Domain F: Sustainability¶
Using the domain reference
Domain F includes the five maturity descriptors and the source-verified minimum evidence for L3–L5. Expand the evidence section beneath each indicator and retain an auditable assessment record. See How to Apply HDRL.
Focus: Financial sustainability and economic contribution
Indicators: 6 (2 Core, 4 Enhancement)
The business question
Can we pay the bills? Moves us from short-term grant dependency to sustainable cost recovery.
Most health data services in the UK operate on short-term grant funding, creating a cycle of uncertainty that undermines staffing, infrastructure investment, and strategic planning. This domain assesses whether an organisation has moved beyond grant dependency toward sustainable cost recovery, commercial partnerships, and demonstrable economic impact — the evidence base funders need to commit to long-term investment.
Indicator Summary¶
| ID | Indicator | Type | Class | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F.1.1 | Funding Horizon | Core | B0 | Both |
| F.1.2 | Financial Risk Management | Enhancement | O | Both |
| F.2.1 | Cost Recovery & Pricing | Core | B0 | Both |
| F.2.2 | Commercial Revenue & Partnerships | Enhancement | O | Both |
| F.3.1 | Economic Impact Assessment | Enhancement | Y | Both |
| F.3.2 | Value Demonstration | Enhancement | Y | Both |
F.1 — Funding Security¶
F.1.1 Funding Horizon¶
CORE · B0 · Both
| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| L1 | Precarious. Short-term grants. Gap within 12 months. |
| L2 | Secured 1-2 years. Not baselined. Grant-dependent. |
| L3 | Core secured 2-3 years. Mixed baseline/grant. Medium-term concerns. |
| L4 | Core >= 3 years. Baseline covers essentials. Grants supplement not sustain. |
| L5 | Long-term >= 5 years. Diverse sources. Reserves. Enables innovation. |
Minimum evidence for L3–L5
Use this source-defined minimum evidence with the maturity descriptors above. Record the artefact, date, scope and the claim it supports.
L3 minimum evidence
- Funding documentation showing 2--3 year horizon for core operations
- Evidence mixed baseline/grant model with identified medium-term risks
L4 minimum evidence
- Budget/funding documents showing >=3-year committed core funding
- Evidence baseline funding covers essential operations (staff, platform, governance)
- Financial plan showing grants supplement rather than substitute core funding
L5 minimum evidence
- Funding documents showing >=5-year horizon and diversified sources
- Reserves policy and evidence of reserves held (audited accounts/statement)
- Evidence funding enables improvement/innovation (investment plan)
F.1.2 Financial Risk Management¶
ENHANCEMENT · O · Both
| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| L1 | No management. Single funder. No contingency. |
| L2 | Risks identified. Mitigation discussed. Limited diversification. |
| L3 | Basic with risks/mitigations. Some diversification. Minor contingency. |
| L4 | Active with register, plans, review. >= 3 sources. 3+ months reserves. |
| L5 | Comprehensive resilience. Scenario planning. Counter-cyclical. Enables opportunistic investment. |
Minimum evidence for L3–L5
Use this source-defined minimum evidence with the maturity descriptors above. Record the artefact, date, scope and the claim it supports.
L3 minimum evidence
- Basic risk register/mitigation list exists with some diversification
- Evidence of contingency planning and periodic review
L4 minimum evidence
- Financial risk register with owners and review cycle
- Evidence of diversification (>=3 funding sources) and contingency plans
- Evidence of minimum reserves or equivalent mitigation (policy + current position)
L5 minimum evidence
- Scenario planning evidence (stress tests, sensitivity analysis)
- Evidence of counter-cyclical or resilience planning (e.g., cost base flexibility)
- Independent assurance of financial governance (audit committee minutes, external audit)
F.2 — Commercial Models¶
F.2.1 Cost Recovery & Pricing¶
CORE · B0 · Both
| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| L1 | No recovery. Services free/subsidised. True cost unknown. |
| L2 | Analysis initiated. Unit costs calculated. Principles discussed. |
| L3 | Model with pricing for some services. Partial recovery. Basic IP terms. |
| L4 | Comprehensive with rate card. Tiered. >= 50% recovery. IP aligned with Fair Value principles. |
| L5 | Transparent, sustainable pricing model (published rate card, justified subsidies, predictable invoicing). Fair Value aligned. |
Minimum evidence for L3–L5
Use this source-defined minimum evidence with the maturity descriptors above. Record the artefact, date, scope and the claim it supports.
