The Research Operations Gap: five frictions holding good work back

What we mean by the Research Operations Gap

The Research Operations Gap is the distance between what an organisation expects research and innovation to achieve and the everyday systems, capacity and controls available to support it. The gap becomes visible when people copy the same information between files, search for a reliable answer, rebuild a reconciliation, depend on one experienced colleague or discover an evidence problem close to review.

This is not a formal sector benchmark or a claim that every organisation faces the same problem. It is a field perspective drawn from RKE Support’s hands-on delivery, training, events, tool use and conversations with people across pre-award, post-award, finance, assurance and leadership. The patterns are offered as hypotheses for each organisation to test against its own evidence.

Gap 1: opportunity intelligence does not connect to people

Funding calls are abundant; relevant attention is scarce. Generic alerts create noise while researcher and partner information is often incomplete, out of date or held in separate places. Matching then depends on the memory and relationships of experienced research development staff.

The result is not only missed income. Researchers receive opportunities too late, partnerships have less time to form and teams spend limited bid-development capacity on calls without a shared view of fit. The better operating question is: can we explain why this opportunity reached this person, what happens next and how that decision is visible in the pipeline?

Gap 2: awards begin without a shared operating picture

An award may move from application to contract, finance, project delivery and partners without one point at which the conditions become a shared plan. Key information exists, but ownership is assumed and important context is lost in handover.

A controlled launch is a small intervention with system-wide value. It connects scope, budget, conditions, milestones, partners, evidence and escalation. It gives the project lead, research operations and finance one language for the award before each team creates its own partial version.

Gap 3: manual effort hides the decision

Spreadsheets are not automatically a problem. The problem is repeated manual assembly, checking and re-entry that consumes the time of skilled staff while introducing more opportunities for inconsistency. Grant reconciliation is a clear example: the organisation needs professional interpretation of spend, commitments, variance and action, but the professional may spend most of the cycle preparing the file.

Map the task at the level of individual handling. Separate what is repeatable from what needs judgement. Use automation or a focused tool for the repeatable steps, then design the output around the conversation and decision the person is accountable for.

Gap 4: capability is held by individuals

Research operations knowledge often travels through shadowing, remembered exceptions and asking the colleague who has handled that funder before. This can feel responsive, but it places pressure on experienced people and makes onboarding, cover and consistent service harder.

A stronger model combines structured onboarding, current written guidance, supported practice and a clear route to professional judgement. Knowledge should remain connected to the work and source terms, not flattened into a script. The goal is confidence with accountability.

Gap 5: assurance arrives after the useful decision point

When governance is treated as a final check, it finds problems when deadlines are close and options are narrow. Policies may exist, but the real process, evidence and responsibilities do not always follow them consistently.

Assurance is more useful when it samples live work and sends information back into setup, monitoring and training. Trace a material requirement from funder terms to local action and evidence. If the line breaks, improve the working control and test it again rather than beginning with a broad policy rewrite.

The gap is connected

These five frictions are not separate departments. Poor opportunity information weakens pipeline choices. Weak handover creates delivery ambiguity. Manual work reduces capacity for monitoring. Individual knowledge creates resilience risk. Late assurance sends urgent work back through the same stretched teams.

That is why RKE Support works across the ecosystem. Improvement still needs a precise owner and output, but the change should be tested against the people and processes upstream and downstream of it.

A practical 30-day response

Do not try to transform the whole operation in one programme. Choose one material friction that people recognise and leaders care about. During the first week, follow the work and agree the outcome. In the second, establish a reproducible baseline. In the third, test a focused change. In the fourth, decide what should be adopted, stopped, improved or scaled.

• Name the senior owner and the people closest to the work.
• Use a baseline such as time, delay, rework, exception volume or exposure.
• Test the change with real constraints and a small enough scope to learn.
• Record what changed, what did not and who owns the next action.
• Share the learning across the connected parts of the operation.

Contribute to the next edition

A stronger sector perspective needs original evidence. RKE Support intends to develop the next edition through structured input from universities, institutes, funded organisations and partners. If you would be willing to contribute operational data or take part in a confidential interview, contact service@rkesupport.com with ‘Research Operations Gap’ in the subject line.