribute to these differences?

These questions are all considered a key focus of the evaluation and will be explored through a series of in-depth case studies focused on social, economic, or environmental impacts.

The exact focus of each case study will be determined by findings from earlier work packages, particularly evidence of where benefits have occurred and can be meaningfully assessed. Each case study will use tailored methods appropriate to the type of impact being assessed, which may include interviews, surveys, secondary data analysis or modelling. It is not possible to be more specific than this at this stage.

We will aim to quantify impacts where possible, but in some cases the evidence may only support a qualitative assessment.

Question 3

3. Methodology and data sources

Accepted Answer

This section describes the methodology for the evaluation and the key data sources that will be used to address the research questions. For each work package, we set out the focus of the work package, drawing on the theory of change and the research questions outlined in the previous chapter. We then describe the evaluation methodology, including the overarching approach (such as contribution analysis or quasi-experimental methods) and the individual tasks required to deliver this. Finally, we provide an overview of the data sources to be used for each work package, distinguishing between primary and secondary sources.

For primary data, we explain the type of data to be collected, the sampling approach, and how the data will be analysed. We also highlight potential challenges associated with secondary datasets and outline how these will be addressed.

It should be noted that the precise methods and data requirements for a number of the work packages will need to be defined and refined over the course of the evaluation. This will depend on the findings of research that we undertake in the early stages of the evaluation, and the nature of the case studies that we choose to focus on. Therefore, it has not been possible to be specific for a number of the work packages described here.

3.1 Work package one: market impacts

Expected Timeline

Start: January 2025
Data collection: March to July 2025
Interim findings: April 2025
Draft report: October 2025
Final report: January 2026
Publication: March 2026

Focus of the work package

Work package one will examine the impact of the LFFN programme on local and national broadband markets, focusing on how the programme has influenced supplier participation, market competition, and consumer outcomes such as improved affordability. It explores whether LFFN-funded interventions have led to greater supplier diversification, the adoption of new commercial and delivery models, and broader changes in market dynamics. Additionally, this work package considers the long-term sustainability of these market changes, assessing whether the programme has contributed to a more competitive and resilient broadband infrastructure landscape.

Evaluation method

Contribution analysis will be used to evaluate the extent to which the LFFN programme has influenced market outcomes. This is a Magenta Book compliant, theory-based method. It will provide a structured approach to assessing the programme’s role in driving observed changes while accounting for external factors. The key steps are described in the table below.

Table: evaluation method and tasks for work package one

Task	Description
Develop a theory of change	Construct a detailed theory of change for work package one that outlines the causal pathways from LFFN-funded interventions to expected outcomes (e.g. market diversification, improved competition, consumer benefits). Identify key assumptions underpinning the theory of change, such as the expectation that public sector-led investment would reduce barriers to entry for new suppliers. Identify external factors, such as broader market trends and regulatory changes, that could also have influenced outcomes.
Define hypothesis	We will develop a set of hypotheses that align with the theory of change and the thematic areas of the research questions, outlining the expected contribution of LFFN interventions. These hypotheses will be designed to test the causal pathways through which the programme was intended to generate impact, as well as to explore alternative explanations. For example, in the case of supplier diversification, the core hypothesis might be that LFFN interventions enabled new suppliers to enter local markets and expand their networks. However, an alternative hypothesis would be that supplier entry or expansion was primarily driven by broader market trends or other initiatives unrelated to LFFN.
Define evidence tests	For each hypothesis, define evidence tests. These would define the evidence necessary to reach one of the following conclusions: Primary contribution: the outcome could not have occurred without LFFN, with evidence showing interventions were critical to enabling changes and of far greater importance than other factors. Major contribution: while other factors also played a role, LFFN was one of the key drivers, substantially influencing outcomes. Enhancing contribution: LFFN amplified or accelerated changes that were already underway or likely to occur. Limited contribution: the changes are primarily attributable to other factors, with LFFN playing only a supporting or incidental role. No contribution: evidence shows that the changes occurred due to other drivers, with no clear link to LFFN interventions.
Secondary data analysis	Analyse a range of publicly available datasets showing changes in market outcomes in LFFN areas. Triangulate the analysis of these datasets to identify LFFN areas where there is evidence of significant market changes and identify eight case study areas for further analysis. We will examine the following datasets: Percentage of premises with access to gigabit capable broadband (Connected Nations). The proportion of premises categorised as ‘black’, ‘grey’, or ‘white’ in Open Market Review (OMR) data. We acknowledge that OMR data only goes as far back as 2021 and is patchy until late 2022 when BDUK started receiving full returns from suppliers. Changes in supplier level financial data (Companies House), such as capital expenditure and turnover to identify shifts in investment behaviour. Current coverage of LFFN supported suppliers in Think Broadband maps.
Supplier interviews	Conduct qualitative interviews with suppliers to provide insights into the impact of the LFFN programme on market outcomes, business strategies and models and competition dynamics. The findings will be analysed using thematic coding. This will provide qualitative evidence to support the contribution analysis and deepen understanding of the programme’s influence on supplier behaviour and market outcomes.
Additional market health analysis	We will collect and analyse data to assess broadband market health in each case study area, focusing on key indicators that reflect the competitiveness and performance of local broadband markets. First, we will identify the most relevant indicators for assessing market health in each area, ensuring they align with the research questions and take account of the local context. Next, we will gather data from a range of sources, including both publicly available and commercial datasets. This will cover aspects such as price and affordability, levels of competition (e.g. the number of ISPs operating over LFFN-funded infrastructure), and consumer choice and satisfaction. Finally, we will analyse the collected data to highlight trends and variations in market health across the case study areas, with a particular focus on the influence of LFFN interventions.
Conduct contribution analysis	Using the framework described above and developed through earlier tasks, we will assess LFFN’s contribution to observed outcomes. This will integrate findings from all research tasks to test the hypotheses, including qualitative insights from stakeholder interviews and quantitative market data. The work package one report will then summarise the analysis in a clear evidence-based narrative, highlighting the extent of LFFN’s contribution to observed changes and explaining any external factors or limitations that influenced outcomes.
Identify barriers, enablers and lessons learned	Using interview findings, we will document factors that facilitated or hindered LFFN’s contribution to market outcomes. This will identify lessons for future programmes, such as whether specific delivery models (e.g. PSAT, PSAR) were more effective at driving market change.

Primary data

The primary data collection for work package one will focus on conducting semi-structured, qualitative interviews with suppliers to gather insights into the market impacts of the LFFN programme. All interviews will be conducted via video call or telephone.

Primary data: nature of data collected

We will develop detailed interview guides that align with the evaluation framework, including the theory of change, contribution claims and research questions. These guides will explore the following topics:

pre-LFFN market context, including barriers to entry and the competitive landscape.
the role of LFFN in enabling market entry or expansion and its influence on supplier behaviour, investment strategies, and service offerings
wider trends affecting market outcomes
changes in business models
changes in local market competition dynamics and influencing factors
supplier perspectives on key indicators for assessing health of local broadband markets
future investment or expansion plans, and whether these are influenced by the LFFN funded infrastructure

The interview guides will be developed in consultation with BDUK to ensure they align with the programme’s priorities and cover all relevant research questions.

Primary data: sampling approach

We will adopt a purposive sampling approach, focused on identifying eight LFFN projects for in-depth case studies, based on the initial findings from the data analysis. This will prioritise areas that exhibit significant market changes, but will also aim to ensure representation across various other factors, including:

LFFN project type: PSAT, PSAR and PSBU
geographic context: rural, urban, and mixed areas, to capture different market dynamics and challenges
supplier characteristics: areas served by smaller alt-net providers as well as larger, established ISPs
delivery and commercial models: differences in funding approaches, partnership models, and procurement strategies

The selection of case study areas will be conducted in collaboration with BDUK and Darren Kilburn and will also consider the availability of contact information for relevant suppliers. We expect this could leverage BDUK’s and Darren Kilburn’s existing relationships with suppliers, but we could also explore ‘cold’ direct approaches if these relationships do not exist.

Primary data: data analysis

We will analyse interview data using a thematic coding approach that aligns with the contribution hypotheses. This will ensure the findings feed directly into the contribution analysis and are integrated with quantitative data.

Secondary datasets

We propose to carry out secondary data analysis in two stages. First, we will analyse market indicators for all geographical areas with LFFN projects to identify case study areas where there is evidence of market change. In the second stage, we will examine additional indicators related to market health or consumer outcomes for those selected case study areas.

The following table summarises the indicators and datasets that will form the focus of our initial analysis, aimed at identifying areas where there is evidence of increased market competition and/or supplier entry or expansion in LFFN intervention areas. The table outlines the potential value of each dataset for work package one and highlights key challenges and limitations, particularly the lack of baseline and longitudinal data on LFFN suppliers’ network coverage. Without this, it is not possible to track changes in suppliers’ footprints over time or fully assess how local competition has evolved since the start of LFFN.

To address this limitation, we will cross-reference ‘static’ datasets, such as OMR data and Think Broadband maps, with longitudinal datasets like Connected Nations and Companies House, which provide insights into gigabit broadband coverage trends and the financial performance of LFFN-supported suppliers. This triangulated approach will help us identify patterns indicative of market change. For instance, if Think Broadband maps indicate significant coverage by an LFFN-supported supplier in a particular area, Connected Nations data shows a notable increase in gigabit coverage over the same period, and Companies House records reveal substantial growth in the supplier’s financial performance, this would suggest that LFFN facilitated the supplier’s entry or expansion in the market.

