Research operations
Research-Process Standardisation and Usable SOPs
Make research administration easier to follow and more consistent to operate. Research-process standardisation clarifies what happens, who is responsible and which records demonstrate that a task has been completed. Outlier Science can help institutions map existing workflows and develop practical standard operating procedures, templates and implementation plans.
The objective is a process that staff can use in real work. A long procedure that does not match institutional responsibilities or available resources is unlikely to solve repeated delays and unclear handovers.
On this page 9 sections
01
Find the friction in the current workflow
Research processes often develop around immediate needs. A form is added, an approval moves to email, or one experienced colleague becomes the informal source of every answer. Over time, staff may follow different routes for the same task and have difficulty identifying which instruction is current.
The starting review can trace a defined process from its trigger to its final record. Examples include project registration, internal proposal review, ethics submission administration, data handover, manuscript review and project closure. The purpose is to understand actual practice before writing a preferred procedure.
Staff who carry out the work should contribute alongside those who approve it. A workflow map can reveal duplicated data entry, unnecessary waiting, missing information and decisions with no clear owner. It can also identify controls that serve an important purpose and should be retained.
Standardisation does not require every department to use an identical research method. The focus is on shared administrative and documentation requirements, with justified variations recorded for different research contexts. Academic judgement remains necessary within a clear process.
02
Decide what belongs in an SOP
A standard operating procedure should have a defined purpose, scope and owner. It should identify the event that starts the process, the people involved, the required inputs, the sequence of work and the record that confirms completion. Instructions should use the language of the people who will follow them.
An SOP inventory can separate procedures that need to be created, revised, combined or retired. Not every task requires a long document. A short checklist may suit a routine completeness check, while a process involving several offices may need a workflow map, responsibility table and supporting templates.
The service can also define the document hierarchy. A policy states an institutional position; a procedure explains how it is implemented; a template helps people capture required information; a record shows what happened. Keeping these roles distinct reduces duplication and makes future updates easier to manage.
Where the issue concerns formal approval authority or ethical review responsibilities, research governance support can address those questions alongside process documentation.
03
Map responsibilities, exceptions and handovers
Every process needs a clear relationship between the person doing the work and the person authorised to approve it. The procedure can identify who prepares a document, who checks completeness, who makes the decision and who maintains the final record. A responsibility matrix is useful when several units share the process.
Handovers should describe the information needed by the receiving role. A proposal cannot be reviewed properly if the call text, current draft or budget version is missing. Defining the handover package can reduce avoidable returns and help staff explain why work cannot yet progress.
Exceptions also need a route. A procedure should explain what happens when information is unavailable, a conflict of interest is identified, or a project falls outside the standard scope. Exceptions should be recorded and escalated to an appropriate decision-maker rather than handled through undocumented workarounds.
The work can distinguish process targets from guarantees. An institution may choose an internal review expectation, but that expectation needs resources, ownership and a way to handle urgent cases. A written deadline alone does not create capacity.
04
Develop, test and introduce the procedure
The engagement can begin with a process inventory and a prioritisation exercise. High-volume tasks, repeated errors and consequential handovers may justify early attention. The selected process is then mapped with the people involved and compared with the intended requirements.
A draft procedure can be tested through a realistic scenario or a small pilot. Participants should be able to identify the correct input, next action, decision and record without relying on an unwritten explanation. The test can reveal unclear terminology, unavailable information or an approval that has no practical owner.
Revision follows the test. The final package can include the SOP, workflow, templates, responsibility matrix and a concise adoption plan. Institutional approval and version release remain with the authorised owner. Training should focus on the tasks that change and where users can find the current instruction.
Implementation can be phased. A pilot department may use the new process before wider rollout, with feedback reviewed against agreed criteria. The guide to developing research SOPs provides a practical preparation framework.
05
Illustrative deliverable: an internal proposal-review SOP
This abbreviated example shows what a procedure can specify. It is illustrative and requires adaptation to the institution’s actual authority and workflow.
SOP element | Illustrative content |
|---|---|
Trigger | A researcher requests internal review of a funding application |
Required inputs | Current draft, call documents, assessment criteria and known submission date |
Completeness check | A designated support role confirms the review package is usable |
Reviewer allocation | An authorised coordinator checks expertise, availability and conflicts |
Review record | Comments distinguish consequential issues from optional improvements |
Author response | The applicant records decisions and updates the draft |
Closure | The agreed review record and final reviewed version are stored |
Exception | Unresolved eligibility or approval questions go to the relevant institutional owner |
The associated template could contain fields for the proposal version, reviewer, review date, issue, recommended action, owner and response. It should not reproduce the entire application. Its purpose is to preserve the decisions that matter.
A pilot might reveal that budget feedback arrives after scientific review and changes the work plan. The revised workflow could bring the budget check earlier. That is a process improvement supported by the test, rather than an extra paragraph added to the SOP without changing practice.
06
Keep documents controlled and adoption visible
Document control can define a unique identifier, version, owner, approval date, review date and location for the authoritative copy. Superseded versions should be handled in a way that prevents accidental use while preserving records that need to be retained. The exact arrangements depend on the institution’s systems and requirements.
An adoption plan should identify who needs to understand the process, what training or guidance they need and how questions are handled. New staff should be able to locate the same current material as experienced users. Responsibility for maintaining templates must be assigned as clearly as responsibility for approving the SOP.
Monitoring can examine completeness at handover, repeated returns, exception patterns and use of current templates. Each measure needs a definition, source, owner and review interval. The objective is to understand whether the process is workable, not to generate a new reporting burden without a decision attached.
Where the institution needs a coordinated support function to own these processes, research-office development can provide the wider operating model.
07
Scope, client inputs and quotation
Useful starting material includes existing policies, procedures, forms, sample process records and descriptions of recurring difficulties. The institution should identify process owners and staff who can participate in mapping and testing. Sensitive examples can be minimised or anonymised where appropriate.
The scope depends on the number of processes, their complexity, the number of offices involved and the amount of change required. Developing one SOP is different from redesigning an institution-wide document system. Translation, software configuration, formal regulatory assessment and legal advice require separate consideration.
The quotation can identify mapping sessions, draft procedures, template development, pilot support, revision rounds and handover. Timing depends on stakeholder availability and the institutional approval route. A new requirement or a substantial change in authority may need a scope adjustment.
The service supports process design and documentation. It does not grant certification, replace ethics review or remove the institution’s responsibility for approving and maintaining its procedures.
08
Questions about research SOP development
Can existing procedures be improved without starting again?
Yes. The review can retain useful content and focus on unclear steps, outdated responsibilities, duplication and missing records. A complete rewrite is only helpful when the underlying process or document structure needs it.
Will every department need the same procedure?
Shared requirements can use a common core, with documented variations where disciplines or institutional arrangements justify them. The important point is that a variation is understood and approved, rather than existing only as an informal workaround.
Can SOPs be introduced before a new software system?
Yes. Clear workflows and definitions can help specify what the system must support. Technology should implement a workable process; introducing software first can otherwise preserve the same unclear responsibilities in a new interface.
How do you check whether staff can use the procedure?
A scenario review or pilot can ask users to work through realistic tasks using the draft material. Their questions and errors reveal where instructions need improvement. The institution can then approve the revised procedure with better evidence of usability.
Does the work include formal compliance approval?
No. Relevant institutional or specialist authorities retain that role. The scope can identify the requirements that need checking and prepare material for their review, without presenting process documentation as a certification or legal opinion.
09
Discuss the process you want to improve
Tell us which research workflow causes difficulty, which offices are involved and what currently happens when work is delayed. A short description is enough to begin defining a focused improvement project.