What if scope design bridged the impact gap?

After working closely with researchers and R&D funders over the past couple of decades, analysing hundreds of R&D proposals across a range of industry sectors, we can usually recognise fairly quickly whether a project is headed for success or rejection. It’s because of what’s often missing from the project design: how the research will translate from activity to impact.

While the intent to create impact may be expressed in the initial paragraphs of the project plan, what tends to follow is a pattern of missed opportunities where the proposed research outcomes fall short of the value that stakeholders hope to see at different stages. The problem isn’t a lack of innovative research; it’s a perpetuated habit of designing projects without considering the investment chain from proof of concept to industry or societal adoption.

This brief insight shares what we’re hearing from the research community and what some standout organisations 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 biggest challenge?

“Impact” means different things to the different stakeholders involved at different times.

A successful R&D project requires technical excellence and a methodology. But the subsequent investment for translation – whether from industry partners, internal corporate divisions, government, or venture capital – requires different evidence.

So, for researchers (especially early-career ones who are often tasked with the grunt work of proposals), it’s about working out HOW to scope for impact, not just technical outputs. It’s no small feat to define project boundaries that simultaneously meet both the technical rigour and the business case content expected by decision-makers.

5 common mistakes in scope design

Adoption isn’t a straightforward process or next step, so impact needs to result from evolving outcomes, not a singular end game. These common scoping, project logic and theory of change mistakes can unintentionally block a project’s path to impact:

1. Technical tunnel vision – the entire scope focuses on proving that the technology works while neglecting to gather critical market, supply chain, or financial information.
2. Confusing customers with investors – validating the concept with a small number of friendly end-users or customers to prove interest but not offering a viable business model to secure the support needed to scale.
3. Ignoring the next decision-maker – not considering who will make the next investment decision (think Head of Manufacturing or a CFO) and what evidence they need to mobilise their resources.
4. No handover strategy – ignoring the value of having a clear set of activities for smooth transfer to the next team or industry partner for development.
5. Fixed scope in a fluid world – no in-built checkpoints for refresh and redesign, which means the project is more likely to be abandoned than adopted if funding options change.

Avoiding these kinds of errors at the design or scoping stage is explored further in our Principles for R&D Impact (2024). The Principles emphasise that impact doesn’t just refer to long-term outcomes; it’s also about how an organisation, industry or society can derive value from more efficient use of R&D resources over the various stages of a project.

What if the design focused on more than just getting that first funding?

Designing your project’s scope with the next investment decision in mind is a considerable shift in perspective. It means treating your research project like a seed funding round – you’re not just aiming for a data milestone, you’re aiming for the evidence that convinces the next investors to fund the next stage.

The key is to integrate impact readiness into your scope from the outset, so it doesn’t get stuck at the validation stage. Here’s how many future-thinking research teams do it:

• Identify the next investor – Ask, “Who will develop this research project’s outcomes and advance it after the first funding finishes?” This could be an RDC, a CRC, an industry partner, a VC, a different government program, or the product development division of a major company.
• Determine their evidence needs – Picture them in a boardroom. What non-technical information (e.g. market analysis, simple financial projections, supply chain logistics) do they need to make a “Go/No-Go” decision? Include specific tasks in your scope to gather that evidence.
• Build in project review points – Show that you understand why decisions need to be based on commercial viability and impact, not just positive feedback or intriguing lab results. Schedule pause points in the timeline to ask, “Is this still relevant to current and future stakeholders?” This allows the scope to be redesigned or refocused over the life of the project.
• Be open to opportunity – Design the scope as if it’s the first of multiple rounds of investment, with a clear endpoint that signals readiness for the next stage and investor. Even if you can’t or don’t want to be part of the next stages of a viable research project, pointing to its potential in the scope keeps the impact gap from widening into a chasm.

This approach turns a research proposal about what the research will do into a pitch for why it should be supported. It helps to make the project’s pathway to impact clearer and more credible to all funding decision-makers.

The bigger opportunity

We know that when the focus of project scoping flexes to include impact readiness and the needs of the next investor, researchers gain a powerful advantage in securing both initial and future funding.

This small shift from “what will I prove?” to “what evidence does my next investor need?” helps researchers to design proposals that resonate directly with funding decision-makers.
When you consider how to bridge the impact gap, the research becomes not just valuable but demonstrably investable.

Have you noticed similar results 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

Read more: Insight #1 RFP Design and its Influence on Impact  |  Insight #2 Monitoring & Evaluating Impact  |  Insight #3 M&E and the Communication Factor