Following the initial round of analysis, we would share our findings for all areas with BDUK and agree which warrant further exploration through case studies.

Indicator and source	Purpose and use	Issues and challenges
Percentage of premises with access to gigabit capable broadband in LFFN areas (Connected Nations)	Provides longitudinal data on gigabit coverage over the programme period, which can be analysed alongside other ‘static’ datasets to gain insights on change over time	Does not provide data on which suppliers provide coverage Does not include coverage of all suppliers Some issues with consistency of longitudinal data for small areas In areas covered by Virgin Media, the data is skewed by a technical upgrade which resulted in a large increase in availability of gigabit broadband without any expansion of VM’s network
Number and percentage of premises categorised as ‘black’, ‘grey’, or ‘white’ in LFFN areas (Open Market Review data)	Provides insights into local competition by categorising areas based on the number of suppliers offering existing or planned gigabit capable infrastructure	Offers limited longitudinal data and lacks baseline information needed to measure changes over time Some restrictions on access that would need to be negotiated with BDUK
Changes in capital expenditure and turnover of LFFN suppliers (Companies House)	Provides longitudinal data on the growth and investment behaviour of small suppliers that won LFFN contracts. This helps us to evaluate LFFN’s role in supporting supplier viability and market diversification	Of limited value for larger suppliers that won LFFN contracts Potential issues identifying some smaller suppliers in Companies House
Think Broadband maps	Provides insights into local competition in LFFN areas by showing the current coverage of individual providers at postcode level	Data is a current snapshot, so does not provide time series or baseline data Underlying data is not freely available so analysis would need to be of screenshots

The secondary round of data analysis will focus only on the selected case study areas. The exact datasets and indicators we focus on will be determined at a later date, and will be informed by the market context for each case study. Possible indicators that this could focus on include:

the number of ISPs offering services in LFFN areas
indicators of affordability and pricing trends, assessing consumer accessibility to high-speed broadband
metrics reflecting customer experiences, such as satisfaction scores or complaints, where data is available

3.2 Work package two: scalability and learning

Expected Timeline

Start: March 2025
Data collection: May to November 2025
Interim findings: July 2025
Draft report: February 2026
Final report: April 2026
Publication: June 2026

Focus of the work package

Work package two will assess the scalability and learning generated by the LFFN programme, examining how effectively the approaches, products, and delivery models tested through LFFN have informed broader infrastructure initiatives and policy development. It will evaluate whether the programme successfully demonstrated scalable solutions for gigabit-capable broadband deployment and explore how these approaches have been adopted or adapted in other BDUK programmes, local authority projects, or government strategies. This work package will also identify key lessons learned from LFFN and assess their value in shaping future digital infrastructure programmes, including how BDUK can most effectively engage with and support local authorities to maximise the long-term benefits of infrastructure investment.

Evaluation method

The proposed method for work package two is summarised in the table below.

Table: evaluation method and tasks for work package two

Task	Description
Defining elements of LFFN projects that could be scaled or transferred	This initial task will identify and define the specific elements of LFFN projects that could be scaled or transferred to other projects, programmes or areas. These elements may include the delivery models (PSAT, PSBU, PSAR), supplier engagement strategies, procurement models/frameworks, innovative commercial models (e.g. the ‘Thin Layer’ model), technical innovations, mechanism for knowledge transfer and capacity building in local authorities, and integration of broadband into local policy and planning. The process will involve reviewing project documentation and consulting with BDUK and Darren Kilburn about the key elements that the evaluation should focus on. The aim will be to identify six thematic areas that the evaluation will focus on. Each thematic area would be a different aspect of LFFN which has generated learning, improved relationships or led to the scaling up or transfer of LFFN inspired activities to other areas or organisations.
Developing a framework for evaluating scalability and adoption	Create a structured framework to assess how the different elements identified through the task above have been scaled or transferred to other programmes, projects or policy areas. This will draw on the principles of the Rose Book on Knowledge Asset Management, involving the following steps. For each element identified in task 1, we will develop criteria that capture stakeholder experiences and indicators of scalability and adoption. These will include: Evidence of adoption: whether and where the model, approach, or strategy has been implemented in other projects or contexts. Perceived effectiveness: stakeholder assessments of how well the element worked in new settings and its impact. Adaptation in different contexts: whether the element was used as originally designed or modified to fit different geographic, organisational, or policy environments. Barriers and enablers to scaling: challenges encountered and factors that facilitated adoption in new contexts. A structured rating system will be created to summarise the extent of adoption for each element, making it easier to compare findings across different elements. This will likely range from ‘no adoption’ to ‘widespread/full adoption.’
Draft stakeholder interview guides	Using the framework and criteria developed above, we would draft topic guides for interviews with BDUK, local authorities and other government stakeholders (see indicative topics below). These interview guides would be agreed with BDUK prior to commencing fieldwork.
Discuss and agree sample for fieldwork	We plan to conduct up to 30 qualitative interviews in total, including a mix of local authority representatives and stakeholders from BDUK and wider government. More details are provided in the description of the sampling approach below.
Conduct and analyse stakeholder interviews	We will conduct the qualitative, semi-structured interviews with the list of stakeholders using the topic guides agreed with BDUK. Following data collection, we will conduct thematic analysis of interview responses, coding them against the criteria defined in the scalability and adoption framework (see below).
Conduct case studies	Using the findings of the qualitative interviews, we would develop six case studies based around each of our thematic areas. These will provide in depth analysis of the scale and nature of the learning benefits, prioritising those where there may be potential to quantify benefits (see sampling approach below). For each case study, we will map out how LFFN learnings influenced decision-making, processes, or outcomes in the selected project. We will determine relevant indicators to measure benefits, such as reductions in procurement time, cost efficiencies, infrastructure reuse, or faster deployment. Where feasible, we will apply quantitative methods to estimate the benefits resulting from LFFN-informed decisions. This will involve identifying the necessary data, including secondary sources such as project reports, financial records, and procurement data, as well as conducting additional stakeholder interviews. We will then carry out the additional research required for each case study. The feasibility of quantifying benefits will depend on the type of benefit and the availability of data. For example, where stakeholders report time or cost savings from changes to procurement approaches (e.g. shortened timelines or reduced legal/consultancy costs), we may be able to estimate financial benefits by combining this qualitative insight with administrative data or stakeholder estimates of staff time and resource requirements. If we conclude benefits cannot be quantified in a robust way (e.g due to data gaps), we will instead present qualitative evidence on the perceived impact of LFFN learnings.

Primary data: nature of data collected

The primary data for work package two will be qualitative in nature, collected through semi-structured interviews with stakeholders from BDUK, local authorities, and other government bodies that have engaged with or adopted LFFN-related approaches. These interviews will provide insights into how LFFN learnings have been transferred, scaled, or adapted, as well as the perceived benefits and challenges of doing so. Interviews will be conducted via video call or telephone.

We will develop detailed interview guides that align with the scalability and adoption framework. The guides will be tailored to each stakeholder type:

BDUK representatives: perspectives on how LFFN lessons have been captured, shared, and integrated into other programmes, such as Project Gigabit
local authorities: experiences of implementing LFFN-inspired models, procurement frameworks, or technical approaches, including challenges and benefits
other government departments: insights into cross-government learning, policy adoption, and examples of LFFN principles being applied outside the broadband sector

Primary data: sampling approach

We intend to conduct up to 30 stakeholder interviews in total for work package two, which will include a mix of local authority representatives stakeholders from BDUK and wider government departments. his will give us an average of five interviews per case study, although we anticipate doing more than five interviews for some case studies and less than five for others.

Identifying a sample of relevant stakeholders for work package two presents a distinct challenge. While a ‘lessons learned’ exercise was carried out for each project at closure, typically in collaboration with the local authority, much of the learning captured focused on intangible skills and experience rather than formalised processes or systems. Moreover, there is no central repository or formal database that tracks how lessons from LFFN have been transferred, adopted, or scaled, making it difficult to systematically identify where and how knowledge has been applied.

Further complexity arises from the fact that LFFN knowledge assets have often been applied in other contexts beyond the programme itself. Some local authorities and government departments have developed LFFN-inspired approaches, despite not being formally involved or funded through the programme. In many cases, knowledge transfer has occurred informally, through professional networks, the movement of staff between organisations, and ongoing policy discussions, rather than through structured mechanisms. This informal nature of knowledge sharing means there are limited records, making it difficult to identify and contact key individuals.

These challenges are particularly pronounced where staff have moved between BDUK, local authorities, or other government departments and have applied LFFN principles in new settings. While these projects may not have been part of the programme, they are still an indirect consequence of it. However, the informal and decentralised nature of this knowledge transfer makes it difficult to fully understand the scale at which it has occurred, or to trace where LFFN models have been adopted.

We are also aware of the need to minimise the burden on local authority stakeholders, particularly as some may be contacted again as part of later work packages. Where local authorities are involved in multiple case studies, we will seek to combine interviews to reduce duplication and minimise demands on their time.

