Beyond the Buckets: What UKRI’s New Funding Model Means for the Sector

From April 2026, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) will begin organising its funding through a new “buckets” model. While much of the underlying funding remains familiar, the shift is still important: it shows how UKRI wants to frame its priorities, communicate its role, and demonstrate the value of its investment to government, Parliament and the wider public.

Under the leadership of UKRI Chief Executive Professor Ian Chapman, funding will now be organised through a four-bucket model: three mission-led investment buckets (curiosity-driven research, strategic government and societal priorities, and support for innovative companies) underpinned by a fourth enabling bucket designed to strengthen the system’s capacity and capability to deliver. This is not just an administrative change. It signals a stronger emphasis on economic growth, clearer lines of accountability, greater agility in funding decisions, and a more explicit focus on outcomes.

For research leaders, that makes this more than a technical restructuring. Changes in funding architecture often indicate changes in strategic direction. Understanding what UKRI is prioritising now can help institutions and teams anticipate future opportunities, position themselves effectively, and respond to shifts in the wider research and innovation landscape.

In this post, we look at what the new funding model involves, why UKRI is making this change now, and what it tells us about the organisation’s strategic direction.

 

Why is UKRI making these changes now?

Professor Ian Chapman became the third Chief Executive of UKRI in February 2025, succeeding Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser, who led the organisation for five years.

In a recent appearance before the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, Prof Chapman suggested that UKRI is moving into a new phase of organisational development. If Leyser’s tenure was about integration, culture and building foundations across a still-young institution, Chapman’s appears likely to focus more on delivery, coordination and demonstrating impact.

The move to the buckets system appears intended to provide clearer strategic lines, a simpler way of communicating where money is going, and stronger internal accountability for delivery.

 

What are the UKRI buckets?

The new model sits across the research councils, grouping UKRI’s spend into four buckets that clarify both the purpose of investment and the outcomes it is intended to deliver. Three of these are mission-led investment buckets:

• Curiosity-driven research
• Strategic government and societal priorities
• Supporting innovative companies

Curiosity-driven research will remain the largest element, at around 50% of total investment. It includes both block grant funding to English universities (alongside equivalent arrangements across the UK) and competitive, applicant-led funding for investigator-driven research.

The second bucket—strategic government and societal priorities—accounts for just over a quarter of investment. It is intended to support research and innovation that aligns with economic and social priorities, including (but not limited to) activity linked to the industrial strategy sectors, alongside other priorities identified by government.

The third bucket—supporting innovative companies—accounts for just under a quarter of investment and focuses on helping firms to start, scale and translate innovation into economic impact. This bucket includes Innovate UK, HEIF (Higher Education Innovation Funding), and parts of UKRI’s knowledge exchange, translation and commercialisation activity.

Crucially, these three mission buckets are underpinned by a fourth enabling bucket, projected at around £2 billion in 2026/27. This is best understood not as a standalone pot, but as a cross-cutting, pro-rated layer of investment that strengthens the system’s capacity and capability to deliver—supporting the infrastructure, talent, partnerships and other foundations needed to maintain and extend the UK’s world-leading position.

 

UKRI funding buckets at a glance

You can also see how the previous funding model maps onto the new one in the Sankey diagram on the UKRI website (shown below).

What do these changes tell us about UKRI’s strategic direction?

The buckets are not just a new way of describing the budget. They also reveal how UKRI now sees its role in the research and innovation system, and what kinds of outcomes it expects to prioritise.

Prof Chapman’s evidence to the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee offered some useful insight into the thinking behind the changes. Five themes in particular stand out.

 

1. The UK will need to specialise to stay globally competitive

The UK’s research and development base is world class, and that remains one of its major national strengths. But Chapman’s argument is that world-class performance alone is not enough: the UK must become more focused if it wants to stay competitive internationally.

Alongside the shift to the new buckets model, he outlined a move towards greater specialisation — concentrating on areas where the UK already has strengths and building from them.

In practice, that could mean stronger backing for areas of established excellence, alongside more deliberate support for geographical and specialist clusters, and a greater emphasis on making commercial investment easier to attract.

 

2. Economic growth is moving to the centre of UKRI’s mission

One of the clearest messages from Chapman’s committee appearance was that UKRI sees economic growth as central to its role.

That emphasis is visible in the structure of the buckets, particularly in the space given to strategic priorities and innovative companies. It also suggests that UKRI will increasingly frame research and innovation as drivers of productivity, investment and regional development.

Chapman pointed to several ways the sector could contribute more directly to growth, including:

• developing regional clusters and co-created growth with commercial, metropolitan and local partners
• supporting industrial strategy sectors through programme boards
• simplifying processes to encourage private sector investment
• trialling more proof-of-concept investment
• taking a more active role in promoting portfolio strengths to potential investors

This stronger growth framing has raised concerns in parts of the sector—particularly in the arts, humanities and social sciences—about whether disciplines that do not always present their value in narrowly economic terms could be marginalised, or treated as “add-ons” to STEM-led priorities. In the UKRI Strategy Virtual Town Hall on 24 March 2026, UKRI sought to reassure the community that these disciplines are central to delivery:

“Social sciences and arts and humanities have a vital role to play, both intrinsically and in delivering these core government priorities…” Stian Westlake, Executive Chair, ESRC

 

3. Accountability and transparency will become more visible

There was substantial discussion in the committee session about accountability and transparency, particularly in relation to demonstrating value for taxpayers’ money.

