The Commissioning Brief

Turning a Need into a Defined Commission

The commissioning brief is the central planning document for a Commissioned Research project.

It turns a general institutional need into a defined assignment by explaining:

• What the commission is about.
• Why the work is needed.
• What questions it should answer.
• Who will use the findings.
• What outputs are expected.
• What conditions will shape the work.
• How proposals will be assessed.
• How the completed work will be managed, shared, and preserved.

A well-prepared brief gives potential research providers enough information to design an appropriate response while allowing them to recommend the methods, team, and work plan best suited to the questions.

The brief also serves as a reference point throughout the project. It supports proposal review, project authorization, milestone management, output review, and final Repository deposit.

Defining the commission

It sits between the initial Commission Request and the active project:

Need → Commission Request → Concept Note → Commissioning Brief → Project

The brief should provide enough clarity for the commissioning body, the Commons coordination team, advisers, stakeholders, and potential providers to develop a shared understanding of the work.

It should establish the purpose, questions, boundaries, expected outputs, resources, governance, and conditions of the commission without unnecessarily prescribing the answer or preventing a qualified provider from recommending an appropriate design.

The Commissioning Brief is not the initial request, the provider’s proposal, the project contract, or the final research output. It is the document that makes responsible sourcing, authorization, delivery, review, and preservation possible.

Why the brief matters

A commission can fail even when the provider is capable if the original assignment is unclear.

Unclear briefs often produce:

• Broad or competing objectives.
• Questions that cannot be answered within the available resources.
• Outputs that have no defined audience.
• Disagreement about the provider’s responsibilities.
• Unanticipated ethical or data problems.
• Uncontrolled expansion of scope.
• Delays caused by unresolved decisions.
• Findings that are technically sound but practically unusable.

A good brief creates a shared reference point. It allows participants to distinguish between:

• The original need and later additions.
• Essential questions and desirable questions.
• Required outputs and optional outputs.
• Mandatory methods and provider-designed methods.
• Legitimate review comments and attempts to change the assignment.
• Approved changes and informal adjustments.

The brief should therefore be treated as a governance document as well as a research-planning document.

What a Good Brief Does

A good commissioning brief creates a shared understanding between the commissioning body, potential providers, stakeholders, and the Commons coordination team.

It should be:

• Clear.
• Focused.
• Specific.
• Realistic.
• Open about constraints.
• Appropriate to the intended audience.
• Clear about expected outputs.
• Transparent about evaluation criteria.
• Flexible enough to allow an appropriate research design.

The brief should explain the purpose and context of the work without concealing important expectations or prescribing an answer in advance.

The quality of the final commission is strongly influenced by the clarity of its aims, questions, resources, and timetable. These elements should be reviewed carefully before the brief is circulated.

The Brief at a Glance

A Commissioning Brief normally brings together:

1. The commissioning organization.
2. Background and context.
3. Purpose, aims, and objectives.
4. Research or advisory questions.
5. Scope and boundaries.
6. Intended audiences and stakeholders.
7. Expected outputs and deliverables.
8. Methodological considerations.
9. Ethics, safeguarding, and data requirements.
10. Timeline and milestones.
11. Budget and resources.
12. Project management and communication.
13. Provider requirements.
14. Proposal requirements.
15. Evaluation and selection criteria.
16. Publication, licensing, and Repository arrangements.
17. Legal and contractual considerations.
18. Contact and submission information.

Not every commission requires the same level of detail. The brief should be proportionate to the size, complexity, sensitivity, and expected value of the work.

How the Brief is Developed

The Commissioning Brief is normally developed after a Commission Request has been submitted and reviewed.

Its development draws on:

• The Commission Request topic.
• The official Concept Note.
• Clarification exchanged with the commissioning body.
• Scoping discussions.
• Existing evidence and related work.
• Advice from subject specialists.
• Methodological advice. Stakeholder perspectives.
• Ethics and safeguarding requirements.
• Data-management considerations.
• Institutional, legal, procurement, or communications requirements.

The brief may be developed through a request-specific private or hidden CBOX group. That workspace can provide a controlled environment for discussion, document sharing, version management, and approval.

The commissioning body remains responsible for confirming the need, intended use, authority, resources, and institutional commitments. The Commons coordination team supports clarity, coherence, and connection to the wider knowledge environment.

The Relationship between the Concept Note and the Commissioning Brief

The Concept Note and the Commissioning Brief serve different purposes.