To address these challenges, we will adopt a purposive sampling approach that draws upon the expert knowledge within BDUK and our collaborator, Darren Kilburn, to identify relevant stakeholders. This will involve the following steps:

Firstly, we will hold an initial stakeholder mapping session with BDUK representatives and Darren Kilburn to identify local authorities, government departments, and individuals known to have engaged with or adopted LFFN-related approaches. We will use this to develop an initial stakeholder map, prioritising organisations where there are warm contacts and good evidence suggesting that LFFN has influenced their approach. We plan to identify 20 stakeholders using this approach.

To minimise the burden on local authorities, we will then identify a minimum of two BDUK focused case studies. This could include the evolution of PSBU into subsequent programmes (such as Rural Gigabit Connectivity programme and Project Gigabit), and/or a case study focused on supplier relations and commercial engagement, examining how BDUK’s relationships with suppliers have evolved and influenced later projects. These case studies will involve interviews with BDUK staff and therefore reduce the number of interviews required with local authorities.

Finally, we will contact the identified individuals in local authorities, BDUK, and other government departments, then use a snowball sampling method, where interviewees are asked to suggest other relevant stakeholders who have engaged with LFFN products or processes. We plan to identify up to ten additional stakeholders for interviews using this method. If more than ten additional stakeholders are suggested, we will take a flexible approach to prioritisation, working with BDUK to determine which interviewees are likely to offer the most additional insight across the case studies.

We anticipate that only a small number of interviews will be required for the BDUK-focused case studies, allowing resource to be directed towards additional interviews where relevant contacts emerge elsewhere.

Primary data: data analysis

Following data collection, we will conduct a thematic analysis of interview responses, coding them against the criteria defined in the scalability and adoption framework.

This will involve assigning responses to key themes, such as evidence of adoption, perceived effectiveness, adaptations made, and barriers or enablers to scaling. We will apply a structured rating system (e.g. ‘no adoption’, ‘partial adoption’, ‘widespread/full adoption’) to summarise the extent to which different elements of LFFN have been adopted. Finally, we will identify common patterns across stakeholder experiences, as well as variations by delivery model or regional context.

Secondary data

While work package two primarily relies on qualitative data, we anticipate using secondary data sources to support the development of case studies, particularly where benefits from LFFN learning can be quantified. Potential secondary data sources may include project reports, procurement records, financial data (e.g. to illustrate cost savings or efficiency gains), supplier investment data.

A key source of secondary data will be BDUK’s previous evaluation work. The LFFN wave one evaluations found key benefits beyond its initial scope, and that is a key part of the rationale for this work package. During the launch and development of work package two, the LFFN wave one evaluation will be discussed and explored to determine how these scalability and learning benefits were discovered and how this evaluation can explore these kinds of benefits in more depth.

However, the specific datasets used will depend on the selection of case studies and the particular benefits we are able to measure. Once case study areas are identified, we will determine which secondary data sources are available and relevant for assessing the scalability and adoption of LFFN approaches.

3.3 Work package three: benefits to public sector sites and local authorities

Expected Timeline

Start: April 2025
Data collection: July 2025 to March 2026
Interim findings: September 2025
Draft report: June 2026
Final report: August 2026
Publication: October 2026

Focus of the work package

Work package three will assess the benefits of LFFN-funded infrastructure for public sector sites and local authorities, examining both anticipated and unanticipated outcomes. It will explore how improved digital connectivity has impacted public service delivery, operational efficiencies, and wider local authority strategies, including digital transformation, smart city initiatives, and economic development plans. The work package will examine both the direct benefits for connected public sector sites (particularly under PSBU) and the wider organisational benefits enabled by the extended fibre footprint (particularly under PSAT and PSAR). This includes the ability of local authorities to deliver digital services more widely, pursue further digital connectivity initiatives and leverage LFFN-funded infrastructure to enable new technologies or attract further investment.

Evaluation method

Work package three will employ a mixed-methods approach, combining realist evaluation principles with a structured case study approach. Realist evaluation is a Magenta Book compliant evaluation method focused on understanding what works, in which contexts and why.

The realist evaluation principles will guide our exploration of the mechanisms through which LFFN projects generate benefits, how these mechanisms interact with different local contexts (e.g. urban vs rural settings), and under what conditions expected and unexpected outcomes occur. This will allow us to understand not just whether LFFN-funded infrastructure has delivered benefits, but how and why these benefits have materialised in different circumstances. Alongside this, we will conduct detailed case studies to quantify cost savings, operational efficiencies, and other measurable benefits for local authorities and sites. The main tasks are set out below.

Table: evaluation method and tasks for work package three

Stage	Tasks
Review of business cases and monitoring data	Review of all LFFN business cases to categorise them thematically based on the types of public sector buildings and sites connected, how they planned to use the infrastructure, the types of public sector benefits identified (e.g. enhanced public service delivery, digital transformation) and the source of cost savings/efficiencies (e.g. reduced digital infrastructure/connectivity costs, administrative or staff efficiencies). We will also review post-build management information, including post-build benefits templates collected from local authorities. These templates provide updates on realised benefits and case studies, helping to identify both intended and unintended uses of the infrastructure.
Developing a realist based theory of change	This task will develop an initial theory of change drawing on realist evaluation principles to understand how LFFN-funded infrastructure generates benefits for public sector sites and local authorities in different contexts. The theory of change will be structured around context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations, identifying the different ways in which infrastructure is expected to deliver benefits depending on local conditions, intended uses, and implementation approaches. The theory of change will be developed through the business case review task above. A key challenge is that many of the business cases may be too generic or high-level, providing limited detail on the specific mechanisms through which outcomes were expected to be achieved. Where possible, we will extract information on different use cases to construct preliminary CMO configurations that reflect the intended pathways to impact across different projects. We will then engage with BDUK stakeholders to refine the framework. This will involve a structured discussion to test whether the identified mechanisms align with their understanding of how LFFN-funded infrastructure has been used in practice, or whether there are any additional mechanism we should explore. This will then inform the final theory of change, which will provide a framework for later tasks.
Review findings from the BDUK Rural Gigabit Connectivity Hubs and GigaHubs evaluation and the LFFN wave one evaluation	To ensure alignment and avoid duplication with the separate BDUK Rural Gigabit Connectivity Hubs and GigaHubs evaluation by Belmana, we will review its findings on the benefits delivered to different types of public buildings (e.g. schools, libraries). This will involve a focused internal discussion with the evaluation teams working on both studies to identify any public building types covered by LFFN that were not included in the Hub Product Evaluation and could be a focus for this work, or any gaps or complementary areas where the LFFN evaluation can add further insights. Additionally, we will explore the findings from the wave one evaluation where it found benefits to public sector buildings and organisations and seek to understand how these benefits could be explored in more depth.
Exploring the feasibility of a public sector site survey	We will explore the feasibility of conducting an online survey of public buildings and sites connected through PSBU to collect quantitative descriptive data and identify potential sites for further in-depth interviews. The survey will focus on building and site types not previously covered in other evaluations (e.g. museums, council offices, GP surgeries). This will consider the number of sites connected (and whether this will provide a sufficient sample size), explore the availability of contact information for these sites, or whether a survey could be circulated to site managers on our behalf by local authorities. Before finalising this approach, we will review lessons learned from past survey efforts to assess potential challenges and inform the survey design.
Discuss and agree sample for fieldwork	Identify up to 15 local authorities (40% of LFFN projects) and up to 15 sites for qualitative fieldwork (more details are provided in the description of the sampling approach below). The number of qualitative interviews with sites would be reduced if we conducted a survey (see above). For each local authority, we would also need to understand whether there are specific types of mechanisms or outcomes that we should explore that are relevant to the CMO framework (e.g. based on the business case or BDUK’s knowledge of the project).
Draft local authority and public sector site interview guides	Using the theory of change developed above, we would draft topic guides for interviews with local authorities and public sector sites to discuss the scale and nature of benefits generated through the LFFN infrastructure (see indicative topics below). These interview guides would include a common set of questions for all projects, and some additional tailored questions if there are specific types of benefits we wish to explore (e.g. unique aspects of the project). These guides would be agreed with BDUK prior to commencing fieldwork.
Conduct and analyse local authority and public sector site interviews	We will conduct the qualitative, semi-structured interviews with the sites and local authorities, either online or over the telephone. Following data collection, we will conduct thematic analysis of interview responses, coding them against the CMO hypotheses, and capturing evidence of realised benefits, deviations from expectations and factors which contributed to or hindered success.
Conduct case studies	Using the findings from qualitative interviews we will select six case study projects for more in depth analysis of the cost savings and other benefits realised by local authorities (see detail on sampling below). For each case study, we will design a method for assessing value for money, defining the key cost-saving mechanisms and expected financial impacts. This will involve identifying data requirements and mapping out the evidence needed to validate claimed benefits, including financial records and cost projections. We will use the original impact spreadsheets submitted with business cases to assess whether the anticipated benefits have materialised, comparing forecasted impacts to actual outcomes. Quantitative data will be collected alongside follow-up interviews with finance and project officers to gather financial information, validate assumptions from the original modelling, and explore any unexpected benefits. We will then model cost savings and VfM, quantifying realised benefits where possible and determining whether or when the project is expected to achieve positive VfM. Finally, we will assess the factors that influenced financial outcomes, identifying both external and project-specific variables that may have contributed.
Synthesis of evidence / conclusions	This task will synthesise findings from stakeholder interviews and case studies to assess how LFFN-funded infrastructure has delivered benefits in different local contexts. We will identify the key factors that influenced whether projects achieved cost savings, efficiencies, and service improvements, drawing conclusions about what worked, for whom, and under what conditions. We will also assess whether the financial and operational benefits observed in case study projects can be applied to other LFFN projects in similar settings. This will involve exploring the extent to which findings are generalisable and identifying the conditions under which benefits are likely to be transferrable. Where full generalisation of benefits is not possible, we will assess whether they may be partially applicable to other areas, but dependent on a range of other factors such as local authority capacity, project type, and geographic context.