“I believe it is a privilege to spend £10 billion of taxpayers’ money to get a return for the economy, improve people’s lives, and drive growth. That is what the electorate wants from us. We need to be clear-eyed on our mission and focus on delivering those outcomes.” Ian Chapman

This positioning of the taxpayer as a key stakeholder is reflected in the move to the buckets system, which creates a clearer connection between investment and intended outputs.

Chapman also suggested that the new approach will make responsibility easier to identify and assign, particularly by reducing fragmentation in strategic areas. In the Virtual Strategy Town Hall, he pointed to AI as a case where UKRI funding has become spread across too many separate routes:

“At the moment we have… 13 different sources of money for our AI program… So that risks fragmentation, risks incoherence. And perhaps worse, it risks duplication.” Ian Chapman

The solution, he argued, is consolidation—bringing related spending together with clearer ownership:

“So we’re putting all of that into one place so that we have one pot of money to do each of the industrial strategy subsectors. And we have one responsible owner for that.” Ian Chapman

For universities and research organisations, this may mean a funding environment in which UKRI is more explicit about what its investments are expected to deliver—and more structured in how it tracks and manages delivery against agreed outcomes.

 

4. UKRI wants a more agile and responsive funding system

Another strong theme is agility. With UKRI planning to report more regularly on spending and upcoming opportunities, there seems to be a clear intention to create a more responsive dialogue with partners and a greater ability to shift resources when circumstances change.

“We need an amount of fungibility there, an ability to… respond to opportunities, and to respond to what we learn and what happens in the outputs and outcomes that we achieve. Those budget lines are not set in stone. There is an ability to move money between buckets and sectors to respond, but I want to be up front and transparent when we do that.” Ian Chapman

There is also an ambition to reduce the time it takes for ideas to move through the funding system.

“I am really keen to drive down the time it takes from idea to investment… We are working concertedly on how we take time out of that process… We are going to commit this year to a target to reduce funding cycles by 30 days.” Ian Chapman

If that ambition is realised, UKRI may become both faster-moving and more adaptive — with implications for how institutions monitor calls, prepare proposals and respond to emerging priorities.

 

5. Talent and research careers remain part of the long-term picture

Although the new buckets model is strongly framed around delivery and outcomes, the committee discussion also made clear that talent remains a strategic concern.

That includes both maintaining the commitment to fund 5,000 PhDs each year and ensuring that the wider research environment remains attractive to people building careers in the UK.

“You attract talent, both UK nationals and foreign students, when you do the most exciting things… The incumbency is to do the best and most exciting programmes, and then people will come.” – Ian Chapman

He also highlighted the Future Leaders Fellowship as an example of the kind of long-term support that can help retain exceptional researchers:

“It gives you continuity for seven years… It gives you extra support for additional things around you. It is hugely competitive, and we get brilliant people on to that scheme.” – Ian Chapman

This “extra support” is the Future Leaders Fellows Development Network, which is funded by UKRI to help fellows translate that long-term funding into genuine leadership development. The Network provides training, mentoring, cohort development and targeted funding, supporting fellows to build networks, confidence and capability—and ultimately to achieve their leadership ambitions.

This matters because any strategy focused on economic impact, translation and innovation still depends on a healthy pipeline of researchers, fellows and leadership talent. The emphasis may be shifting, but the long-term strength of the system still rests on people.

 

What does this mean for research leaders?

For research leaders, the most important takeaway is that the buckets model is not simply a new way of presenting the budget. It is a signal about how UKRI wants to operate, what it wants to prioritise, and how it may define success in the years ahead.

In practical terms, that suggests a need to watch for:

• stronger alignment between funding opportunities and government priorities
• increased emphasis on economic contribution, innovation and translational activity
• clearer expectations around outcomes, accountability and delivery
• more attention to regional strengths, clusters and partnerships
• a potentially faster and more fluid funding environment

Institutions and teams that understand these shifts early may be better placed to align their strategies, shape partnerships, and respond quickly as new opportunities emerge.

Opportunities for closer engagement with the organisations and communities it funds will grow, particularly where UKRI is trying to build capacity in places, strengthen clusters, and shape portfolios around shared priorities. Rather than seeing funding purely as a transactional process, Chapman emphasised the importance of ongoing dialogue and co-development at the Virtual Strategy Town Hall:

“The basis for investment in places is relationship, it’s discussion, it’s planning together with you about what matters.”

This points to a UKRI that wants to be more of an active partner in convening universities, business and local leadership—co-designing opportunities, not simply running competitions—while also creating clearer lines of shared responsibility for delivery and outcomes. Those wishing to add their voice will find details of open consultations on the UKRI Engagement Hub, https://engagementhub.ukri.org/ .

 

Final thought

UKRI’s new structure does not replace the complexity of the research funding landscape, but it does provide a clearer window into how the organisation is thinking about its mission. The language of the buckets points to a system that wants to be more focused, more transparent, more agile and more visibly tied to national priorities.

For anyone leading research strategy, that makes this a change worth watching closely.