Research development programme
University Research Performance Programme
Turn institutional research priorities into a coordinated plan of work. The University Research Performance Programme can connect baseline assessment, strategy, support-process improvement and capability development, with responsibilities and review points defined across the engagement.
The programme is intended for universities that need to address several connected issues rather than commission an isolated report. Stronger publication capacity, more coherent funding preparation, better research information and more effective scientific infrastructure can form part of the scope where they respond to the institution's evidence and priorities.
On this page 8 sections
01
A programme for connected institutional challenges
Research performance is shaped by the studies underway, the people conducting them and the conditions in which they work. A university may have capable researchers but inconsistent access to methods support. Another may have substantial activity that is difficult to assess because its information is fragmented. A third may need to align investment in laboratories with a clearer research strategy.
The programme begins by establishing which of these conditions matters locally. It can bring together research performance assessment, university research strategy and selected implementation services. The combined scope should have a coherent purpose and realistic ownership within the university.
The engagement is relevant to senior research leaders, research offices and faculties seeking a structured improvement process. It requires institutional participation. External advice can organise evidence and support implementation, while the university decides its priorities, resource commitments and internal policies.
02
Establish a baseline that supports decisions
The starting assessment can examine institutional objectives, disciplinary strengths, research activity, publication and funding patterns, support processes and available infrastructure. The information sources, assessment period and limits should be agreed. Data quality and coverage need examination before comparisons are used to set priorities.
The baseline should connect findings with decisions. If manuscript preparation repeatedly stalls at the analysis stage, a useful response may involve methods support and earlier review. If funding applications are assembled too late, the priority may be opportunity triage and internal coordination. If laboratory capacity is a constraint, investment needs should be related to intended research use and operating costs.
Quantitative indicators should support a wider account of research quality and contribution. CoARA's commitments emphasise qualitative judgement supported by responsible use of quantitative indicators. The programme can reflect that principle without assuming that all disciplines produce the same outputs or work to the same timescale.
03
Agree priorities, ownership and the programme scope
The assessment can lead to a prioritised roadmap with a small set of workstreams. Each should identify the problem, intended change, institutional owner, supporting activities, dependencies and evidence of progress. A recommendation without a responsible decision-maker or realistic resources is not an implementation plan.
Workstreams may include publication-capacity development, research-office procedures, proposal readiness, reporting quality or laboratory planning. The programme does not automatically include every service offered on the website. Selection should follow institutional need, delivery capacity and the resources available to sustain the work.
A governance plan can define a senior sponsor, operational contacts and review points. It should distinguish decisions that the programme team can prepare from decisions reserved to university leadership, departments, ethics bodies or procurement authorities. The proposal should also explain how additional requests and changes in priorities will be handled.
04
A possible 12-month structure
A 12-month structure can be used as a planning model where the institution wants a sustained engagement. The actual duration and sequence depend on scope, access and internal decisions. The stages below are a proposed framework for discussion, not a fixed delivery commitment or a promise of annual publication growth.
During the first stage, approximately months one and two, the work can establish the baseline, clarify objectives and identify immediate decisions. The output can be a diagnostic summary, data-quality findings and a draft priority map. The institution reviews the evidence before selecting the workstreams.
A second stage, approximately months three and four, can translate those priorities into detailed plans and limited pilots. A pilot may test a manuscript-readiness process, an internal proposal review or a research-information workflow. A review point examines whether the design is workable and whether the required people and resources are available.
The main implementation stage, approximately months five to nine, can develop agreed processes, deliver capability activities and support selected projects. Progress reviews can examine completion, adoption and unresolved constraints. The final stage, approximately months ten to twelve, can consolidate documentation, assess progress against the baseline and agree the institution's next priorities.
05
Outputs that remain useful after the engagement
Depending on the workstreams, the programme can deliver a baseline assessment, institutional roadmap, responsibility matrix, process documents, training materials, project-support plans and management reports. Each output should have an identified purpose and a handover owner. A reporting dashboard is useful only if its data sources, definitions and maintenance are understood.