Primary Data: Nature of data to be collected

The primary data for work package three will be qualitative in nature, collected through semi-structured interviews with representatives from local authorities and public sector sites. These interviews will provide in-depth insights into how the infrastructure has been used, the benefits realised, and the conditions that have influenced outcomes.

We will develop interview guides structured around the theory of change to ensure that the discussions capture key mechanisms, enablers, and barriers to delivering benefits. While the core themes will remain consistent across interviews, some elements will be tailored to explore project-specific aspects that are relevant to exploring what works in different contexts.

Interviews with public sector sites would cover the following topics:

how LFFN infrastructure has been used to support services and operations
the benefits experienced, including cost savings, service improvements, or new opportunities enabled by improved connectivity
challenges in realising benefits and how these were overcome
any unintended outcomes, positive or negative, resulting from the infrastructure

Interviews with local authorities would cover the following topics:

the intended uses and benefits of the infrastructure in the original business case, and whether these have been realised in practice
details of further investments in the infrastructure, or interventions which have amplified its value
the strategic role of LFFN infrastructure in wider local authority priorities, such as digital transformation, smart city initiatives, or service delivery improvements
the nature (and indicative scale) of cost savings or efficiencies realised at an organisational level
unanticipated benefits or uses of the infrastructure
the factors that influenced the value of benefits
project-specific aspects relevant to testing our hypotheses, ensuring that interviews capture the unique conditions that shaped outcomes

As noted above, we will also explore the feasibility of conducting a survey of operators of public sector sites connected through PSBU. This will cover similar topics to those above, although the focus will be on collecting quantitative, descriptive data.

Primary Data: Sampling approach

We will aim to complete 15 interviews with local authorities (40% of projects). We will adopt a purposive sampling approach to select projects that allow us to test different CMO hypotheses, ensuring a diverse mix of project contexts, infrastructure uses and benefits.

The sampling process for local authority interviews will follow a two-step approach. Firstly, we will identify a list of potential case study projects through the review of business cases, assessing the expected benefits, planned infrastructure uses, and contextual factors. This will allow us to shortlist projects that represent a variety of mechanisms and local conditions. For instance, this could include projects that have supported smart city initiatives, local authorities that have used infrastructure to improve digital service delivery, or areas that have capitalised on the infrastructure to deliver digital strategies.

We will then hold a discussion with BDUK to review the shortlisted projects. This will draw on their knowledge of projects and explore the availability of contacts in the relevant organisations who would be willing to engage. This will help validate the sample and identify any additional relevant projects.

The sampling approach for public sector sites will depend on whether we conduct an online survey of sites. If we conduct a survey, we would include a question which asks whether the respondent would be willing to be contacted for a follow-up interview.

If a survey is not considered to be feasible, we will identify a sample of 15 public sector hubs from two PSBU projects, focusing on hub types where there is limited existing evidence of benefits, particularly those not covered by the BDUK Hubs evaluation. The selection will be based on a review of monitoring data, listing the public sector sites connected by different projects. While prioritising under-evidenced hubs, we will also consider contextual factors such as urban/rural location. The final selection will be discussed and agreed with BDUK.

Following the initial rounds of qualitative interviews, we will use the findings to identify six case study projects for further in-depth analysis. Those qualitative interviews which are not taken forward as case studies will still be used to inform our analysis of benefits and what has worked in different contexts, however the benefits will not be assessed in as much depth. Case studies will be selected to ensure diversity in project types, geographic contexts, and delivery models while prioritising those where there is good evidence of quantifiable benefits for local authorities, such as efficiency savings. The selection process will also be informed by the views of BDUK.

Primary Data: Approach to data analysis

We will conduct thematic analysis of qualitative interviews, coding responses against the CMO hypotheses to identify patterns in how LFFN infrastructure has delivered benefits. This approach will allow us to test key assumptions, explore variations across different local contexts, and assess the conditions under which expected and unexpected outcomes have occurred.

Secondary data sources

While work package three primarily relies on qualitative data, we anticipate using secondary data sources to support the development of case studies, particularly where benefits for local authorities can be quantified. Potential secondary data sources may include financial records (e.g. demonstrating cost savings from reduced connectivity costs or usage metrics for digital services).

However, the specific datasets used will depend on the selection of case studies and the particular benefits we are able to measure. Once case study areas are identified, we will determine which secondary data sources are available and relevant for assessing benefits to local authorities.

BDUK’s previous evaluation work, primarily the Rural Gigabit Connectivity Hubs and GigaHubs evaluation and the LFFN wave one evaluations, will be used during the development and analysis of findings for this work package. Both evaluations have generated significant evidence on the benefits of gigabit connectivity to schools, and the Rural Gigabit Connectivity hubs and GigaHubs evaluation will continue to explore benefits to public sector site types, such as libraries, through future evaluation. To avoid duplication, this evaluation will not explore the benefits to these site types in particular detail but can reference the outcomes found in these evaluations and apply them to LFFN projects where these site types were connected.

3.4 Work package four: additional use of gigabit infrastructure

Expected Timeline

Start: July 2025
Data collection: September 2025 to May 2026
Interim findings: April 2026
Draft report: August 2026
Final report: October 2026
Publication: December 2026

Focus of the work package

Work package four will assess the extent to which LFFN-funded infrastructure has driven further build of gigabit capable networks and take-up in surrounding areas. Establishing the scale of this additional connectivity is the key objective of this work package, and will be central to understanding the programme’s impact. This analysis will rely on quasi-experimental methods to compare changes in connectivity in LFFN areas with suitable control areas.

In addition, the work package will also explore other uses of the infrastructure beyond the public sector. This may include applications such as support for mobile connectivity, public WiFi, or smart city initiatives, where these uses are not already covered under other work packages (e.g. work package three). These aspects will be explored primarily through qualitative research with local authorities and suppliers.

Evaluation method

The main methods for work package four will be quasi-experimental analysis, combined with qualitative interviews with suppliers, to assess the impact of LFFN infrastructure on additional broadband expansion and connectivity improvements. This approach has been taken in previous BDUK evaluations, including the LFFN wave one evaluation.

QEA is a method for measuring the impact of a programme by comparing outcomes between a group that benefitted from the programme (treatment group) with a similar group which did not (control group). It helps estimate what would have happened without the programme by using statistical methods to adjust for differences between the groups. In the context of LFFN, QEA will enable us to attribute outcomes to the programme by comparing changes in connectivity in LFFN-funded areas with appropriate counterfactuals. The evaluation will use two methods in parallel:

Difference in Difference (DiD) will be used to measure the effects of LFFN by comparing changes in outcomes over time between treatment and control areas. Propensity Score Matching (PSM) will be used to select control areas that share similar characteristics with LFFN intervention areas. The exact approach taken will vary depending on the characteristics of different projects. For example, for some, we will compare changes with areas within defined geographical limits, while for others we will compare with control areas that share other characteristics with treated areas (e.g. business parks).

Further detail on the design of the quasi-experimental analysis, including the choice of outcome measures, data sources, and methods used to identify counterfactuals, will be set out in a separate methods paper. This will include more information on the use of PSM and the characteristics used for matching.

This will be complemented by interviews with suppliers to explore the mechanisms driving infrastructure reuse, the factors influencing further build, and the current and future uses of LFFN-funded assets. Where possible, we will draw on insights from work package three, particularly findings related to local digital strategies and intended uses of connectivity, to assess whether infrastructure use aligns with local authority ambitions. The extent to which this is feasible will depend on the overlap between the local authorities covered in work package three and the suppliers engaged in work package four.

Some research methods will be further defined as the evaluation progresses, and will depend on the findings of earlier tasks and work packages.

