A lifecycle of inquiry, governance, and knowledge stewardship

Commissioned Research is a lifecycle rather than a single submission event. It begins when an institution, organization, professional body, public agency, partnership, or community identifies a need that requires structured inquiry. It continues through definition, briefing, review, expertise selection, project delivery, dissemination, preservation, and learning.

The purpose of the lifecycle is to ensure that commissioned work is not treated as an isolated transaction between a requester and a provider. It should be developed as a responsible relationship among the commissioning body, researchers, stakeholders, affected communities, knowledge users, and the Commons.

A commission is complete only when the agreed work has been delivered, reviewed, accepted, communicated, appropriately preserved, and connected to future use.

The Lifecycle at a Glance

The Commissioned Research lifecycle consists of the following connected stages:

1. Identify and prioritize the need.
2. Consider existing knowledge and available capability.
3. Develop the Commissioning Brief.
4. Submit and review the Commission Request.
5. Clarify and scope the proposed work.
6. Invite and receive proposals
7. Assess, engage and select appropriate expertise.
8. Authorize and initiate the project.
9. Conduct and manage the work, including delivery and milestones.
10. Review and accept the outputs.
11. Approve final deliverables
12. Disseminate and apply the findings.
13. Document, publish, and preserve the knowledge.
14. Close the project and enable reuse.

Projects may follow different routes depending on their size, urgency, governance requirements, and provider-selection method. These stages provide a common structure while allowing each commission to be adapted to its context.

The stages may overlap. For example, dissemination should be considered during briefing, ethical and data issues should be addressed before data collection, and Repository requirements should influence the design of the final outputs.

1. Identify and Prioritize the Need {Scope the Need}

The process begins when an institution identifies a question, problem, decision, or opportunity that requires focused research or analysis.

Thus a commission should begin with a defined need rather than with a preferred method or predetermined conclusion.

The need may arise from:

• A decision that cannot be made confidently with available evidence.
• A policy, programme, or service whose effects are uncertain.
• A gap in professional or institutional knowledge.
• A population whose experiences or needs are insufficiently understood.
• A requirement to develop a standard, framework, guideline, or implementation resource.
• An emerging issue requiring analysis before action.
• A need to synthesize dispersed evidence for a defined audience.

The commissioning body should be able to explain:

• What problem, opportunity, or decision is involved.
• Who is affected.
• What is already known.
• What remains uncertain.
• Why the uncertainty matters.
• Why the work is needed now.
• What decisions or actions the work may inform.
• Who may use the findings.
• What might happen if the work is not undertaken.

The purpose of this stage is to determine whether the need is sufficiently clear to proceed to a commissioning brief.

A request may be redirected to the Community layer if the question requires wider exploration or co-production before it can be commissioned

A topic alone is not a commissioning need. “Research on professional development” identifies an area of interest, but not yet a sufficiently defined assignment. A stronger starting point would explain what is not working, whose experience is affected, what decision is pending, and what evidence is needed to improve the situation.

2. Consider Existing Knowledge and Capability

Before proposing new work, the commissioning body should consider whether the need can be addressed through existing knowledge or activity.

This may involve reviewing:

• Academic literature.
• Previous evaluations.
• Institutional reports.
• Administrative data.
• Professional standards.
• Existing consultations.
• Related Collaborative groups.
• Journal Publications.
• Repository records.
• Current or completed commissions.

This does not require a complete systematic review before an initial request. It does require responsible awareness of what has already been done, what can be reused, and what contribution the proposed commission would make.

The commissioning body should also consider whether it has the capability to deliver the work internally. Relevant questions include:

• Is the necessary subject expertise available?
• Is the required methodological competence available?
• Is there sufficient staff time?
• Can the organization provide independent analysis?
• Does it have access to participants or data?
• Can it meet ethics, safeguarding, and data requirements?
• Can it manage the project and quality-assure the outputs?

