Editor’s note: Based in Plano, Texas, Brett Hagins is a senior account executive for Carbonview, a Jupiter, Fla., research company. He is also senior partner of Research Innovation and ROI, a Plano-based non-profit organization.

In partnership with Quirk’s, Research Innovation and ROI conducted a study called the Four Rs of Research: Revenue, Risk, Results and Return. It involved an online survey, 75 in-depth telephone interviews with corporate research executives and a literature synthesis that involved adapting best practices from other functional areas, such as sales, to the corporate research function.

The broader study had three aims: maximizing the business impact of research; reducing unnecessary costs; and more explicitly quantifying the economic value of research. (Information about the full scope of the study is available at www.researchinnovationandroi.com.)

A portion of our depth interviews focused on specific questions that selected research leaders asked their stakeholders as part of their internal screening or prioritization process in response to research requests. We then aggregated the input to produce a best-of-breed screening process that synthesized questions from a variety of organizations.

Agreeing on a set of criteria that projects should meet before spending research dollars or time and then getting that set of criteria approved by senior management will:

  • give the research department leverage in focusing time and resources on higher-value requests;
  • help avoid wasting time on low-value requests and give the research department a clear and objective means of prioritization, thereby significantly decreasing stakeholder perception that their request was not treated fairly if not given priority; 
  • help internal stakeholders think through what they really need out of a project from a business perspective;
  • help position the department as a good steward of corporate resources;
  • train stakeholders on the most effective way to work with research to maximize personal and professional success.

Our quantitative study revealed most organizations do not have a screening process but are still able to screen out some low-value research requests.

There are three steps in implementing a screening prioritization process.

Step 1: Agree on a set of high-value research criteria for the project.

Could the subject of the research address a threat or opportunity that (if it goes without attention) could substantially threaten our business model, accelerate obsolescence? Does it address an opportunity that, while not on our current agenda, could be a major growth area for new revenue?

Is it aligned with high-impact marketing or strategy initiatives? Research that is aligned with high-dollar initiatives or initiatives that have a strong financial impact is more important than research that is aligned with lower-value initiatives.

Will it help with decisions where there is a high level of uncertainty about what to do and how best to proceed? Research that validates decisions that have already been made or reduces risk slightly is not as valuable as research that reduces a substantial amount of risk.

Is it more prescriptive than diagnostic? It tells us how to seize opportunities and or how to solve problems and/or how best to move forward (forward-looking rather than backward-looking) rather than simply describing a condition, problem or impact.

Will it be begun early in the decision-making process? Research that is begun early in the decision-making process, at the top-level strategy stage, is more impactful than research that is done after most major decisions have already been made and research is involved only in the tactical issues.

Does it address issues or problems we will likely have the time and resources to fix?

Is it aligned with one of our corporate priorities for this year?

Does it have a senior executive sponsor? Projects that have an executive sponsor are more likely to have impact on decision-making due to higher visibility, support and the ability to mobilize people and resources as needed to address problems highlighted by the research.

Will it influence multiple decisions rather than a single one? The insight gained from the research will be used across a variety of initiatives.

Will it benefit multiple departments and/or business units and not simply a single stakeholder?

Step 2: Formulate questions that allow stakeholders and research to assess how well their research request fits your set of screening or prioritization criteria and a rating system.

At a high level, the next step in the process is to formulate questions based on your criteria. Sometimes we get pushback such as “We’re not ready for a screening process” or “We’re still trying to educate people as to what is possible with research.” The real value of a prioritization process is to train internal clients on how you want them to work with the research department - even if you rarely screen anything out.

So some of the criteria above were designed to combat specific challenges the research department is facing. It is not uncommon, for example, for research to be engaged at the last minute as a tool for validation rather than as a tool to drive decision-making.

Two of the above screening criteria help with this problem by 1) addressing decisions where there is a high level of uncertainty about what to do and how to proceed, and 2) by beginning early in the decision-making process. For each challenge the research department is facing, there is probably a corresponding screening criteria that can provide leverage and serve as an anchor for dealing with that problem.

Step 3: Implement and educate about the process.

The first step is to get input from senior management as to whether they feel the screening criteria are appropriate, what else they would add, remove, etc. Alignment with senior executives is critical to get people to adhere to the process. It is easier to implement this as a technology-based solution using an online survey tool and this also allows for storing research requests in a central location, which may make it possible for requests from multiple business units to be combined or eliminated.

The final step is to educate internal clients on the value of the process. For example, Research Innovation and ROI Inc. developed a training Webcast called “Using Research to Accelerate Personal and Professional Success” explaining the value of each of the above set of criteria to both the organization and to the personal success of the person requesting the research. People must believe the process is a win-win for all concerned.