Illustrative deliverable: a workstream review record
For a hypothetical manuscript-readiness workstream, a review record could state the problem as inconsistent preparation before internal review. It would identify the faculty lead, the proposed readiness checklist, the pilot cohort and the evidence to collect. A progress field would distinguish completion of the checklist from its actual use by researchers.
A linked measure might examine the proportion of in-scope drafts with an agreed methods review completed before submission. The record would specify the denominator, source, owner and review interval, with the baseline measured from institutional records. This is an illustrative management example, not a client result or a suggested universal performance target.
06
Measure implementation and research outcomes appropriately
The measurement plan should include work the programme can directly influence, such as documented processes, completed reviews, staff participation and use of agreed templates. It can also track research outputs, funding activity and collaboration where those measures answer the institution's questions and suitable data exist.
Definitions matter. A draft prepared, a manuscript submitted, a paper accepted and an indexed article are different events. Their dates and sources should be kept distinct. Publications and funding awards may appear after the programme period, and external decisions cannot be attributed solely to consulting support.
Reviews should therefore examine both progress and explanation. If a workstream has not advanced, the discussion should identify whether the issue concerns the design, adoption, resources or an external dependency. The programme can adapt where justified without changing definitions merely to create the appearance of success.
07
Institutional inputs, responsibilities and boundaries
The university should provide a sponsor, appropriate working contacts, access to agreed information and participation from relevant faculties or support units. It needs to identify the staff who can approve processes, validate records and take ownership of outputs. Data-sharing arrangements should be agreed before confidential institutional or researcher material is transferred.
The programme can support decisions about research operations and capability. It does not grant ethics approvals, award funding, determine journal decisions or confer accreditation. Laboratory, legal, regulatory and specialist technical work may require separately confirmed expertise and a clearly defined role.
Where infrastructure is a priority, laboratory development planning and equipment procurement consulting can be considered as defined workstreams. The proposal should identify which activities are advisory and which depend on institutional procurement or external providers.
08
Engagement model, budget and programme questions
A quotation can be organised around diagnostic work, implementation stages and review outputs. The budget depends on institutional scale, number of units, data readiness, specialist input, training, project support and the depth of implementation required. External licences, travel, laboratory expenditure and other third-party costs should be identified separately where relevant.
Milestones can provide points at which the university reviews outputs and approves the next stage. A bounded programme is appropriate for a defined change agenda; the Institutional Research Support Partnership may suit a continuing need for prioritised support across an existing research function.
Can the programme focus on Scopus and Web of Science publication capacity?
It can address publication capacity as an institutional objective, including research planning, methods support, manuscript readiness and responsible monitoring. The scope should retain attention to research quality and disciplinary differences. Journal acceptance and database coverage remain external decisions and cannot be guaranteed.
Must the university commit to all 12 months immediately?
The engagement can be proposed in stages with defined decision points, subject to the agreed commercial terms. A diagnostic stage can establish the implementation work required. The appropriate structure depends on institutional procurement and the clarity of the initial brief.
Can only one faculty participate at first?
A defined pilot can be useful where the institution wants to test a process before wider adoption. The pilot should have clear selection criteria and learning objectives. Results from one faculty should not be assumed to represent every discipline without further examination.
Does the programme include individual manuscript support?
Selected project support can be included when it serves the agreed institutional workstream and is explicitly scoped. The proposal should define the number or selection process, expected inputs and boundaries. An institutional programme should not imply unlimited editing or analysis for all staff.
What remains with the university after completion?
The handover can include the agreed documentation, implementation records and recommendations for ongoing ownership. Format, rights and maintenance responsibilities should be defined in the agreement. Sustained use depends on institutional resources and decisions after the engagement ends.
Describe the research priorities your university needs to connect to discuss an institutional programme.