The Concept Note is the commissioning body’s initial official statement of the proposed work. It explains the need, purpose, broad questions, intended users, and anticipated outputs.

The Commissioning Brief is the developed assignment. It incorporates clarification, scoping, methodological considerations, governance, resources, deliverables, and conditions for delivery.

The Concept Note may remain provisional. The Commissioning Brief should state what has been agreed.

Concept Note: What the commissioning body initially proposes.

Commissioning Brief: What the commissioning body and relevant participants have defined as the assignment to be taken forward.

The brief should preserve the relationship to the original request rather than silently replacing it. Where substantial changes have occurred, the document should explain what changed and why.

What the Brief should Establish

A complete Commissioning Brief should answer:

• Why is the work needed?
• What should it accomplish?
• What questions must it address?
• What is already known?
• What remains uncertain?
• What is inside and outside scope?
• Who will use the findings?
• What stakeholders should be involved?
• What outputs are required?
• What methods are required, preferred, or open?
• What ethical and data responsibilities apply?
• What time and resources are available?
• Who will govern and approve the work?
• How will providers be assessed?
• How will the outputs be disseminated, licensed, and preserved?

1. Commissioning Organization

Begin with a concise description of the organization commissioning the work.

Include:

• Organization name.
• Organizational type.
• Relevant programme, department, or unit.
• Mandate or area of responsibility.
• Primary contact.
• Contact details.
• Relevant partners or participating institutions.

Potential providers need to understand who is commissioning the work, why the organization is commissioning it, and how the project relates to its responsibilities.

2. Commission Identification

Begin with information that allows the assignment to be identified and controlled.

Include:

• Commission title. Commission reference.
• Commissioning organization.
• Department, unit, or programme.
• Primary commissioning contact.
• Other responsible officers.
• Related Commission Request topic.
• Document version.
• Date.
• Status.
• Confidentiality or access classification.
• Use clear version control, for example:

Use clear version control, for example:

• Commissioning Brief v0.1 — Initial draft
• Commissioning Brief v0.2 — For commissioning-body review
• Commissioning Brief v0.3 — Revised after scoping
• Commissioning Brief v1.0 — Approved

The approved version should be clearly distinguished from working drafts.

3. Background, Rationale and Context

The background explains the circumstances that have created the need for the commission.

It may describe:

• The institutional policy, professional, social, or sectoral context.
• The issue or development that prompted the request.
• The programme, intervention, service, or issue involved
• Relevant developments or decisions.
• Existing Research, evidence or previous work.
• Relevant gaps, limitations, or disagreements in the evidence or knowledge.
• The consequences of current uncertainty.
• Previous consultations or decisions.
• Changes in policy, practice, technology, or public need.
• Why the work is being commissioned at this point.

The background should provide enough context for providers to understand the problem without prescribing the answer in advance. It should not be an unstructured history of the topic, but should give providers and other participants the context necessary to understand the problem and design an appropriate response.

Where relevant, include links to:

• Strategies.
• Previous reports.
• Policies or strategies.
• Related research.
• Existing datasets.
• Earlier evaluations.
• Relevant Community groups and related Commissioned Research projects.
• Related Journal Publication or Repository records.

4. Purpose and Intended Use

The purpose explains why the commission is being undertaken and what it is expected to enable.

A clear purpose statement should answer:

• Why is the information needed?
• What decision or action will it support?
• Who will use the findings?
• How will the findings be applied?
• What difference should the work make?

The purpose should state what the work is expected to enable.

A purpose statement should address:

• What the commissioning body needs to understand or decide.
• Who will use the findings.
• What action or decision the findings may inform.
• When the findings will be needed.
• What would make the work useful.

Compare: To conduct research on professional development.

With: To generate evidence about the barriers affecting access to professional development among early-career practitioners and use that evidence to inform the design of an equitable institutional support framework.

The second statement identifies the population, the issue, the intended use, and the anticipated relationship between evidence and action.

The brief should also acknowledge that research findings may be uncertain, mixed, or contrary to expectations. Intended use should not be confused with a predetermined conclusion.

5. Aims and Objectives

The aim expresses the overall intention of the commission.

The objectives identify the specific accomplishments expected from the work.

Objectives should be:

• Relevant to the purpose.
• Realistic within the available resources.
• Specific enough to guide design.
• Connected to intended outputs.
• Capable of being assessed.

