Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly UpdatesIntroduction
Undertaking research involves a range of activities: generating the idea for the research, refining it and identifying the relevant hypotheses and questions; developing the method; generating the necessary funding; undertaking the studies to test the hypotheses and answer the questions; recording and reporting the results; and making use of the results in both specific and broader contexts. All of this involves a number of roles and responsibilities, including those of a customer-supplier nature. In some cases, the customer-supplier relationship is clearer (e.g. contract research) than in others (e.g. grant-funded and institutionally-funded research). In institutionally-funded research, and in some types of externally grant-funded work, the institution may be acting as both customer and supplier (e.g. where the idea for the content of the research comes from the researcher themselves). This paper explores these roles with the aid of a simple matrix, and aims to show how performance can be improved with only a little additional conscious effort.
A reflection on customer-supplier relationships does not mean that one is operating a commercial model, or that it reduces the effectiveness of the research process, or academic freedom to investigate and express. Being well-organised, and understanding and responding to the person or organisation that is paying for the research, can only have beneficial effects in terms of making a case, winning funding and producing interesting results. Indeed, in the vast majority of academic applications for funding, those making the decisions are other academics. This does not reduce the need to understand what those other academics will be looking for, and what they believe to be a good outcome.
There are a number of other issues about customer-supplier relationships, in terms of the fundamental role of research support functions, and their provision of service to their customers, typically taken to be their institutional academic community. Even in this context, the recognition of the alternative customer bases of the institution and the external funder are important to recognise, in the knowledge that they require a different service from that of the academic researcher. A later section of this paper discusses the role of the research administrator in the customer-supplier interaction.
Whilst recognising the sensitivities that might exist about the terminology, the terms customer and supplier are used in this paper to reflect the roles of individuals or organisations in being the recipients or providers of research, respectively, and not in other, potentially more pejorative, ways.
The Customer-Supplier Research Matrix
Table 1 presents a simple matrix of customer and supplier roles during a three stage research process. The stages represent the major phases of determining what research is to be done and who is to do it, undertaking the research, and using the results. The relevant tasks, processes, activities and decisions do not, of course, fall neatly into the six boxes, but the broad distinctions are sufficient to support the discussion of the different roles undertaking the stages.
Stage 1
The commissioning of research will take different forms, typically dependent on the type of funder. A company or government department might commission a piece of contract research to meet a specific need, relating to their strategic objectives. A Research Council or Federal research funder (1), on the other hand, may make a call for proposals in a broad area, with less prescription of what should be delivered, or may have an open call for "responsive mode" applications in their subject area (2). In between these two is investigator-led contract research, in which the researcher provides the hypothesis. The activity of commissioning is therefore different.
Contract Research
Funders at the contractual end of the spectrum would tend to determine the hypothesis and research question that they wish to have answered, and in trying to win the business, the supplier will try to show that they have the capability, capacity and track record to do so, as well as demonstrating value for money, A variation on this may be that the customer will define the issue to be addressed, with the expectation that the supplier will be able to define the research hypothesis. The nature of contract research varies, but it is often focused on problem-solving, rather than blue skies knowledge generation, and hence the commissioning process may be more constrained.
Suppliers will be best placed to respond, and hence to aid the customer's business, if they have an understanding of the needs of the customer, including the uses to which the research results will be put, so that they can demonstrate a good match with and understanding of the customer's underlying objectives. Submitting a standard grant proposal to a call for tenders (3) is not likely to be successful. In some cases, suppliers will have to be on an agreed/accredited list of suppliers.
An extension of contract research is service provision: the use of existing knowledge to the benefit of the customer, for payment, without the generation of new knowledge (i.e., the activity does not meet the Frascati definition of research (HEFCE, 1995)). In this type of activity, a standard purchaser-supplier relationship is more likely to apply, whereas research relationships will tend to have more dialogue and iterative participation between the parties.
Grant Research
A large proportion (and in some universities the vast majority) of research is closer to the grant-funded end of the spectrum, in which the details of the hypothesis, questions, method, etc. are determined by the academic researcher, to be evaluated by the funder on the quality of the research. In this case, the commissioner of the research, and hence one of the customers, is the researcher him- or herself, along with the institution. Many, if not most, institutions require grant applications to be approved by a researcher's head of department and/or Dean, plus institutional authority. Doing so is a form of commissioning process: "Yes, this project fits with the institutional/faculty/departmental strategy." This is becoming a more conscious process than it has in the past, although it is unlikely that the Head of Department and the Dean, let alone the researcher, is thinking of themselves as a "customer." Perhaps they should. This is already relatively common in the context of the resources required for the projects, where the department head or Dean is being asked to confirm that there is space available, technical support, and so on. It is starting to become more explicit, as more countries move to or consider a full economic cost basis for their research (HEFCE, 2005). A consequence is that the researcher needs to show more explicitly why the research is worth supporting. Although this makes sound management sense, there will be arguments that this sort of approach is a restriction of academic freedom. Understanding that there is a form of customer-supplier relationship within the institution (as well as what is the true, legal nature of academic freedom (SURPC, 1997)) can help us to work through these issues.
This shift of focus of the responsibility for defining the research is interesting and important, It underlies the nature of academic freedom--to be able to ask questions--and is relevant to the increased emphasis on universities undertaking more research with industry, on a contractual basis; i.e. is it as reasonable in a research contract to modify the hypothesis as the work progresses as it might be in a research grant? The relationship between customer and supplier in terms of the work to be done is much more tightly bound in a research contract situation than in a research grant. Although this could be considered as an issue for Stage 2, it merits attention at this stage, as the freedom for manoeuvre will be determined by the agreement reached during Stage 1.
Some customers may be happy for divergence from the original goals to occur. However, they are likely to want to know, and to be part of the decisions to allow redirection and replanning. Understanding and enabling this partnership is important, and the means of doing so need to be addressed at the start, rather than half-way through, when the need arises.
In terms of winning the business, the grant process requires the supplier to understand the customer's needs, too. It will often be the case that certain areas or techniques are favoured or even in fashion. Understanding what has been funded recently can help. Equally, being in a position to influence (appropriately!) the interests, policies, objectives, and targets of the funder can be beneficial. This takes multiple streams of activity, including institutional interactions with the funder at senior levels, involvement of researchers on the funder's committees, and interactions of the individual researcher with the funder's staff, to talk through specific proposals. Those researchers who are more actively involved in the wider research community (e.g., reviewing proposals and publications, being members of decision-making committees) tend to have better success rates because they understand their subject and its funding environment; i.e., they understand their customer (which particularly includes their peer community) (Viner, Powell, & Green, 2004).
The role of the university's research support office (or equivalent) will also vary, depending upon the customer, and also on the researcher(s) involved. A support office should be researching the market needs, whether that is Government or Federal funders' objective areas, or the commercial market for research outputs or products. Both markets, but particularly the commercial market, require the ability to understand the institution's own expertise and capability, and how to package the range of options to best effect.
FEED