If the organization has the necessary capability, internal delivery may be appropriate. If it lacks capacity, requires independence, or needs specialist expertise, external engagement may be necessary.

3. Develop the Commissioning Brief

The commissioning brief is the central planning document for the project. It turns a general need into a defined assignment and gives potential research providers enough information to determine whether they can undertake the work.

The Commissioning Brief translates the need into a defined assignment.

It should establish and normally include:

• The background and rationale.
• The purpose and intended use.
• The aim and objectives.
• The primary and secondary questions and also core research or advisory questions.
• The scope, boundaries and exclusions.
• The intended users, stakeholders and audiences.
• The expected outputs and deliverables.
• The methodological expectations.
• The ethical and safeguarding requirements.
• Data access and management requirements.
• The timeline and milestones.
• The budget and available resources and parameters
• The governance arrangements and Reporting expectations.
• The requirements for provider engagement.
• Quality and evaluation criteria.
• The publication, licensing, and Repository arrangements.

The brief should be clear enough to guide the next stage while remaining open to appropriate methodological advice. The commissioning body should describe the problem and the evidence it needs rather than attempting to prescribe a method that may not be suitable.

A good brief also makes constraints visible. Providers should know about fixed deadlines, budget ceilings, restricted data, required geographic coverage, participant-access limitations, ethics approvals, and publication conditions before they prepare a proposal.

4. Submit and Review the Commission Request

After preparing the initial materials, the commissioning body accesses the Commissioned Research Group in the Commons and submits the request by creating a new Commission Request topic.

The Commission Request topic should:

• Identify the commissioning body.
• Name the primary contact.
• State the proposed commission title.
• Summarize the background and rationale.
• State the purpose and objectives.
• Identify the main questions.
• Describe the intended users.
• Define the broad scope.
• Describe expected outputs.
• State the known timeline and resources.
• Identify relevant stakeholder, ethics, and data considerations.
• Attach an official Concept Note, including any other relevant supporting documents.

The Commission Request Topic is the formal entry record. The Concept Note is the commissioning body’s official Commission Request document. The request is recorded in the Commons so that its development, review, and eventual outcome can be traced.

The Commons coordination team and, or designated commissioning research group lead conducts an initial review for:

• Clarity
• Completeness.
• Feasibility and identifiable intended use
• Appropriate and plausible scope
• Realistic relevant outputs
• Proper ethical consideration and data management concerns
• Possible duplication of existing Commons work.
• Readiness of the commissioning body participate in further development.
• Adequate resources.
• Stakeholder and governance requirements.
• Alignment with Commissioned Research.

The review is not a final approval of the research design or provider. It determines whether the request has a credible basis for clarification, scoping, or further development.

Possible review outcomes

• Proceed to clarification: The request is promising but requires specific questions to be answered or information to be added.
• Proceed to scoping: The request would benefit from a structured discussion before the brief can be finalized.
• Proceed to Commissioning Brief development: The request is sufficiently clear to begin formal development of the detailed brief.
• Redirect: The need may be better addressed through: A Community group.; An existing Commons project.; A Journal Publication; A Repository record; An evidence-sharing activity; Another institutional or community pathway.
• Defer: The request may be relevant but cannot proceed because of timing, authorization, resources, readiness, or other constraints.
• Close: The request is not suitable for Commissioned Research or cannot reasonably be developed.

Where possible, the Commons should explain the reason for a redirect, deferral, or closure.

Submitting a request does not automatically authorize a commission.

5. Clarify and Scope the Proposed Work

Clarification may occur in the original request topic. If the discussion involves working documents, sensitive information, or sustained collaboration, the Commons may create a request-specific private or hidden workspace.

Scoping should help the participants establish a shared understanding of:

• The decision or action the research will inform.
• The most important questions.
• Questions that should remain outside scope.
• Existing evidence and knowledge.
• The population, institution, geography, or context involved.
• Stakeholders who should be consulted or involved.
• Outputs that will genuinely be useful.
• Available time and resources.
• Methodological choices that remain open.
• Ethical, safeguarding, and data responsibilities.
• Risks, dependencies, and required approvals.

