Research development programme
Institutional Research Support Partnership
Give your research function a structured way to access continuing support as priorities develop. The Institutional Research Support Partnership can combine an agreed service scope with a shared work plan, defined task briefs and regular reviews of capacity, progress and institutional needs.
The partnership is intended for universities and research institutions that already have responsibilities to manage but need additional support across selected areas. It can complement a research office, faculty support function or institutional development plan, with a clear division between external assistance and the institution's own authority.
On this page 9 sections
01
Continuing support with a defined purpose
Research-support needs rarely arrive in a neat sequence. A funding opportunity may coincide with a manuscript-development need, a reporting deadline and a request to clarify a research procedure. An ongoing arrangement can help the institution organise those demands and decide which work should receive attention within the capacity it commissions.
The starting point is a clear purpose for the partnership. It might support a developing research office, improve access to specialist advice or maintain progress on a defined set of institutional priorities. The agreement should state which needs it is designed to address and how the institution will assess its usefulness.
This model differs from a single audit or a transformation programme with a fixed end state. It provides a continuing framework for prioritised work. If the institution first needs to establish its priorities, a research performance audit or the University Research Performance Programme may provide the necessary foundation.
02
Agree a service scope and practical capacity
The service scope can identify selected areas such as research-office development, methods support, publication preparation, grant development, research information or staff training. Inclusion depends on the institution's needs and confirmed delivery expertise. An ongoing agreement should not imply that every service is automatically available on demand.
Capacity needs an explicit basis. The commercial structure might define a work allocation, a set of recurring deliverables or a process for approving individual tasks within an agreed budget. The proposal should explain how complex requests are estimated, what happens when priorities change and how additional work is commissioned.
The institution also needs to know what remains outside the partnership. These boundaries may include new data collection, specialist laboratory work, legal advice, licences, travel or substantial projects requiring separate approval. Clear limits make the support more usable because staff can identify the right route before making commitments.
03
Establish a transparent intake and prioritisation process
An intake process can record the requester, purpose, required output, relevant deadline, available material and institutional owner. Initial information should be sufficient to assess the request without collecting unnecessary confidential research. A fuller task brief can follow when the work is selected and appropriate sharing arrangements are established.
Prioritisation should reflect institutional goals, readiness, urgency and the resources required. A near deadline does not automatically make a poorly prepared request feasible. The partnership can help distinguish work that is ready to begin from work that needs author input, internal decisions or a specialist assessment first.
Illustrative deliverable: a support-request decision record
Imagine a hypothetical institution receiving requests for a proposal review, a faculty writing workshop and a new reporting template. A decision record would describe each requested output, its institutional purpose, readiness, estimated effort, owner and dependencies. It would also show whether the request is approved, awaiting information or outside the current scope.
The institution could then make an informed allocation decision and see the consequences for existing work. This is an illustrative operating record, not evidence of an established Outlier Science service desk, guaranteed response time or existing client arrangement.
04
Turn each approved request into a reviewable task
An approved task should have a short brief defining the work, inputs, output format, responsibilities, review point and completion criteria. This prevents a broad service label such as publication support from hiding different expectations about analysis, editing, journal selection or revision.
The task can then move through preparation, delivery, institutional review and handover. The institution should know who can clarify questions and who approves the output. Where several authors or departments are involved, their decision responsibilities should be visible rather than assumed.
Changes need a proportionate process. A replacement dataset, a different funding call or an expanded workshop cohort may affect effort and timing. The partnership can maintain continuity while still recording those changes and their implications. Ongoing support is more effective when requests remain bounded and understandable.
05
Connect recurring work and build institutional capability
Repeated requests can reveal opportunities to improve the underlying support system. If proposals often arrive without a coherent work plan, the institution may need a clearer preparation process or grant-development training. If staff struggle with project handovers, research-process standardisation may reduce recurring confusion.
The partnership can use these patterns to propose improvements, while the institution decides whether to commission them. A recurring problem should not automatically become an additional project or a change to institutional policy. Recommendations need a purpose, owner and resource decision.