Table: evaluation method and tasks for work package four

Stage	Tasks
Defining treatment for QEA	For all LFFN projects, treated areas will be identified using BDUK monitoring data showing the location of public sector buildings or other subsidised infrastructure. Treated areas will be defined at the output area (OA) level. For PSBU and PSAT, treatment will be assigned to output areas containing public buildings or other assets that directly benefitted from LFFN support. For PSAR, treatment will be defined as output areas containing subsidised infrastructure, such as ducting or dark fibre routes, with treatment assigned to all output areas intersecting the LFFN infrastructure where asset reuse projects span multiple areas.
Identifying control areas	Control areas will be selected using propensity score matching (PSM) on a set of characteristics used in models developed for other BDUK evaluations (LFFN wave one evaluation, BDUK Vouchers evaluation and Rural Gigabit Connectivity Hubs and GigaHubs evaluation).  Propensity scores will be estimated using a Probit model, where the probability of receiving LFFN investment is the dependent variable and pre-treatment characteristics serve as independent variables. The pre-treatment variables will include broadband infrastructure and Socio-economic and demographic characteristics. Broadband infrastructure variables are included to ensure treatment and control areas had similar pre-existing connectivity characteristics before intervention. Key variables in this area include distance from the OA centre to the nearest telecom exchange (serving at least 60% of properties), a measure of the estimated cost to connect premises in an OA (averaged across properties, according to BDUK’s FScore model), and change in download speed in the year before intervention (from Connected Nations). Socio-economic and demographic characteristics are used to ensure control areas have a similar socio-economic profile which influence broadband demand and supplier investment decisions. This will include factors like employment (logged), ICT sector employment, Deprivation decile for relevant lower super output areas according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation, population (logged), and rurality as a binary variable based on the 2011 Census ONS rural/urban classification. We will identify unsupported output areas for matching from a number of different sample pools that meet certain criteria (to improve the quality of matching).  This will give us flexibility to identify the most robust comparators for each LFFN project type.  The sample pools will include: National pool: all output areas in the country. Non-intervention local authority areas with similar characteristics: this was the approach taken in the LFFN wave one evaluation, although it had a number of limitations. Geographically proximate areas near LFFN sites, defined as output areas within the same locality but 4–5km away to avoid being affected by the infrastructure, helping to ensure that treated and control areas are subject to similar local trends. Areas with public sector buildings (for PSBU and PSAT): limiting the sample only to areas that also contain a public sector building (i.e. a primary school, GP surgery, library or other) which ensures control areas play a similar role in the local community and may therefore have similar demand drivers. Multiple models will be estimated using different combinations of variables and sample pools of untreated areas.  We will perform a number of robustness checks to ensure that treatment and control areas are similar across key characteristics. We will then either identify a preferred model or a set of preferred models.
Interviews with suppliers	Using the findings from the task above, we will conduct qualitative interviews with broadband suppliers in up to six case study areas. These case studies will primarily focus on locations where the DiD analysis shows evidence of additional broadband coverage or speed improvements, helping us understand the factors that contributed to these outcomes. However, we will also include a small number of areas where no significant impact was observed, to explore potential barriers to achieving connectivity improvements. The interviews will explore several key topics, including what influenced suppliers’ investment and deployment strategies in LFFN areas, and the barriers and enablers they encountered in deploying fibre. They will also examine whether suppliers met their goals for broadband expansion and, if not, the reasons why. Additionally, the interviews will assess whether LFFN-funded infrastructure has supported improvements to mobile networks, and how suppliers intend to leverage this infrastructure for further expansion or alternative uses. This supplier perspective will provide crucial context to the quantitative findings, helping to explain why broadband expansion succeeded in some areas but not in others, and identifying lessons for future digital infrastructure investments.
Additional research into uses of infrastructure	Drawing upon the findings of QEA, supplier interviews and earlier fieldwork with local authorities (work package three), we will conduct additional research to explore how LFFN-funded infrastructure is being used in LFFN areas. The exact research will be shaped by BDUK’s interest in how LFFN infrastructure is being used and its long-term value, with several potential areas of investigation. These include surveys of businesses in LFFN areas to understand how they are using the infrastructure and the benefits it is generating for their operations. We may also conduct interviews with suppliers and local authorities about the value of dark fibre, and, where relevant data is available, estimate its potential economic value by modelling likely future commercial uses and cost savings from infrastructure re-use. In addition, we plan to engage mobile network operators and infrastructure providers to explore whether LFFN infrastructure has supported 4G or 5G rollout, supplemented where possible by analysis of mobile network performance data.

Primary data: nature of data to be collected

The only primary data collected for this work package will be through the qualitative interviews with suppliers, to provide context to the quantitative findings. The key topic areas are summarised in the method table above.

Primary data: sampling approach

We will identify six suppliers for case studies using purposive sampling. These will be based on the findings of the QEA analysis described above and will be agreed with BDUK. As noted above, we expect that these will focus mainly on areas where there is evidence of additional broadband coverage or speed improvements, however we will also include a small number of areas where no significant impact was observed. The sample will also include a mix of different project types (PSAT, PSAR, PSBU).

Primary data: approach to data analysis

The findings from supplier interviews will be analysed using a thematic coding approach. This will identify key patterns and insights across case study areas. Responses will be coded into themes aligned with the interview questions, such as factors influencing investment decisions, barriers and enablers to broadband expansion, infrastructure reuse, and future plans.

Secondary datasets : broadband outcomes datasets

Ofcom’s Connected Nations reports provide annual data on the UK’s broadband infrastructure, tracking the availability, performance, and coverage of fixed and mobile networks. For work package four, this dataset will be used to analyse changes in broadband coverage in LFFN areas, enabling year-on-year comparisons of gigabit-capable availability at a detailed geographic level (postcode and output area).

The dataset includes key indicators such as percentage of premises meeting speed thresholds, availability of gigabit-capable broadband, and broadband performance metrics (e.g. average and maximum download speeds). However, it relies on supplier-reported data, meaning there may be gaps in coverage for some networks. Additionally, technological changes over time, such as shifts in classification for full-fibre and gigabit broadband, have introduced some discontinuities in the dataset. Furthermore, a network wide upgrade made by Virgin Media means Connected Nations shows a significant increase in gigabit availability between September 2020 and January 2022 (unrelated to any expansion in their network). This can make it complex to analyse changes due to BDUK interventions in areas where Virgin Media is available.

Despite these limitations, Connected Nations provides a robust source for tracking broadband expansion, helping to assess the extent to which LFFN-funded infrastructure has contributed to further build and increased connectivity. We will, however, undertake initial analysis of the quality and reliability of Connected Nations data in LFFN areas before using the data for quasi-experimental analysis.

BDUK datasets

BDUK provides several datasets relevant to work package four. These datasets will support quasi-experimental analysis by identifying areas where additional BDUK investment has occurred and informing the selection of counterfactuals.

The first dataset is BDUK voucher data. Vouchers were initially part of the LFFN programme but were separated from the programme before the delivery period. Like LFFN, they were designed to stimulate the market and expand gigabit connectivity by subsidising the cost of broadband installation for businesses and residents. Several LFFN projects were designed by local authorities to use vouchers alongside LFFN delivery models (PSBU, PSAR, PSAT), making voucher data essential for understanding which areas received additional BDUK investment. The dataset includes details on voucher-funded connections, supplier involvement, and whether vouchers were issued individually or as part of larger projects. For voucher projects, data is also available on the premises passed; properties which can access gigabit broadband even if they did not receive a voucher. This information will be used to identify areas which benefitted from voucher investment, enabling us to control for other investments which could affect outcomes and isolate the specific contribution of LFFN to increased gigabit coverage.

The second dataset is telephone exchange data. BDUK has modelled the geography of telecom networks, linking postcodes to telephone exchanges. This allows us to identify which exchanges serve LFFN intervention areas and whether properties in these areas share the same broadband infrastructure as LFFN-funded hubs. Where LFFN investment led to exchange improvements, surrounding properties may have benefited, making this dataset useful for evaluating spillover effects of LFFN-funded infrastructure.

The final dataset provided by BDUK is the F score model. BDUK’s F-score model estimates the cost of deploying fibre to individual premises based on distance and infrastructure constraints. This model helps differentiate areas where commercial investment would have occurred naturally versus those requiring public subsidy, distinguishing between four categories (‘commercial’, ‘hold-up’, ‘uncommercial’, and ‘beyond value for money’). The estimated cost to connect premises in an OA, averaged across properties, is a critical variable in our matching model as it ensures that intervention and comparison areas have similar costs and commercial viability.

Socio-economic datasets for matching

The modelling will draw on a range of socio-economic datasets to control for differences between LFFN and non-LFFN areas. These datasets are summarised below.

Employment data at the LSOA level for England and Wales will be sourced from the ONS Business Register and Employment Survey (BRES, via Nomis), with equivalent data used for Scotland (Scottish Government BRES) and Northern Ireland (NISRA BRES). This dataset also includes employment figures for digital sectors, which will be incorporated into the model.

Population density data - measured as the number of people per square kilometre - will be used at the LSOA level in England and Wales, with equivalent data for Scotland (data zones) and Northern Ireland (small areas), sourced from ONS, NRS, and NISRA.

The 2011 Rural Urban Classification, available from the ONS, Scottish Government, and NISRA, will be used to distinguish between rural and urban areas based on census data.

To account for deprivation, the analysis will incorporate the Indices of Deprivation from MHCLG for England and Wales, with equivalent indices for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Since the methodologies used to compile these indices differ across the UK nations, the model will include deprivation rankings for England and Wales separately, along with a dummy variable to adjust for definitional differences in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Finally, the Internet User Classification (IUC) from the Consumer Data Research Centre (CDRC) will be used to account for variations in digital adoption, providing a segmentation of neighbourhoods based on internet usage patterns.

Expected Timeline

Start: October 2025
Data collection: December 2025 to June 2026
Interim findings: July 2026
Draft report: November 2026
Final report: January 2027
Publication: March 2027

Overview of work package

This work package will assess the wider social, economic, and environmental impacts of LFFN investments. However, the exact focus remains flexible and will be determined by the findings of earlier work packages, particularly in relation to how LFFN-funded infrastructure is being used in different areas.