The purpose of scoping is not to produce an unnecessarily elaborate document. It is to prevent fundamental ambiguity from being carried into the project.

An effective scoping discussion may conclude that:

• The original question should be narrowed.
• Several questions should be prioritized.
• A preliminary evidence review should precede primary research.
• A Collaborative should be established first.
• The proposed output should be redesigned for its audience.
• The project requires more resources than initially assumed.
• A different type of provider or method is needed.

5. Invite and Receive Proposals

Depending on the governance arrangements, the commission may proceed through:

• An invitation to selected providers.
• A restricted request for proposals.
• An open call managed through the relevant institutional process.
• A direct appointment.
• A partnership arrangement.
• An internal research team proposal.

The selection route should be made clear from the beginning

The request to providers should identify:

• The approved brief.
• The response format.
• The submission deadline.
• Eligibility requirements.
• Evaluation criteria.
• Budget or resource information.
• Required team information.
• Expected methodology.
• Reporting and deliverable requirements.
• Contractual and licensing conditions.

Formal procurement or contracting may be completed through the commissioning organization’s approved procedures.

6. Engage and Select Appropriate Expertise

Once the assignment is sufficiently defined, the commissioning body determines how the work will be delivered.

Possible routes include:

• Internal research.
• Institutional partnership.
• Direct appointment.
• Invitation to selected providers.
• Open call.
• Competitive procurement.
• Consortium or joint delivery.

The appropriate route depends on:

• Scale and complexity.
• Budget and institutional rules.
• Sensitivity and risk.
• Need for independence.
• Availability of expertise.
• Required methods.
• Time constraints.
• Procurement requirements.

Where proposals are invited, they should be assessed against criteria established in advance. These may include:

• Relevance to the brief.
• Understanding of the assignment.
• Methodological quality.
• Relevant expertise.
• Experience with the context or population, qualifications and suitability of the team.
• Feasibility.
• Ethics and safeguarding.
• Data management.
• Quality assurance.
• Risk management.
• Stakeholder engagement approach.
• Value for money.
• Realism of the timeline.
• Publication and dissemination plans.

The review group should record the basis of its assessment and identify any conflicts of interest.

Selecting a preferred provider does not complete the commission. The project must still be formally agreed and authorized.

The provider-selection process should be documented so that the commissioning body can explain why the selected provider was considered suitable.

7. Authorize and Initiate the Project

Before substantive work begins, the commissioning body and provider should confirm:

• The approved Commissioning Brief.
• Final scope and research questions.
• The provider’s approved proposal.
• Research design and methods.
• The contract or formal agreement.
• Project roles and contacts.
• Stakeholder engagement arrangements
• The budget and payment schedule.
• The deliverables and acceptance criteria.
• The project timetable.
• The governance arrangements.
• The ethics and safeguarding requirements.
• The data-management arrangements.
• Confidentiality.
• Intellectual property.
• Licensing and reuse.
• Publication and dissemination rights.
• The Repository requirements.
• The procedures for approving changes, and managing delays, or disputes.

A complex commission should normally begin with an inception stage.

An inception meeting should confirm:

• The provider’s interpretation of the assignment.
• The final research design.
• The work plan.
• The project Team and responsibilities.
• The governance structure.
• Data and participant access.
• Stakeholder engagement.
• Ethics and safeguarding.
• Risks and dependencies.
• Quality assurance.
• Communication Schedule
• Review points.
• Deliverable dates.

Once these arrangements are confirmed, the commission becomes an active project within the Commons.

An inception report may be required before the main work begins. It should not silently change the approved purpose or scope. Where changes are necessary, they should be discussed and recorded.