Use a manageable number of objectives. A commission with too many objectives may become difficult to execute and may result in superficial treatment of each issue.

Objectives might involve:

• Assessing.
• Examining.
• Identifying.
• Comparing.
• Mapping.
• Evaluating.
• Understanding.
• Developing.
• Testing.
• Recommending.

The objectives should not be written as a list of activities alone. “Conduct interviews” is an activity. “Understand how institutional barriers affect access to support” is an objective.

For example:

Aim:

• To understand the factors affecting the implementation of a new professional standard.

Objectives:

• To identify the main implementation barriers.
• To examine how different institutions are responding.
• To assess the resources required for implementation.
• To identify practical strategies for supporting adoption.
• To produce recommendations for institutional and professional audiences.

Objectives should be specific enough to guide the research design and assess the quality of the final outputs.

6. Research and Advisory Questions

The brief should identify the central research, or advisory questions give intellectual direction to the work.

Questions should be:

• Clearly worded.
• Relevant to the purpose.
• Realistic within the available resources.
• Capable of being answered through evidence, analysis, consultation, or evaluation.
• Ordered by importance where necessary.
• Focused enough to be feasible.
• Open to findings that may challenge assumptions.
• Useful to intended users.

The brief may distinguish between:

• Primary questions.
• Secondary questions.
• Exploratory questions.
• Questions outside scope.
• Questions that providers may refine through their proposed methodology.

Avoid including too many questions. An overextended set of questions can make the commission difficult to manage and may produce superficial outputs.

Avoid treating every concern raised during consultation as a separate research question. Prioritization is essential.

A question such as “What are the barriers, experiences, institutional causes, policy implications, implementation options, costs, and long-term outcomes?” may contain several distinct inquiries requiring different methods and resources. It should be separated, prioritized, or narrowed.

7. Scope and Boundaries

The scope defines what the commission will and will not cover.

It may specify:

• Subject area.
• Geographic area.
• Time period.
• Population or groups of interest.
• Institutions or sectors.
• Professional roles.
• Data sources.
• Required methods.
• Expected outputs.
• Policy, programme, intervention, or service
• Required comparisons.
• Required disaggregation.
• Issues outside the commission.

The brief should also identify constraints such as:

• Maximum project duration.
• Defined budget.
• Restricted data access.
• Required approvals.
• Confidentiality obligations.
• Limits on participant recruitment.
• Required geographic or institutional coverage.

Clear boundaries help providers develop comparable proposals and reduce the risk of uncontrolled expansion during delivery.

Include an explicit section titled Out of scope.

This section is not a limitation of ambition. It is a protection against uncontrolled expansion and a basis for explaining why certain related questions will not be addressed.

The scope should also identify dependencies. For example:

• Access to an administrative dataset.
• Approval by an ethics committee.
• Permission from participating institutions.
• Availability of stakeholders.
• Recruitment of a defined population.
• Completion before a policy deadline.

8. Intended Users, Audiences and Stakeholders

The brief should identify who will use, inform, or be affected by the work.

The brief should distinguish between users and stakeholders.

Users are people who will interpret or apply the findings.

Stakeholders may include people who:

• Possess relevant knowledge.
• Participate in the research.
• Provide access.
• Are affected by the subject.
• Have authority over implementation.
• May experience risks or benefits.
• Need to review or validate outputs.

Identify:

• Primary users.
• Secondary audiences.
• Decision-makers.
• Practitioners.
• Researchers.
• Communities.
• Professional groups.
• Participants.
• Institutional partners.
• Funders.
• Public audiences.

The brief should state how stakeholders will be involved:

• Interviews.
• Surveys.
• Focus groups.
• Workshops.
• Advisory groups.
• Community consultation.
• Expert review.
• Validation.
• Dissemination.

Participation should have a defined purpose. Stakeholders should not be invited merely to create the appearance of engagement.

These may include:

• Policymakers.
• Public agencies.
• Professional bodies.
• Researchers.
• Practitioners.
• Institutional leaders.
• Service providers.
• Civil society organizations.
• Communities.
• Students or trainees.
• Members of the public.

Distinguish between:

Primary audience: The people who will use the findings most directly.

Secondary audiences: Other groups that may benefit from or be affected by the work.

Stakeholders: People or organizations whose knowledge, participation, approval, or cooperation may be required.

9. Expected Outputs and Deliverables

The brief should specify what the provider is expected to produce.