Potential areas of focus include:

social impacts, such as digital inclusion, improved public service delivery, or community benefits
economic impacts, including business growth, employment effects, and productivity improvements
environmental impacts, such as carbon savings from infrastructure reuse, reduced travel demand, or energy efficiency gains

Evaluation Method

Work package five will be based on eight in-depth case studies, each exploring different social, economic, or environmental impacts of LFFN, informed by the original business case for each of the LFFN projects, the LFFN Full Business case which applies at the programme level and the findings from earlier work packages and previous evaluations. The specific methods used for each case study will be determined once the focus areas are defined, and will be tailored to the nature of the impact being assessed. This may include quantitative analysis, stakeholder interviews, secondary data reviews, or comparative assessments.

Table: evaluation methods and tasks for work package five

Stage	Tasks
Review of programme business case and its assumptions	This task will examine the assumptions and benefit mechanisms set out in the original business case for the LFFN programme. The aim is to map how the programme expected to generate social, economic and environmental benefits, including both direct and indirect outcomes, and understand the underlying logic behind the original value-for-money estimates. We will undertake a structured review of the Full Business Case (FBC) and related documentation to identify the types of benefits that were anticipated, the pathways and assumptions through which those benefits were expected to arise, and any quantitative estimates or modelling parameters used to inform the business case. This review will provide a reference point for assessing the extent to which the expected benefits have been realised, partially realised, or emerged in different ways. It will also enable us to test whether additional benefits have arisen that were not fully captured in the original business case.
Identifying and categorising impacts	We will identify and categorise the social, economic, and environmental impacts of LFFN projects by drawing on findings from project-level business case reviews, insights from earlier work packages, and the programme-level business case review outlined above. This will allow us to develop a preliminary impact framework that captures the key areas where LFFN has delivered measurable benefits. The framework will cover broad categories of impact. Social impacts will include outcomes such as digital inclusion, improved public services, and enhanced community cohesion. Economic impacts will reflect areas such as business growth, productivity gains, and local employment effects. Environmental impacts will include carbon savings from reduced travel, infrastructure reuse, and improvements in energy efficiency.
Literature review	We will conduct a literature review to gather evidence on the social, economic, and environmental impacts of broadband infrastructure investments. This will include academic studies, evaluations of similar programmes (such as the LFFN wave one evaluations and the Rural Gigabit Connectivity Hubs and GigaHubs evaluation), and business cases to identify common impact pathways and relevant metrics. Findings from the review will be used to refine the impact framework, defining potential indicators and methods for assessing each impact category in the context of LFFN.
Selecting case studies	We will identify six case studies from the findings of work package one through to work package four, selecting projects that demonstrate clear evidence of social, economic, or environmental impacts. These case studies will be agreed with BDUK to ensure they reflect a diverse range of LFFN-funded projects and types of impact. While the exact selection criteria will need to be agreed, they could include areas where there is evidence of wider connectivity improvements linked to LFFN, particularly where this has contributed to increased digital inclusion. We may also prioritise projects where enhanced connectivity has enabled more efficient or effective public services, such as in healthcare, education, or local government, with potential benefits for wellbeing or community cohesion. In addition, we will consider locations where particular sectors or business clusters have benefited from improved digital infrastructure, resulting in inward investment, sector growth, productivity gains, job creation, or business expansion. Finally, projects where LFFN has contributed to carbon savings, infrastructure reuse, or improvements in energy efficiency will also be considered. Again, we will prioritise case studies where benefits could be quantified or monetised to inform the cost-benefit analysis, although this might not be practical for all impacts.
Develop tailored approaches for assessing impacts	For each case study we will develop a tailored approach to assessing impacts, selecting appropriate metrics and research methods to quantify impacts wherever possible. The exact methods will depend on the nature of impacts, but we expect these will include both qualitative and quantitative techniques, drawing on both primary and secondary data. The following research methods are illustrative and will be defined in more detail once case studies have been agreed. Potential methods for assessing social impacts include interviews and surveys with local stakeholders, such as public service users, residents, and community organisations, to explore perceived benefits, service improvements, and the effects on digital inclusion. Where broader connectivity improvements linked to LFFN have been identified, we may also apply wellbeing valuation methods, drawing on evidence from past studies on the impact of digital connectivity on wellbeing. To assess economic impacts, we may use quasi-experimental methods such as PSM and DiD to examine whether improved broadband connectivity has influenced business growth, productivity, or wages in intervention areas. Contribution analysis may also be used to explore LFFN’s role in supporting cluster development, inward investment, or other forms of economic development, drawing on a mix of secondary economic data and interviews with businesses and local economic stakeholders. Environmental impacts will be assessed through carbon savings modelling, estimating emissions reductions from the reuse of existing infrastructure rather than the construction of new assets. We may also consider reductions in commuting and business travel due to improved connectivity, using findings from previous studies.
Analysis and conclusions	The findings from the case studies will be synthesised and analysed by comparing the observed impacts against the original expectations set out in the business cases. To ensure the findings are actionable and relevant to BDUK, the analysis will be aligned with BDUK’s benefits realisation framework and the assumptions underpinning the original business cases. This will help validate or refine existing impact assumptions. As part of this process, we will assess the strength of evidence across different impact categories, distinguishing between benefits that are clearly evidenced and those that remain uncertain. Where possible, we will quantify impacts using relevant metrics and benchmark them against the outcomes anticipated in the business cases. The analysis will also identify the key factors that constrained or enabled benefit realisation and draw out lessons for future broadband investment programmes - particularly regarding how different types of infrastructure use lead to different types of benefit.

Data sources

The data sources for work package five will be defined in detail once the specific focus of this work package is clearer. This will also be informed by the findings of previous work packages. However, we anticipate using a combination of primary and secondary data to assess impacts.

Potential primary data sources include:

stakeholder interviews and surveys with local authorities, businesses, public service users, and community organisations to gather insights on perceived benefits and challenges
case study research exploring specific examples of impact, supported by qualitative and quantitative data collection

Potential secondary data sources include:

business and employment datasets for assessing economic impacts such as job creation or business growth
administrative datasets which could be used to analyse changes in social outcomes e.g. ‘fingertips’ data from Public Health England
local authority reports and policy documents outlining how LFFN infrastructure has contributed to wider digital, economic, and sustainability strategies
commuting or other environmental data to estimate reductions in travel, infrastructure reuse or carbon savings during the fibre manufacturing, shipping and installation process

3.6 Work package six: conclusions and value for money

Expected Timeline

Start: August 2026
Interim findings: January 2027
Draft report: May 2027
Final report: June 2027
Publication: August 2027

Focus of the work package

The final work package will bring together the research findings from across the evaluation to provide our overall conclusions on impact and assess value for money of LFFN and each of the delivery models. Our analysis of impacts and VfM, would take a staged approach, distinguishing between:

quantifiable benefits directly evidenced through case studies
those that can be estimated by applying case study findings to similar projects (with greater uncertainty)
non-quantifiable benefits