8. Conduct and Manage the Work and Milestones

During delivery, the Commons provides a structured environment for documenting progress and maintaining communication between the commissioning body, provider, and approved stakeholders.

The provider or research team conducts the agreed work while the commissioning body maintains appropriate oversight.

Monitoring should consider:

• Progress against milestones.
• Budget and resource use.
• Risks and dependencies.
• Access to data and participants.
• Stakeholder engagement.
• Ethical compliance.
• Data security.
• Emerging findings.
• Changes in context.
• Scope or timeline changes.

The commissioning body should provide timely decisions and access. Delays in approvals, data, participant recruitment, or review can materially affect research quality and should be managed as project risks.

Project management may include:

• Progress updates.
• Milestone reports.
• Inception outputs.
• Interim findings.
• Stakeholder consultations.
• Risk and issue tracking.
• Scope-change records.
• Meeting notes.
• Draft deliverables.
• Decisions and approvals.

The commissioning lead or steering group should monitor progress against the agreed plan while respecting the provider’s professional and methodological responsibilities.

The provider should report significant changes to:

• Timeline.
• Scope.
• Methods.
• Team composition.
• Budget.
• Data access.
• Ethical or safeguarding conditions.
• Expected outputs.

The provider should also communicate honestly about:

• Limitations.
• Unexpected findings.
• Methodological problems.
• Recruitment difficulties.
• Data quality.
• Delays.
• Risks to the validity or usefulness of outputs.

9. Review and Accept the Outputs

Draft outputs should be reviewed before final approval.

The review may involve:

• The commissioning lead.
• A steering group.
• Technical or methodological advisers.
• Relevant stakeholders.
• Intended users.
• Editorial or publication support.
• Repository or information-management staff.

Outputs should be reviewed against the approved Commissioning Brief and acceptance criteria.

Review may consider:

• Whether the agreed questions have been addressed.
• Whether the research design is adequately explained.
• Whether the evidence supports the conclusions.
• Whether limitations are properly stated.
• Whether findings are distinguished from interpretation.
• Whether recommendations follow from the evidence and are realistic.
• Whether the intended audience can use the outputs.
• Whether accessibility requirements have been met.
• Whether ethical and data obligations have been satisfied.
• Whether the agreed format and deliverables have been provided.
• Whether the output is suitable for dissemination or Repository deposit

Review should distinguish between:

• Factual corrections.
• Methodological concerns.
• Editorial changes.
• Accessibility improvements.
• Disagreement with interpretation.
• Requests that would materially expand the scope.

The commissioning body confirms which deliverables are final and which may require revision.

The commissioning body may request correction of factual errors or clarification of findings. It should not require the provider to alter valid findings merely because they are inconvenient.

Final acceptance should be recorded formally.

10. Disseminate and Apply the Findings

The commissioning body confirms which deliverables are final and which may require revision.

Depending on the output, dissemination may include:

• Repository publication.
• Policy or institutional circulation.
• Professional briefings.
• Stakeholder presentations.
• Training or implementation sessions.
• Journal Publication.
• Public summaries.
• Knowledge-translation materials.
• Links to relevant Community groups.

Dissemination should be planned from the beginning of the commission.

The commissioning body and provider should determine:

• Who needs the findings.
• What formats are appropriate.
• Which outputs are public.
• Which outputs are restricted.
• Who is responsible for dissemination.
• What resources are available.
• How participants and stakeholders will receive relevant findings.
• How the use of findings may be monitored.

Possible dissemination routes include:

• Full research report.
• Executive summary.
• Policy or practice brief.
• Professional presentation.
• Stakeholder workshop.
• Webinar.
• Training resource.
• Journal Publication.
• Public summary.
• Repository record.
• Institutional or community communication.

Dissemination makes findings available. Application involves using them in policy, practice, institutional decisions, programme development, professional learning, or further research.

The commissioning body should identify what actions may follow and what conditions are necessary for those actions to occur.