Possible outputs include:

• Inception report.
• Full research report.
• Evidence synthesis.
• Evaluation report.
• Executive summary.
• Policy brief.
• Practice guideline.
• Professional standard.
• Technical appendix.
• Toolkit.
• Framework.
• Implementation guide.
• Dataset.
• Evidence map.
• Training resource.
• Presentation.
• Stakeholder workshop.
• Public summary.
• Academic article.
• Journal manuscript
• Repository record.

For each deliverable, specify:

• Working title or description.
• Intended audience.
• Required content.
• Expected format.
• Approximate length.
• Required level of detail.
• Review and approval process.
• Delivery date.
• Purpose.
• Language.
• Accessibility requirements
• Approval authority.
• Licence.
• Access conditions.
• Publication Status

Distinguish between required deliverables and optional outputs that providers may propose.

Acceptance criteria

Each major deliverable should have acceptance criteria.

For example, a final report may be accepted when it:

• Addresses the approved research questions.
• Describes and justifies the methodology.
• Presents the evidence clearly.
• Distinguishes findings, interpretation, and recommendations. Identifies limitations.
• Meets agreed accessibility requirements.
• Includes required acknowledgments. Is delivered in the required formats.
• Contains the metadata needed for Repository deposit.

Acceptance criteria protect both parties. They give the commissioning body a basis for judging completion and give the provider a clear understanding of what is expected.

10. Methodological Considerations and Expectations

The commissioning body may identify preferred methods, but should avoid unnecessarily prescribing a method where providers may have better expertise.

The brief may state:

• Required methods.
• Preferred methods.
• Methods that may be considered.
• Methods that are unsuitable.
• Required sample or coverage.
• Required data sources.
• Expected analytical approach.
• Requirements for comparison or evaluation.
• Expectations for stakeholder participation.

Where the method is not yet clear, the brief should explain the questions and invite providers to recommend an appropriate design.

Providers should explain:

• Why the proposed method is suitable.
• How it will answer the questions.
• What limitations it has.
• What resources it requires.
• How quality will be assured.

The commissioning body should distinguish between what is mandatory and what is open to provider expertise.

Mandatory requirements

These may include:

• Inclusion of a defined population.
• Use of a required dataset.
• Minimum geographic coverage.
• A required comparison.
• Disaggregation by specified characteristics.
• Ethics approval before recruitment.
• A participatory component.
• A required output format.

Preferred considerations

These may include:

• Mixed methods.
• Comparative design.
• Participatory engagement.
• Use of existing administrative data.
• Qualitative interviews.
• Evidence synthesis.
• Co-design workshops.

Provider-designed elements

Invite providers to recommend:

• Research design.
• Sampling.
• Data collection.
• Analysis.
• Quality assurance.
• Sequencing.
• Limitations and mitigation.

The brief should define the problem and evidence requirements without forcing a method that may not be appropriate.

11. Ethics, Safeguarding, and Data

The brief should identify ethical and data requirements from the beginning.

These may include:

• Ethics review or institutional approval.
• Informed consent.
• Confidentiality.
• Anonymity.
• Safeguarding.
• Protection of vulnerable participants.
• Data security.
• Data ownership.
• Data access restrictions.
• Data retention.
• Data sharing.
• Data destruction.
• Privacy requirements.
• Management of sensitive information.

Providers should identify any additional ethical or data-management requirements arising from their proposed approach.

Where participants, communities, or sensitive information are involved, the brief should explain who is responsible for approvals, consent, safeguarding, and data management.

The commissioning body should state who is responsible for:

• Ethics applications.
• Participant recruitment.
• Consent.
• Data access.
• Data security.
• Incident reporting.
• Safeguarding.
• Repository deposit.

Ethics is not limited to the point at which data are collected. It continues through analysis, dissemination, publication, archiving, future use, and sharing

12. Timeline and Milestones

The brief should provide a realistic timetable for both the selection process, the commissioned work, and also delivery activity and decision points

The timeline may include:

• Approval of the Commissioning Brief
• Publication or circulation of the brief.
• Deadline for questions.
• Deadline for proposals.
• Proposal assessment.
• Provider selection.
• Contract confirmation.
• Inception meeting.
• Inception report.
• Ethics approval.
• Data-access approval.
• Data collection or evidence review.
• Interim report.
• Stakeholder consultation.
• Draft deliverables.
• Review period.
• Revision period.
• Final approval.
• Publication and Repository deposit.
• Commissioning-body review.
• Final approval.
• Dissemination.
• Repository deposit.
• Closeout.

