From fragmented to focused: How leading universities are transforming research services

By Daniel Snowden, CEO / 27 February 2026

For many universities, improving how research is managed and supported seems like an impossible dream. Despite the UK’s global recognition for high-quality research and outcomes, as well as our reputable research frameworks, centres and universities, research management itself is still one of the hardest areas to get right. 

Why is this? It certainly is not lack of effort or expertise. It is more likely because managing research effectively requires coordination across almost every professional service in the institution: Finance, HR, Estates, Digital, Governance, etc. Each must work in concert to enable research to thrive. But universities, by tradition and by design, are not set up for that kind of integration. 

There is also a fundamental tension at play. Research requires freedom, creativity, and agility, but the systems supporting it need structure, compliance, and sustainability. We see some universities struggling with this balance – between tight and loose controls, between institutional oversight and academic autonomy. 

The shift towards institutional responsibility 

Historically, research funding was largely determined by national frameworks and major funding bodies. Universities played a more passive role in allocating and administering awards. 

That landscape has changed dramatically. Today, funders expect universities to know their strengths, align them to national and global priorities, and put forward their best proposals. The burden of prioritisation, filtering, and coordination has shifted squarely onto institutions. 

This shift demands new levels of institutional insight and coordination. Universities must now understand where their research capabilities lie, how these fit with institutional ambition, and (crucially) how to fund and sustain research within increasingly tight financial constraints. 

Research funding rarely covers its full economic cost. Universities must therefore develop business models that offset research deficits through teaching income, commercial activities, or philanthropy – all while still investing in the infrastructure that makes world-class research possible. 

Achieving this balance requires sophisticated financial planning, strategic insight, and genuine coordination across teams. But most universities have not built the internal structures and processes to make this happen. 

The integration problem 

The research lifecycle, from horizon-scanning to impact assessment, crosses functional and organisational boundaries. Integration across these boundaries is essential but often lacking. 

Early on, identifying opportunities depends on connections – between faculties, disciplines, and central teams. At the development stage, success requires an understanding of internal capabilities, infrastructure, financial capacity. During delivery, HR, finance, estates, and digital teams must all align to recruit, manage, and support research staff effectively. 

But here is the problem: most institutions support research through discrete, fragmented services designed to meet specific needs at specific moments throughout the lifecycle. That leaves academics, who often have the least visibility of the entire system, trying to navigate a maze of processes, policies, and contacts. 

Without a clear map of how research is supported across the university, inefficiency, and frustrations multiply. Early-career researchers cannot find the right support. Experienced PIs become de facto project managers of institutional complexity. Time that should go into research gets absorbed by administration. 

The control paradox 

Research thrives on creativity and curiosity, but it must also operate within frameworks that ensure compliance, ethical conduct, and financial sustainability. 

We see this working well with clients whose HR teams understand research staffing dynamics: recruiting for short-term projects, managing global mobility, addressing precarious employment terms. Finance teams who understand cost recovery models and scenario planning. Estates and Digital teams who anticipate infrastructure needs to support emerging research themes and priority areas. 

We’ve also seen examples of when controls become too onerous, stifling innovation. A research environment where every process is rule-bound risks losing the spontaneity that fuels discovery. Good research management is knowing when and how to apply structure and when flexibility is acceptable. 

The human dimension 

Amid all this complexity, researchers are left often carrying the burden of coordination across fragmented systems. 

Early-career researchers must navigate funding systems, compliance requirements, and performance expectations without clear guidance. Senior academics find themselves managing layers of bureaucracy that drain time and energy from research itself. 

Basic questions often go unanswered: 

• Do researchers understand the financial realities of research funding? 

• Do they know how their work contributes to institutional goals? 

• Are promotion and reward systems aligned with diverse pathways – whether research leadership, teaching excellence, or industry collaboration? 

And most importantly: is the support available to researchers coherent, accessible, and equitable across disciplines? 

Questions worth asking 

In our work with universities, progress usually starts with asking the right questions. Surprisingly, few institutions do this systematically for the reasons we have discussed so far. 

Strategically: 

• Does the university genuinely understand its research and innovation strengths? 

• Can it articulate a compelling narrative about impact: social, economic, academic? 

• Are financial and infrastructure plans aligned to research ambitions? 

Operationally: 

• Do HR, Finance, Estates, and Digital teams understand the implications of the research strategy for their work? 

• Is governance proportionate to the risk and complexity involved? 

• Are there mechanisms to manage cross-functional dependencies? 

Individually: 

• Do researchers know how to access support, and what is expected of them? 

• Are workloads realistic given disciplinary variations in research intensity? 

• Do early-career academics have clear progression pathways and developmental support? 

These seem simple, but they are rarely asked collectively and even more rarely answered coherently. 

The cost of fragmentation 

The cost of fragmented research services becomes most obvious when things go wrong. Contract negotiations, for example, often expose upstream weaknesses. If institutional priorities are not aligned, if financial assumptions are unclear, or if risks have not been carefully considered, these issues surface when the university must sign a binding agreement with a funder or partner. 

Our work with one research-intensive UK university on contract transformation illustrated this. By the time research contracts reached the point of signature, multiple unaddressed issues (around cost recovery, IP ownership, and staffing) had to be resolved in haste. The underlying problem was not poor contract management; it was a lack of joined up thinking earlier in the research lifecycle. 

By mapping the entire process, from opportunity identification to post-award management, the university was able to streamline decision-making, clarify roles and responsibilities, and significantly reduce delays. The benefits extended well beyond contracts: the exercise helped to surface structural inefficiencies across the research support ecosystem. 

Towards a more coherent model 

In our experience supporting universities, getting research services ‘right’ is not about implementing more systems or adding more layers of compliance. It is about coherence – creating a shared understanding, integrated processes, and clear accountability across a university’s research ecosystem. 

That means: 

• Breaking down silos between professional services and academic departments 

• Embedding insight into strategic planning and operational delivery 

• Empowering academics with clarity and confidence to pursue research effectively 

• Aligning incentives so effort, reward, and institutional strategy reinforce one another 

These changes require leadership, cultural shifts, and often external support to challenge assumptions and design new ways of working. 

How we can help 

For universities striving to strengthen their research profile, improving research services management is no longer optional. The sector faces tightening finances, increasing competition, and growing expectations from funders, partners, and society. 

Institutions that succeed will treat research management not as an administrative function, but as a strategic capability. 

At Strive Higher we help universities navigate this complexity, helping universities understand their research ecosystem and lifecycles, designing integrated research support models, and building the insight needed to make evidence-based decisions about research investment and capability. 

If your institution is ready to turn research management into a competitive advantage, let’s talk. Get in touch to explore how we can help your university build a more connected, sustainable, and impactful research ecosystem.