L3 minimum evidence
- Pricing model exists for some services with documented unit costs and assumptions
- Evidence of partial cost recovery tracking and basic IP terms
L4 minimum evidence
- Rate card and cost model documentation (unit cost basis) with governance sign-off
- Evidence of tiering/subsidy rules and alignment to Fair Value principles
- Evidence of cost recovery tracking (management accounts)
L5 minimum evidence
- Published pricing model with justified subsidies and predictable invoicing
- Evidence pricing reviewed and improved (change log, stakeholder input)
- Benchmarking or independent review of pricing fairness and sustainability (optional)
F.2.2 Commercial Revenue & Partnerships¶
ENHANCEMENT · O · Both
| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| L1 | No commercial revenue. No partnership framework. |
| L2 | Opportunities identified. Pilots initiated. Principles developing. |
| L3 | Some revenue (<10%). Offering exists. Basic agreements. |
| L4 | Significant (10-30%). Active pipeline. Competitive. LSSD2 aligned. IP defined. |
| L5 | Substantial (>30%). Major partnerships. Sophisticated models. Good practice. |
Minimum evidence for L3–L5
Use this source-defined minimum evidence with the maturity descriptors above. Record the artefact, date, scope and the claim it supports.
L3 minimum evidence
- Evidence some commercial revenue exists, and basic partnership agreements are used
- Due diligence and governance for partnerships documented
L4 minimum evidence
- Commercial partnership framework + standard agreements and due diligence process
- Revenue evidence in the 10--30% range (or relevant threshold) with reporting
- Evidence of compliance with policy (Fair Value/LSSD2 alignment where relevant)
L5 minimum evidence
- Evidence of substantial commercial activity (portfolio, pipeline, revenue share)
- Case studies showing sophisticated partnership models and delivery at scale
- Independent review/assurance of partnership governance (optional)
F.3 — Impact Evidence¶
F.3.1 Economic Impact Assessment¶
ENHANCEMENT · Y (Outcome) · Both
Outcome indicator
This is an Outcome/Context indicator — reported for situational awareness but excluded from readiness scoring.
| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| L1 | No assessment. Contribution not quantified. |
| L2 | Commissioned/planned. Methodology developing. |
| L3 | Initial completed. Headlines available. May be limited. |
| L4 | Proportionate assessment within 3 years. Methodology documented. Findings published. |
| L5 | Regular. Validated. Trajectory tracked. Influences policy. Contributing nationally. |
Minimum evidence for L3–L5
Use this source-defined minimum evidence with the maturity descriptors above. Record the artefact, date, scope and the claim it supports.
L3 minimum evidence
- Initial economic impact assessment completed with headline results
- Methodology documented and findings used in internal planning
L4 minimum evidence
- Published economic impact assessment within 3 years (methods + results)
- Evidence methodology is proportionate and documented
- Evidence findings inform strategy/investment decisions
L5 minimum evidence
- Repeated assessments over time with trend tracking
- External validation/peer review of methodology and results
- Evidence results influence wider policy or national narrative
F.3.2 Value Demonstration¶
ENHANCEMENT · Y (Outcome) · Both
Outcome indicator
This is an Outcome/Context indicator — reported for situational awareness but excluded from readiness scoring.
| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| L1 | No systematic demonstration. Benefits claimed not evidenced. |
| L2 | Proposition articulated. Case studies developing. Metrics defined. |
| L3 | Portfolio of case studies. Metrics tracked. Communicated. |
| L4 | Comprehensive framework with multiple dimensions. Regular reporting. Supports funding case. |
| L5 | Sophisticated with attribution. ROI quantified. Influences policy. Framework shared. |
Minimum evidence for L3–L5
Use this source-defined minimum evidence with the maturity descriptors above. Record the artefact, date, scope and the claim it supports.
L3 minimum evidence
- Portfolio of case studies with defined metrics tracked
- Evidence value narrative is used for funding and stakeholder reporting
L4 minimum evidence
- Value framework with defined dimensions and metrics
- Regular reporting outputs (dashboards/reports) linked to activities
- Case studies linked to metrics (attribution narrative)
L5 minimum evidence
- Attribution/ROI approach documented with quantified impacts
- Evidence framework adopted/used for funding/policy decisions
- Sharing of framework and peer learning evidence