Distinguish between:

• Fixed deadlines.
• Preferred dates.
• Flexible milestones.
• Dependencies outside the provider’s control.

Timelines should account for procurement, ethics approval, access to data, stakeholder availability, review, and revision. A completion date that leaves no time for these activities is not a realistic completion date.

13. Budget and Resources

Where possible, the brief should provide an indicative budget or resource range.

A budget indication helps providers understand the expected scale of the work and develop proposals that can be compared fairly.

The brief may specify:

• Total available budget or indicative budget or ceiling.
• Budget range.
• Funding status.
• Currency.
• Eligible and ineligible costs.
• Payment schedule.
• Required budget format.
• Travel or fieldwork provisions.
• Translation and interpretation.
• Participant compensation
• Administrative costs.
• Institutional charges.
• Tax or institutional charges.
• In-kind contributions.
• Available facilities or data.
• Required staffing.
• Communications support

If the budget cannot be disclosed in advance, the brief should explain how cost proposals will be assessed.

The resource statement should be consistent with the scope and timeline. A commission that requires international fieldwork, multilingual engagement, complex data management, and multiple public outputs cannot be treated as a small desk study merely because the commissioning body has not yet calculated the full cost

14. Project Management, Governance and Communication

The brief should explain how the project will be managed.

Include:

• Commissioning lead.
• Steering or advisory group.
• Provider’s project lead.
• Reporting arrangements.
• Meeting schedule.
• Communication channels.
• Decision-making authority.
• Scope-change process.
• Risk-management process.
• Escalation arrangements.
• Review and approval responsibilities.

Potential providers should understand who will make decisions, how often communication will occur, and what level of project management is expected.

Clarify:

• Reporting requirements.
• Meeting frequency.
• Communication channels.
• Decision rights.
• Scope-change procedure.
• Risk escalation.
• Dispute resolution.
• Record-keeping responsibilities.

The brief should make clear who can approve:

• The inception report.
• Changes to method.
• Changes to scope.
• Changes to timeline.
• Changes to budget.
• Draft outputs.
• Final outputs.
• Publication.
• Repository deposit

15. Provider and Proposal Requirements

The brief should identify the skills, experience, and organizational capacity required from providers.

Requirements may include:

• Subject expertise.
• Methodological expertise.
• Relevant sector experience.
• Experience working with intended audiences.
• Stakeholder-engagement experience.
• Data-management capability.
• Ethics and safeguarding competence.
• Project-management capacity.
• Quality-assurance arrangements.
• Ability to meet the required timeline.
• Relevant references or examples of prior work.

A proposal may be required to include:

• Understanding of the commission.
• Proposed methodology.
• Work plan.
• Timeline.
• Team composition.
• Roles and responsibilities.
• Relevant experience.
• Stakeholder-engagement approach.
• Ethics and data-management approach.
• Risk-management plan.
• Quality-assurance arrangements.
• Deliverables.
• Budget and costing.
• Assumptions and dependencies.
• Relevant references.
• Publication and dissemination approach.

Requirements should be proportionate to the commission and should not unnecessarily exclude capable providers.

16. Evaluation and Selection Criteria

The brief should state how proposals will be assessed.

Possible criteria include:

• Understanding of the assignment.
• Relevance to the brief.
• Quality of the proposed methodology.
• Feasibility of the work plan.
• Suitability of the team.
• Relevant experience.
• Ethical and data-management adequacy.
• Stakeholder-engagement approach.
• Quality-assurance arrangements.
• Value for money.
• Realism of the budget.
• Realism of the timeline.
• Potential usefulness of the outputs.
• Risk register.
• Deliverables.
• Assumptions and dependencies.
• Dissemination approach.
• References.

Where possible, the brief should indicate the relative importance of each criterion.

The evaluation criteria should be established before proposals are reviewed.

The proposal requirements should correspond to the evaluation criteria. Do not ask providers to supply information that will not be used in the decision.

17. Evaluation Criteria

The brief should state how proposals will be assessed.

Possible criteria include:

• Understanding of the commission.
• Quality and suitability of the methodology.
• Relevant experience.
• Suitability of the proposed team.
• Feasibility of the work plan.
• Ethical and data-management arrangements.
• Stakeholder approach.
• Quality assurance.
• Risk management.
• Value for money.
• Budget realism.
• Timeline realism.
• Usefulness of the proposed outputs.

