The first IS-8 Working Group brought together policymakers, academics, local leaders, and data experts to explore a deceptively simple question: how should the UK define its priority sectors under the Industrial Strategy? What followed was a wide-ranging and highly practical discussion about definitions, trade-offs, and the real-world consequences of getting them wrong.
What is the IS-8 Working Group and why does it matter?
The IS-8 Working Group is a collaborative effort to help define and deliver the UK’s Industrial Strategy. Led by a cross-section of government, academia, local leaders, and data experts, the group focuses on shaping workable definitions for the eight priority sectors identified by government (the IS-8).
The Industrial Strategy is about setting national priorities for long-term economic growth, deciding which sectors we should back, and how. But for strategy to work, we need clarity. Clear definitions. Clear data. Clear outcomes. That’s why this working group exists: to build a shared evidence base, test assumptions, and make sure the strategy reflects the economy as it actually works. These sessions are about doing the hard work together – combining insight, experience and data to define sectors in a way that’s practical, dynamic, and usable by everyone from policymakers to local delivery teams.
The first IS-8 Working Group session took place in January 2025 and centred around a deceptively simple question: how should we define the priority sectors in the UK’s Industrial Strategy?
What followed was a wide-ranging and practical discussion about definitions, trade-offs, and the real-world consequences of getting them wrong.
1. Broad vs narrow sector definitions
A core theme was whether IS-8 sector definitions should be broad and inclusive or narrow and targeted.
Participants noted that some IS-8 sectors are defined by specific technologies (for example AI, semiconductors, nuclear), while others are defined as broad application areas (such as Business & Professional Services or Creative Industries). This inconsistency creates challenges for businesses, investors, and places trying to interpret where they “fit”.
Several contributors argued that broad definitions help reflect the UK’s existing strengths and attract investment, but risk masking where real innovation and productivity gains are actually happening. Others noted that overly narrow definitions could exclude large parts of the economy that are essential to growth, particularly at a local and regional level.
There was broad agreement that no single definition can serve all purposes equally well, and that trade-offs are unavoidable.
2. Frontier vs foundational sectors
A second major discussion focused on whether the Industrial Strategy should prioritise only frontier sectors or give equal weight to the foundational economy.
While frontier activities are widely recognised as drivers of innovation and productivity growth, contributors repeatedly stressed that foundational businesses account for a large share of employment and underpin the success of frontier firms through supply chains, services, and skills.
Examples from advanced manufacturing, defence, and life sciences illustrated that frontier innovation rarely exists in isolation. Instead, it emerges from ecosystems of suppliers, service firms, freelancers, and institutions. Several speakers cautioned that strategies focused too narrowly on frontier sectors risk overlooking jobs, regional economies, and resilience.
The consensus was not that the strategy should “pick one or the other”, but that the relationship between frontier and foundational activity needs to be better understood and measured.
3. Static vs evolving definitions
The final discussion tackled whether IS-8 definitions should be fixed for consistency over time or allowed to evolve as the economy changes.
Static definitions offer clean time series and comparability, but many participants warned they struggle to capture fast-moving activities at the frontier, emerging technologies, and changing business models. Several contributors argued that rigid classifications risk becoming outdated quickly — particularly in areas like creative technology, AI-enabled services, and cross-sector innovation.
There was strong support for the idea that the economy is a “living, evolving system”, and that data and definitions should reflect this dynamism rather than constrain it. At the same time, participants acknowledged the importance of transparency, governance, and evaluation if definitions are allowed to change over time.
4. A shared takeaway
Across all three discussions, one message came through clearly: sector definitions are not neutral technical choices. They shape policy priorities, influence investment signals, affect how places position themselves, and determine which businesses feel seen or excluded by the strategy.
The session reinforced the need for better data infrastructure, clearer feedback loops between evidence and policy, and an ongoing dialogue between government, industry and researchers as the Industrial Strategy evolves.
Our role: The Data City and the IS-8
The Data City is the only company providing a real-time, functional definition of the IS-8 sectors. Our platform and Real-Time Industrial Classifications (RTICs) are already being used by central government, local authorities and research teams to map the IS-8 in real time — and to build better data infrastructure for future decision-making.
Our mission is to build the new global industrial classification system, and we’re committed to helping the UK’s Industrial Strategy succeed.
What’s next and how to get involved
The next IS-8 Working Group session will take place Thursday 12th March, 10:00am
We’ll be diving deeper into how definitions work in practice — including use cases, implementation challenges, and how to track and measure impact.
We’re actively looking for contributors. If you’re working on IS-8-aligned research, policy, or tools and want to present or share work at the next session, get in touch.