Table: evaluation methods and tasks for work package six

Stage	Tasks
Integrating updated data	We will incorporate updated data from BDUK, Connected Nations, and other sources on premises passed, gigabit-capable coverage, and relevant public sector or supplier metrics into the analyses from earlier work packages. This will ensure that the final evaluation reflects the most up-to-date information on market impacts, scalability, public sector benefits, and infrastructure usage. Where necessary, we will reassess conclusions from work packages one to five, refining findings to account for any significant changes in data.
Synthesising evidence	We will synthesise evidence of impacts across key themes (economic, social, environmental, public sector savings/efficiencies, and market dynamics) while also analysing differences across LFFN project types (PSAT, PSBU, PSAR). This will involve integrating quantitative and qualitative findings to provide a comprehensive assessment of LFFN’s outcomes. The analysis will also consider variations by geography, assessing how impacts differ by urban/rural context, region, and local market conditions. This will help identify the factors that influence whether and how benefits materialise in different settings, including the enabling conditions and barriers that influenced impacts. Evidence on these factors will draw in particular on findings from work package three. The synthesis will also consider the potential for future benefits, by drawing on evidence from earlier work packages about planned or emerging uses of the infrastructure, and how the presence of future-proofed fibre networks may lead to impacts in the future. To support BDUK’s benefits realisation framework, we will map evidence-backed impact pathways against the original assumptions set out in the business cases. We will identify areas where quantitative impacts can be measured and where qualitative insights offer supporting evidence. Additionally, we will highlight any gaps in the evidence or instances where expected benefits have not materialised as intended. We will also create an updated theory of change diagram for LFFN, clearly illustrating which impact pathways are supported by evidence and where findings are inconclusive.
Identifying and quantifying monetisable impacts	We will identify all monetisable impacts from case studies across work package one–work package five, focusing on key benefits that can be expressed in financial terms. This will be done separately for each LFFN project type (PSAT, PSBU, PSAR) to assess variations in impact across delivery models. We anticipate that the main monetisable benefits will be public sector efficiencies and cost savings, productivity gains by businesses in LFFN areas, wellbeing improvements for households in LFFN areas and carbon savings from infrastructure reuse, reduced travel etc. We will apply appropriate valuation methodologies to estimate each monetisable impact (e.g. HM Treasury Green Book guidance). We will also consider whether there is scope for potential future benefits and model these separately.
Scaling monetised impact estimates	We will assess how monetised impact estimates from case studies can be applied to other LFFN projects, taking into account their specific context, delivery approach, and objectives. However, scaling impacts poses challenges, as the realisation of benefits is likely to depend on how the infrastructure has been used—information that may be limited or unavailable for non-case study areas, particularly where BDUK has less visibility of subsequent activity. To address this, we will identify the key conditions necessary for different impacts to be realised, drawing on case study findings and considering factors such as further network expansion (informed by work package four), digital service delivery by local authorities, and the adoption of smart city initiatives. We will then assess the extent to which these conditions are present in non-case study projects, using available evidence from earlier work packages (particularly work package four), business cases, BDUK monitoring data, or other relevant intelligence held by BDUK. Scaling factors will be applied cautiously, recognising that benefits may not materialise in areas where infrastructure remains underutilised. To account for uncertainty, we will use scenario analysis to estimate impacts under both low and high usage scenarios. We will also highlight where there is insufficient evidence to scale impacts, and where further investigation would be needed.
Identifying and assessing non-monetisable benefits	We will compile a list of non-monetisable benefits identified across work package one–work package five, categorising them by social, economic, environmental, and public sector impacts. These may include improved public service delivery, digital inclusion, community cohesion, supplier competition, and long-term strategic value of infrastructure. To assess the importance of the identified benefits, we will apply the HM Treasury Green Book approach, which considers several key dimensions. These include the scale and significance of the benefit- specifically, the extent to which it affects stakeholders and communities - and its duration and sustainability, assessing whether the impact is short-term or likely to persist over time. We will also examine distributional effects, identifying who benefits most (such as disadvantaged groups, rural communities, or businesses), and consider strategic alignment by evaluating how well the benefit supports wider government and policy priorities. This will help determine which non-monetisable impacts are most significant, ensuring they are properly considered in the final VfM evaluation and BDUK’s benefits realisation framework.
Conduct cost-benefit analysis	We will assemble data on the costs of managing and delivering the programme, then compare these with the monetised benefits identified in the tasks above to calculate Benefit-Cost Ratios (BCRs) for the LFFN programme as a whole and for each project type (PSAT, PSBU, PSAR). As part of the analysing we will explain any limitations or caveats, particularly for any monetised impacts that have been scaled where there is likely to be greater uncertainty. We will also provide a narrative alongside the BCR to highlight social, economic, and strategic benefits that are not captured in the ratio but remain critical for policy decisions (drawing on the task above).
Evaluating the efficacy of each LFFN project type	We will assess how effectively each LFFN project type—PSAT, PSBU, and PSAR—has achieved its intended outcomes by comparing policy objectives, business case expectations, and actual impacts. The evaluation will align its conclusions with several key benchmarks. First, we will assess whether projects delivered their intended market, public sector, and connectivity benefits in line with LFFN policy and strategy goals. Second, we will compare projected outcomes set out in the business cases with the results actually achieved for each project type. Third, we will analyse the impact relative to investment by considering the cost-effectiveness of each delivery model, using metrics such as cost per kilometre of fibre deployed, cost per end user connected, and the total public sector cost savings or economic benefits generated per pound of public investment. Finally, we will undertake a comparative analysis of how different delivery models performed relative to each other and to alternative approaches. For example, we will compare PSAR projects against similar PSBU or PSAT interventions to determine where investment achieved the greatest return.

Question 4

4. Implementation

Accepted Answer

4.1 Evaluation timetable

The diagram below shows the timetable for the evaluation and key milestones for each work package, including the dates for submission of interim findings, draft reports and final reports. We will also agree additional milestones at the inception stage of each work package. For work package one, additional milestones are as follows:

Share theory of change with BDUK – January 2025
Agree case study projects with BDUK – February 2025
Sign off of research instruments by BDUK – February 2025
Commence fieldwork with suppliers – March 2025

Work package one will begin in January 2025, with interim findings due in April 2025. A draft report is due in October 2025 and a final report is due in January 2026.

Work package two will begin in March 2025, with interim findings due in July 2025. A draft report is due in February 2026 and a final report is due in April 2026.

Work package three will begin in April 2025, with interim findings due in September 2025. A draft report is due in June 2026 and a final report is due in August 2026.

Work package four will begin in July 2025, with interim findings due in April 2026. A draft report is due in August 2026 and a final report is due in October 2026.

Work package five will begin in October 2025, with interim findings due in July 2026. A draft report is due in November 2026 and a final report is due in January 2027.

Work package six will begin in August 2026, with interim findings due in January 2027. A draft report is due in May 2027 and a final report is due in June 2027.

LFFN evaluation timetable

4.2 Management of the evaluation

Effective management of the evaluation will be ensured through regular communication, structured reporting, and secure information sharing between GC Insights and BDUK. Key details are as follows:

Weekly project meetings held by GC Insights with BDUK to discuss progress on tasks and alignment with the project timeline, challenges and risks, including any emerging issues requiring attention and next steps for the upcoming period. These meetings will always include the GC Insights Project Director and Project Manager, alongside BDUK’s project lead, with additional team members from the evaluation team and BDUK joining as needed. The agenda will be agreed in advance, and where necessary, additional stakeholders will be invited to ensure relevant expertise is available.

Monthly progress reporting submitted by GC Insights to BDUK, providing updates on key tasks and deliverables, details of planned leave to manage resource planning, and an updated risk register, which will be reviewed with BDUK to ensure ongoing risk mitigation. This will ensure that all stakeholders remain informed and that any necessary adjustments to the project plan can be made.

4.3 Quality assurance

To ensure high-quality published outputs across all work packages, we will implement a structured and robust quality management process tailored to the specific needs of each stage of the evaluation. The work will be undertaken in compliance with ISO20252, the International Standard for Social and Market Research. GC Insights is registered to the Standard.

Quality assurance for outputs

Each work package will follow a detailed review process for all key outputs, including methodologies, project management tools, reports, presentations, and datasets. The process includes:

Early discussion on outputs which will be led by senior team members, including the Project Director and collaborators, to define the structure, aims, resource requirements, and opportunities for innovation. This ensures that outputs are aligned with project objectives and BDUK expectations. Opportunities to enhance accessibility through visual techniques (e.g. infographics, maps, charts) will also be explored. BDUK will be consulted on key aspects, either during regular project meetings or through a review of draft structures.

First review that will be conducted internally within the team to assess the clarity and robustness of analysis. This will ensure findings are supported by clear evidence.

Final review planned to be carried out by the Project Director, who will critically assess the quality of thinking, recommendations, and alignment with BDUK priorities. Particular attention will be given to data presentation, ensuring that visualisations enhance understanding for the reader. The output will also be proof-read before submission to BDUK.

For each work package, we will ensure that final outputs (e.g. interim reports, final reports, case studies) are clear, concise, and relevant to policy. This will draw on qualitative and quantitative evidence to produce findings that are actionable and accessible to decision-makers.

Quality assurance for inputs

Our approach ensures that the methods, tools, and analytical techniques used in the evaluation are robust, accurate, and fit for purpose. Key elements include:

piloting surveys to ensure clarity and effectiveness before full implementation
training for researchers on interview and survey techniques, ensuring alignment with project objectives
rigorous review of data collection tools and analysis methods by multiple team members to guarantee accuracy and reliability
spot checks and data validation to ensure consistency and identify any anomalies in survey and interview data
structured processes to minimise researcher bias, ensuring all findings are traceable and supported by clear evidence
thorough documentation of assumptions, judgments, and methodologies, maintaining transparency and ease of review for stakeholders

4.4 Data Protection Measures

Ensuring compliance with data protection regulations is a key priority for the evaluation. To achieve this, we will adhere to BDUK and GC Insights’ data protection requirements, following the necessary processes and documentation to ensure the secure handling, processing, and storage of personal data.

BDUK Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)

The BDUK Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) is a mandatory requirement for all BDUK projects involving data sharing. This document:

outlines the scope and purpose of data processing for the LFFN evaluation
identifies potential risks to data subjects and sets out measures to mitigate these risks
ensures compliance with UK GDPR and BDUK’s obligations under data protection legislation
covers primary data collection activities, including interviews with local authorities and telecoms suppliers, ensuring that personal data is processed lawfully and transparently

The DPIA is reviewed and approved by BDUK’s Data Protection Lead and may be updated if new data-sharing requirements emerge during the evaluation.

GC Insights Data Protection Assessment and Management Plan (DAMP)

In addition to the DPIA, GC Insights follows its own internal Data Protection Assessment and Management Plan (DAMP), which is required for all projects involving data processing. This document:

defines the roles and responsibilities of GC Insights as a Data Processor and BDUK as the Data Controller.
identifies the sources and categories of personal data used in the evaluation, including names, contact details, and professional role information for interviewees.
sets out data security and retention protocols, including how data will be stored, processed, anonymised, and eventually deleted in line with GDPR
confirms that no data will be transferred outside of the UK or EEA and that data processing will be conducted only through secure platforms (e.g., SharePoint, Microsoft Teams, Outlook)

Privacy Notices for Participants

To ensure transparency, we will prepare privacy notices that will be published online for all research participants. These notices will:

explain what data we collect, why we are collecting it, and how it will be used
detail how personal data will be stored, processed, and shared, including retention and deletion policies
provide contact details for individuals to request access to their data, correct inaccuracies, or withdraw consent

These measures will ensure that the evaluation meets all data protection obligations, while also maintaining the highest standards of confidentiality and ethical research practice.