Where appropriate, provide weightings.

The criteria should be established before proposals are reviewed and applied consistently.

18. Publication, Licensing, and Repository Arrangements

The brief should state what will happen to the completed work.

It should identify:

• Which outputs will be published.
• Which outputs will be restricted.
• Whether an embargo applies.
• Who owns the intellectual property.
• What licences will be used.
• How authors, contributors and institutions will be acknowledged.
• Whether data will be shared.
• Whether outputs will be deposited in the Repository.
• Whether a scholarly article and Journal Publication may be developed.
• Whether outputs may be adapted into briefs, tools, or guidelines.
• What copyright arrangements apply.
• How derivative resources may be created.
• What version will be authoritative.

The brief should also identify what metadata and supporting documentation will be required for preservation

Approved outputs should normally be prepared for Repository deposit with:

• Complete metadata.
• Author and contributor information.
• Commissioning organization.
• Research provider.
• Date.
• Abstract or description.
• Keywords.
• Related project records.
• Licensing information.
• Access conditions.
• Persistent identifier.

19. Legal and Contractual Considerations

The brief should identify important legal or contractual requirements.

Include or cross-reference, requirements relating to:

• Contracting arrangements.
• Intellectual property.
• Copyright.
• Data ownership.
• Confidentiality.
• Publication rights.
• Liability.
• Insurance.
• Procurement rules.
• Payment conditions.
• Conflict-of-interest requirements.
• Dispute resolution.
• Termination arrangements.
• Changes to scope.
• Use of subcontractors.

Essential contractual expectations should be disclosed before a provider is selected. The public brief does not need to reproduce the entire contract. It should, however, disclose requirements that may affect a provider’s decision to submit a proposal.

20. Review and Approval of the Brief

The draft should be reviewed by the commissioning body and, where necessary:

• Subject advisers.
• Methodological advisers.
• Ethics advisers.
• Data-protection or information-governance officers.
• Legal or procurement officers.
• Communications or accessibility advisers.
• Relevant stakeholders.

The final version should include:

• Commission reference.
• Version number.
• Date.
• Approval status.
• Responsible organization.
• Approval authority. Approval date.

The approved brief becomes the authoritative statement of the assignment for provider engagement and project initiation.

21. Developing the Brief in CBOX

A request-specific private or hidden CBOX workspace may be used for:

• Scoping discussions.
• Draft review.
• Versioned documents.
• Questions and responses.
• Stakeholder participation.
• Approval records.

The general Commissioned Research group should remain the shared entry point. Sensitive project development should move into a controlled workspace with explicitly managed membership.

Relationship to later stages

The Commissioning Brief is used to:

• Prepare a request for proposals.
• Assess provider capability.
• Establish the project agreement.
• Prepare the inception report.
• Monitor delivery.
• Review final outputs.
• Confirm whether the project has fulfilled its purpose.
• Determine what should be published and preserved.

The brief should therefore be written for the entire project lifecycle, not merely for the moment at which providers are invited to submit a proposal.

22. Contact and Submission Information

The brief should clearly state:

• Name of the commissioning body.
• Contact person.
• Email or submission channel.
• Deadline for questions.
• Deadline for proposals.
• Required subject line or reference.
• Required file format.
• Expected confirmation of receipt.
• Anticipated decision date.
• Proposed project start date.

Providers should know where to ask questions and how to submit their response.

22. Brief Review Checklist

Before publishing or circulating a commissioning brief, confirm that:

• The purpose is clear.
• The background is sufficient.
• The objectives are realistic.
• The core questions are focused.
• The scope and boundaries are defined.
• Intended audiences are identified.
• Stakeholders are considered.
• Deliverables are specific.
• The methodology is appropriately framed.
• Ethics and data requirements are stated.
• The timeline is realistic.
• Budget or resource conditions are clear.
• Provider requirements are proportionate.
• Proposal requirements are specified.
• Evaluation criteria are transparent.
• Publication and Repository arrangements are defined.
• Legal and contractual requirements are identified.
• Contact and submission details are complete.

23. Prepare or Submit a Brief

A commissioning body may begin by:

• Preparing a new Commissioning Brief.
• Reviewing the Commissioned Research Request guidance.
• Linking the proposed work to a Collaborative group.
• Identifying related Commons outputs.
• Contacting the Commons coordination team.

The brief may be developed internally or refined with relevant stakeholders before it is submitted.