Independent report

University Enterprise Zones final impact and process evaluation: executive summary

Published 4 July 2025

Executive summary

The University Enterprise Zones programme

The University Enterprise Zones programme (UEZ) pilot is a capital funding initiative funded by the former Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). The programme seeks to address local needs for affordable commercial workspace for small businesses and facilitate increased engagement between R&D-focused businesses and universities. In addition, UEZ seeks to improve connectivity and partnerships between universities and strategic partners with a view to facilitate local economic growth.

During its pilot phase, the programme awarded five universities funding for the construction or refurbishment of commercial workspace and incubation space. As a result, the following five University Enterprise Zones (UEZs) began operating in 2016 and 2017:

• Bradfield Centre, opened in the Cambridge Science Park in 2017, is hosted by the Trinity College and is focused on reserving its premises for high-growth potential technology startups.
• Digital Health Enterprise Zone (DHEZ) has operated on the campus of the University of Bradford since 2016 and strives to be an interface for digital health-related R&D for businesses, academics and public sector alike.
• Opened in 2016, Future Space operates on the campus of the University of West of England (UWE), and focuses on businesses in advanced engineering, and green, health and digital technologies.
• Hosted by the University of Nottingham in its Innovation Park since 2016, Ingenuity Centre leverages and brokers the existing support infrastructure at the Higher Education institutions (HEI) with increasing focus on businesses aligning with the University’s key expertise.
• Opened in the Liverpool Knowledge Quarter in 2017, Sensor City intended to become a hub for sensor system R&D for the private sector and academics alike. The UEZ was closed in 2021 with the time of reopening presently unknown.

This study

To assess the impact and processes pertaining to the UEZ pilot, Technopolis was commissioned to conduct a three-year evaluation of the UEZ pilot to date. This study builds on a baseline evaluation of the programme, also carried out by Technopolis in 2017. The present study, covering the subsequent years with specific focus on 2021-2023 has encompassed a mixed method approach combining long-term primary data collection, econometric analysis, and theory-based methods.

The primary data for this study has been collected in three annual rounds between 2021 and 2023. These rounds have comprised following components:

• Surveys of UEZ beneficiary businesses
• Interviews with UEZ beneficiary businesses
• Interviews with UEZ managers
• Updated Management Information Proformas for monitoring data against set Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

In addition, the final data collection round in 2023 involved interviews with programme stakeholders.

For the final evaluation, we have synthesised the annually collected data and complemented it with an econometric assessment of the UEZ beneficiaries, a Value for Money assessment and a Contribution Analysis.

Evaluation question 1: What, if any, impact has the programme had?

1a: Has there been an increase in university-business engagement as a result of the UEZ pilot?

• Early in the evaluation period, it seemed that being a UEZ tenant increased the propensity to use the host university’s research and facilities. However, as time has progressed, it seems that the UEZ has become less significant as a driver for engagement with the university’s facilities, or indeed to engage in formal knowledge exchange activity with the host university.
• The amount of formal and informal research, development and innovation interactions occurring between UEZ businesses and host universities has been declining over time.
• UEZ involvement has however, increased tenant businesses’ propensity to engage more broadly with their host university. These engagements have most often taken the form of student placements, graduate recruitment, and employing university staff.

1b: Has there been an increase in co-operation between universities and Local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) as a result of the UEZ pilot?

• Collectively, the level of engagement by UEZs with Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), where relevant, remains low and there has been no impact on host universities’ cooperation with LEPs. Most UEZs have an arm’s length relationship with their LEP and there are no evident links with individual UEZ clients.

1c: Has the UEZ pilot led to better business and economic performance both for those who worked with the five UEZs and the LEPs?

• Overall, while most survey respondents have a positive view of their UEZ engagement, the majority do not consider that relationship to have had a substantive impact on their business performance, in terms of income, employment, investment or profitability.
• While a minority of UEZ clients state that the UEZ programme has helped improve their business performance, the proportion reporting this positive outlook has fallen over time.

Evaluation question 2: How, if at all, has the programme achieved these impacts?

There have been four mechanisms though which the UEZs have tried to generate impact.

Recruiting tenant businesses

• While the UEZs, as a whole, have not supported as many businesses as planned, they have generally been successful in reaching their target audiences: start-ups interested in incubation support, and innovation-oriented supported SMEs
• The most successful recruitment approach has been selling the UEZ’s formal and informal links to the university (e.g. research capabilities, proximity to campus facilities)

Providing ongoing support to tenants

• All open UEZs have provided a combination of new or refurbished workspace, guidance to financial support schemes, business coaching and mentoring, and networking opportunities.
• It appears that business support has been more successful in UEZs which have some external providers.

Connecting the university and the business community

• The deepness of relationships between the UEZs and their host universities have varied considerably. Some UEZs have an arm’s length relationships with their host university. Other UEZs are more closely intertwined with their host university with, for example, formal partnerships with faculties, or having university staff on the UEZ management board.
• UEZ and HEI relationships are best developed where the UEZ has close links with existing university structures (e.g. existing commercialisation support services, management staff, or links with faculties), and where UEZs have an on-campus location.

Connecting UEZs to the wider ecosystem

• UEZs have adopted a range of tactics to try and connect themselves with the wider innovation ecosystem. These have included leveraging local professional networks and sector specific partners, and sponsoring events.
• Generally speaking, the UEZs have not made as much progress in this area as might have been hoped, particularly in developing links with LEPs. They have been more effective in building relationships with local partners including business incubators, and local sector bodies.
• Outreach work has been more successful where UEZ management teams have had greater capacity, and have taken a more proactive approach to relationship building.

Evaluation question 3: What is the overall cost-effectiveness of the programme?

• The programme’s delivery efficiency (0.89 businesses supported / £0.1 million programme expenditure) is broadly in line with other programmes that have provided innovation or incubation space linked to a research establishment.
• However, these figures must be considered with some caution. They exclude the large capital investments underwritten by the UEZ programme, funded through grants that predate the 2018-2021 expenditure figures used here.

Evaluation question 4: Did the funding of the incubator / grow-on space successfully overcome the market failure?

The UEZs have addressed two market failures with mixed levels of success.

• As added available space for innovators, the centres were not found to add meaningfully to existing provision.
• As spaces for improving connectedness between HEIs and businesses, we found that the UEZs to have successfully met a need.
• In addition, there is evidence of other local needs which UEZs have addressed individually, including health inequalities from the lack of public sector capacity and lack of investment.