Knowledge transfer can be included through explanatory handovers, reusable templates, focused training or support for internal staff. The objective is a stronger institutional function, with documentation and practical understanding retained by the people who will continue the work. Research-office development provides a more concentrated service where the operating model itself needs substantial redesign.
06
Governance, review and a useful management record
A governance arrangement can identify the institutional sponsor, working coordinator, task owners and the people authorised to approve scope or budget changes. Review frequency should match the volume and importance of the work. Some decisions may need an immediate working discussion; strategic priorities can be considered at agreed intervals.
A management record can summarise approved tasks, completed outputs, pending decisions, capacity use and emerging needs. It should explain significant delays or changes rather than present only a count of activities. The record can also capture what the institution needs to provide next.
Evaluation should connect the partnership with its agreed purpose. Useful measures may include completion of defined tasks, adoption of supplied processes, readiness improvements or reduced recurring documentation gaps. Publications and funding outcomes can be recorded when relevant, but they have multiple influences and should not be presented as guaranteed results of the partnership.
07
Institutional ownership, confidentiality and boundaries
The institution retains responsibility for research priorities, academic decisions, ethics approvals, staff supervision, procurement and financial commitments. External support can prepare evidence, draft materials and assist implementation within the agreed authority. The term partnership describes a working arrangement and should not imply a joint legal entity, endorsement or transfer of institutional responsibility.
The agreement should identify who may share research materials and who may receive them. Access should follow the needs of the approved task. If additional specialists or providers are required, their role, access and terms need agreement before confidential information is shared.
Continuity also needs practical arrangements. File ownership, version control, approved storage locations, handover and end-of-engagement access should be defined. The confidentiality page explains the matters to settle; it should not be assumed that an ongoing commercial relationship authorises unrestricted use of institutional data.
08
Engagement options, budget and review points
The partnership can be proposed for an agreed period with a defined review and renewal process. The commercial basis depends on expected demand, specialist needs, delivery arrangements and the level of coordination required. A fixed recurring allocation and a series of separately approved tasks create different budget implications and should be explained clearly.
An initial setup stage can establish the scope, intake process, priorities and working responsibilities. A review after early tasks can examine whether the allocation and process fit actual demand. Later reviews can adjust the scope where justified, subject to institutional approval and confirmed capacity.
The proposal should state how unused or additional capacity is treated, what expenses are separate and how work is handed over if the arrangement ends. No unlimited service, fixed response time or minimum output volume should be assumed unless expressly agreed in the actual contract.
09
Support partnership questions
Can the partnership complement an existing research office?
Yes, the scope can be designed around gaps or peaks in demand while preserving the office's institutional role. The initial discussion should identify which tasks remain internal and where external support adds useful capacity. Clear responsibilities help staff use the arrangement effectively.
Is this an unlimited support subscription?
No unlimited scope should be assumed. The agreement needs a defined capacity basis, eligible services and a process for approving tasks. That makes workload, priorities and budget visible to both sides.
Can faculties request support directly?
An institution can choose that route if the approval and prioritisation process is clear. The agreement should identify who can submit requests, who authorises work and how faculty demand relates to central priorities. A direct request should not automatically commit institutional funds.
Can the service scope change during the year?
It can be reviewed when needs change, subject to a documented decision about capacity, expertise, cost and existing commitments. New requests should be evaluated rather than silently added. This preserves flexibility while keeping the engagement accountable.
What happens when a request requires expertise outside the scope?
The task should be identified as requiring a separate assessment or specialist arrangement. The institution can decide whether to commission that work and under what terms. Access to particular expertise or an external provider is not assumed simply because a partnership exists.
How is continuity handled when the agreement ends?
The agreement should define the final task status, file handover, unresolved decisions and access arrangements. Reusable documentation can help internal teams continue the work where rights permit. Ongoing maintenance or new requests after completion require the relevant agreed scope.
Describe the research function and support needs you want to coordinate to discuss an institutional support partnership.