RFP Design and its Influence on Impact

When we shared our Principles for R&D Impact (2024) with 500+ researchers, something fascinating emerged.

Nearly 100% agreed that project scope should be expanded beyond technical tasks and reporting. They told us they want to focus on what we call Impact R&D – targeting supply chains, markets, regulation, and extension – to see their research outcomes actually make a difference beyond the lab or campus.

At the same time, many researchers feel held back by Request for Proposals (RFPs) that treat impact as an afterthought.

This brief insight shares what we’re hearing from the research community and what some standout funders are doing differently. It outlines where the constraints lie and what funders, grant managers, and research providers can do to remove them. It’s offered in the spirit of collaboration, with the aim of helping everyone who works in and around research to lift the overall measurability and appreciation of R&D impact.

What’s the central issue?

Our Principles for R&D Impact describe impact as developing realistic, actionable pathways that account for the full ecosystem in which the research will be used. Without this logic built in at the design stage, research outcomes can get stuck and stagnate at the proof of concept stage.

We analysed different RFPs and found very few prioritised impact.

So we asked, what if it were? What if impact were treated as an outcome, not an output?

First, we considered why this isn’t happening already. Here’s what we discovered.

5 biggest barriers to impact delivery (and most common)

1. Confusion about what impact is and what shape it takes. RFPs often identify outputs as impact metrics (e.g. a website, a webinar, a field day), instead of the difference the research has made to at least one element in the ecosystem.
2. Impact capability is rarely required or recognised. Technical expertise is carefully specified, yet there’s little requirement for a team to demonstrate impact delivery skills.
3. Budgets position impact as a by-product. When impact is assumed rather than strategized, there’s no line item for it. Additionally, research providers in co-investment models might insist on directing all resources to technical work to justify their contributions. But no specific allocation of budget to impact generally means no activity.
4. No weighting in evaluation rubrics. When and where impact is not scored (or only minimally), the message is clear: it’s not a priority. That’s inconsistent with what we hear most often from funders and investors, i.e. impact is their core objective.
5. Passing the baton of responsibility to the Tech Transfer Office at the end of the project. When the impact trajectory isn’t monitored at each stage, research value can be over- or under-estimated. Subsequently, impact delivery is not resourced appropriately (again).

Then we looked at what might happen if R&D and RFP designers made impact a higher priority.

What if a 10% shift in the funding allocation could make a difference to ROI?

What if every project allocated just 10% of its budget to well-designed impact activities?

Some might argue this reduces funds for technical research. But from an investment perspective: would you rather fund 10 projects with some impact, or 9 that generate genuine, demonstrable value?

What presents a stronger case for increasing research investment? A list of standard outputs (reports, conferences, websites, etc.) or specific outcome examples of industry adoption and societal benefits?

Here’s what’s working for R&D designers that are impact-focused now

Some R&D funders are designing RFPs that don’t just specify impact requirements; they ensure proposals are actually designed for impact. They’re using Impact Statements and FAQs upfront (borrowed from Amazon’s “Working Backwards from the Customer” process) to shift focus from activities and outputs to industry impact. Some even use early impact metrics to guide stop/go decisions during project delivery.

These funders aren’t just hoping for impact – they’re systematically and strategically designing for it.

Our research with high-ROI programs has identified that these approaches return positive results.

For R&D funders or program managers designing RFPs:

• Embed best-practice impact design from the start. Specify the outcomes you want and clarify who’s responsible for what, by when and how success will be measured.
• Mandate impact resourcing. Require proposals to allocate a minimum percentage to impact activities with clear costings and deliverables (e.g. 10-20%).
• Ask for impact capability alongside technical excellence.
• Weight impact delivery meaningfully in your evaluation criteria.
• Include impact stage gates so early impact indicators can inform project continuation decisions.

For researchers submitting proposals:

• Proactively design your project with built-in in logic models or pathways to adoption.
• Include impact beneficiaries – collaborators who bring market development, regulatory, or commercialisation expertise to keep it impact-focused.
• Think beyond your current funder to who could gain from investing in the next stage of this research.

The bigger opportunity

We believe stronger, distinctive impact is the best case for increased research investment. When research demonstrably changes industries, improves lives, or drives economic growth the argument for further funding is compelling.

We’re keen to see what we’ve learned applied to bridging the gap between robust research and real-world application. Our Principles for R&D Impact provides a framework, but innovation only accelerates when practitioners adapt these insights to their specific contexts.

Have you noticed similar patterns in your experience? What’s working well in your field or industry that we should be documenting? Let us know what you think the R&D landscape needs for impact to be recognised and prioritised: community.mgr@impactinnovation.com