BDUK has established a SharePoint site to facilitate secure information sharing between BDUK and the evaluation team. This platform will be used to exchange datasets, reports, and project documentation while maintaining compliance with data security and GDPR requirements.

4.5 Risk Register

The table below presents a risk register that will be continually monitored throughout the project. For each risk, we assess the likelihood of occurrence, potential severity of impact, and proposed mitigation measures. The risk register will be reviewed and updated regularly, with an updated version provided in the monthly progress reports to BDUK. Any emerging risks will be discussed in weekly project meetings.

Method risks

Risk	Likelihood	Impact	Mitigation action
Local authorities/ suppliers may not provide sufficient or timely data needed for case studies, or there may be gaps	Medium	High	Discuss data availability during initial engagement with suppliers and local authorities and be clear about what data might be needed.  Only select case studies where we are confident data will be available. Where necessary explore the use of proxy data or benchmarks, documenting wherever this is the case.
Difficulty in securing participation of stakeholders for interviews	High	High	Leverage Darren Kilburn’s existing relationships in the sector. Ensure that meetings are short and focused and emphasise this in recruitment. Offer flexibility in interview formats.  Ask BDUK to email contacts on our behalf stating the importance of the evaluation. Refer to requirements in grant funding agreements to assist with evaluation where relevant/necessary.
Local authorities/suppliers may overstate benefits or underreport challenges to present a more favourable view	Medium	Medium	Ask for evidence wherever possible. Triangulate self-reported data with findings of other interviews and objective evidence where possible (e.g. public data, financial records). Verify claims with Darren Kilburn.
Modelling benefits and cost savings may require multiple assumptions which could be difficult to evidence	Medium	Medium	Clearly document and justify all assumptions, using sensitivity analysis to understand how changes in key assumptions affect results. Sense-check assumptions with stakeholders. Seek evidence from comparable projects to inform assumptions (including EU projects) or benchmark against assumptions in business cases where this is not available. Darren Kilburn to scrutinise and provide advice on key assumptions.
Issues with consistency of Connected Nations data for small geographies in some areas, and distortions due to Virgin Media’s technical upgrade.	Medium	Medium	Adopt similar approach to the Vouchers evaluation, by undertaking an initial review of the data for project areas, and removing areas served by Virgin Media from the models. Consider reliability of CN data when selecting project areas for case studies, ruling out any where there is clear evidence of discontinuities or irregularities.
Difficulty identifying suitable control areas for QEA due to distinct nature and geography of subsidised infrastructure.	Medium	High	Work closely with BDUK to refine the selection of control areas, considering a range of sample pools (e.g. comparable local authorities, areas in close proximity). Be prepared to adjust the quasi-experimental model as needed based on delivery model and local contexts. Use Darren Kilburn’s knowledge and expertise when identifying comparator local authority areas for the sample pool.
Case study outcomes may vary significantly, making it difficult to generalise conclusions across the programme or to apply findings to other areas.	Medium	Medium	Ensure a balanced selection of case studies across different project types, geographies, and contexts. Carefully consider the context, mechanisms and outcomes for each and its similarities with other projects, highlight any uncertainties. Use sensitivity analysis where relevant.
Low response rate to surveys (if required)	Medium	Medium	Pilot the survey to identify any changes needed to secure responses. Use of prize draw to incentivise response. Keep the questionnaire short and emphasise this in recruitment. Send two reminders to participate at different times / days.
Integration of multiple evaluation activities and evidence sources	Low	Medium	Develop and regularly update our evaluation plan. Ensure that each research activity collects the evidence required for other work packages and for the overall synthesis. Implement a responsive progress management approach that enables a flexible approach to evolving needs and re-prioritises resource allocation in consultation with BDUK if needed.
Data quality issues	Medium	High	Where data is not officially available, the consortium working on delivering the evaluation will look to fill the date gaps with data available in the public domain or other GDPR compliant avenues. A mix method approach for data collection will also be considered where possible, to allow any potential data gaps to be filled (e.g. asking for qualitative data in interviews where quantitative data cannot be provided / is not available.) Where data quality is considered an issue, this will be caveated in the findings to ensure this is clear in the use of any findings.

Project management risks

Risk	Likelihood	Impact	Mitigation action
Unable to meet agreed delivery dates	Low	High	Produce a project plan which includes timeline and deadlines for project outputs and client input. Assign experienced staff who have sufficient capacity to undertake the work. In the event of prolonged or unexpected absence, assign a team member with comparable skills to continue work required.
Conflicting demands on project team resources	Low	High	An experienced project manager has been assigned to oversee and regularly review resource allocation. Review resourcing on a weekly basis with Managing Director. Implement an established route to escalate issues to senior management on the basis of a RAG rating.
Unexpected absence of core team members	Low	High	In the event of prolonged or unexpected absence, assign a team member with comparable skills to continue the work required. Create a pool of substitutes for core roles. Create resilience through collaboration and sharing of information amongst team members so others can step into roles if necessary.
Consortium members do not deliver on time or to expected quality	Medium	High	Liaise closely with consortium members to ensure work is delivered according to project plan and quality. Monitor workflow, progression of tasks and potential challenges through project progress meetings. Build sufficient time into timeline to complete each deliverable and QA on schedule.
Dispute between partners	Low	Medium	Ensure all partners have experience working on large-scale evaluations as part of a consortium and well-established joint working mechanisms. The leads from each group would initially address any dispute. Employ independent arbitration in the unlikely event the parties cannot resolve the issue. Minimise the impact of the dispute on BDUK and the project.
Failure to comply with GSR ethical procedures	Low	High	GC Insights are registered to ISO 20252. Quality procedures cover valid consent participation, avoidance of personal harm and non-disclosure of identity. GC Insights is a member of the Market Research Society and operates to the MRS Code of Conduct. Interviews to be conducted by expert researchers in accordance with GSR principles. Include script in questionnaires and surveys that make purpose of research and participants’ protections clear. Securely store data and do not share it outside of the research team.
Data protection breach	Low	High	Securely store all data. Use encrypted devices and transit mechanisms for all data sharing. Data will to be accessible only to those on the research team. In the event of a data breach, the project manager and director will immediately agree on remedial action and if necessary, alert BDUK and other relevant parties.
Clash/overlap with other evaluations involving the same partners	Medium	Medium	Where possible, coordinate with other evaluations to avoid multiple research projects with the same individual (to reduce burden). Mitigate risk of publication deadlines across BDUK evaluations (LFFN, Hubs and Vouchers) by checking deadlines across the evaluations. From February 25, the plan is for the 3 evaluations to be managed by the same Project Manager which will allow clashes to be spotted and managed with ease as the Project Manager will be responsible for managing deadlines across them all.

Broadband Coverage in Europe 2017, IHS Markit and Point Topic, June 2018 ↩

Cookies on GOV.UK

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose of this document

1.2 Overview of LFFN

Programme rationale

Delivery models

1.3 Evaluation scope

1.4 Intended users of the evaluation findings

BDUK

UK Government Departments

Local Authorities

Wider policy and research communities

1.5 Structure of the Evaluation Plan

Evaluation framework

Methodology and data sources

Implementation

1.6 Note on refinements to the evaluation plan

2. Evaluation Framework

2.1 Theory of Change

Inputs

Activities

Outputs

Outcomes: market outcomes (work package one)

Outcomes: learning outcomes (work package two)

Outcomes: Public sector outcomes (work package three)

Outcomes: additional uses of infrastructure (work package four)

Outcomes: social, economic and environmental benefits (work package five)

LFFN theory of change

2.2 Evaluation Objectives

Objective 1: to establish the outcomes and impacts of the LFFN programme and provide the means to value and estimate them

Objective 2: to present evidence in a way that can be used by BDUK and supports its current priorities

2.3 Research questions

Work package one: local and national broadband market impacts

Work package two: scalability and learning

Work package three: benefits to public sector sites and local authorities

Work package four: additional use of gigabit infrastructure

Work package five: social, economic, and environmental changes

3. Methodology and data sources

3.1 Work package one: market impacts

Expected Timeline

Focus of the work package

Evaluation method

Table: evaluation method and tasks for work package one

Primary data

Primary data: nature of data collected

Primary data: sampling approach

Primary data: data analysis

Secondary datasets

3.2 Work package two: scalability and learning

Expected Timeline

Focus of the work package

Evaluation method

Table: evaluation method and tasks for work package two

Primary data: nature of data collected

Primary data: sampling approach

Primary data: data analysis

Secondary data

3.3 Work package three: benefits to public sector sites and local authorities

Expected Timeline

Focus of the work package

Evaluation method

Table: evaluation method and tasks for work package three

Primary Data: Nature of data to be collected

Primary Data: Sampling approach

Primary Data: Approach to data analysis

Secondary data sources

3.4 Work package four: additional use of gigabit infrastructure

Expected Timeline

Focus of the work package

Evaluation method

Table: evaluation method and tasks for work package four

Primary data: nature of data to be collected

Primary data: sampling approach

Primary data: approach to data analysis

Secondary datasets : broadband outcomes datasets

BDUK datasets

Socio-economic datasets for matching

3.5 Work package five: social economic and environmental changes

Expected Timeline

Overview of work package