11. Document, Publish, and Preserve the Knowledge

The completed work should be deposited in the Repository where appropriate.

Approved outputs should be deposited in the Repository with:

• Title.
• Authors and contributors.
• Commissioning organization.
• Research provider.
• Date.
• Abstract or description.
• Keywords and subject terms.
• Related commission.
• Related Community group.
• Related journal publication.
• Licensing information.
• Access conditions.
• Persistent identifier.

This preserves the relationship between the original institutional need, the commissioned project, and the final knowledge output.

The Repository record should include enough information for future users to understand:

• What was commissioned.
• Why it was commissioned.
• Who conducted it.
• What methods were used.
• What the limitations are.
• Which version is authoritative.
• What access conditions apply.
• What related work exists.

Where appropriate, preserve:

• Final report.
• Executive summary.
• Policy or practice brief.
• Methodological appendix.
• Instruments or protocols.
• Evidence map.
• Dataset description.
• Implementation materials.
• Presentation materials.
• Readme file.
• Metadata and licence information.

Privacy and confidentiality apply across the entire lifecycle, including collection, analysis, dissemination, storage, retention, and disposal.

12. Close the Project and Enable Reuse

A commission is formally closed when:

• Final deliverables have been accepted.
• Required revisions are complete.
• Required reports have been completed.
• Contractual and administrative matters are resolved.
• Publication arrangements are confirmed.
• Repository deposit is completed or scheduled.
• Access restrictions and licensing are documented.
• Data-management obligations are fulfilled.
• Lessons learned are recorded.
• Follow-up activity is identified.
• The project status has been updated in the Commons.

A closeout discussion should consider:

• Whether the original need was addressed.
• Whether the questions were appropriately framed.
• Whether the scope was realistic.
• Whether the method was suitable.
• Whether stakeholders were meaningfully involved.
• Whether the outputs were usable.
• Whether the timeline and budget were realistic.
• What should be changed in future commissions.
• What new questions emerged.

The final commission record should identify:

• The original request.
• The approved brief.
• The research provider.
• The project dates.
• The milestones.
• The final outputs.
• The publication status.
• Repository records.
• Related Journal Publication records.
• Related Community activity.
• The final project status.

A completed commission may lead to:

• A follow-up study.
• A new evaluation.
• A Journal Publication.
• A Collaborative group.
• A policy or practice resource.
• A training activity.
• A new Commission Request.
• A Repository collection.

The role of CBOX throughout the lifecycle

CBOX may support the lifecycle through different kinds of spaces:

• The general Commissioned Research group receives initial requests.
• The request topic records the initial proposal.
• A request-specific private or hidden group supports clarification and brief development.
• A project workspace supports initiation, delivery, review, and collaboration.
• Final outputs are linked to the Repository.
• The completed project is retained, restricted, or archived according to its access and preservation requirements.

The CBOX environment should be configured according to the sensitivity of the work. Public, private, and hidden groups are not interchangeable. Permissions should be tested at the level of group membership, topics, replies, activity streams, and file attachments before sensitive material is shared.

The Commissioned Research Record

A complete commission should leave a connected record consisting of:

• Commission Request topic.
• Concept Note.
• Clarification and scoping record.
• Approved Commissioning Brief.
• Provider-selection record.
• Agreement or project initiation record.
• Inception report.
• Work plan and milestone records.
• Draft and review records.
• Final deliverables.
• Dissemination record.
• Repository record.
• Closeout and lessons-learned record.

The record should establish provenance:

• Commissioning need.
• Commission Request.
• Concept Note.
• Commissioning Brief.
• Project workspace.
• Final deliverables.
• Dissemination and use.
• Repository record.
• Future research and reuse.

How the Commission Connects to the Commons

Commissioned Research operates as part of the wider Commons rather than as an isolated process.

Community: The Community layer may help refine the question, identify stakeholders, develop the brief, and support co-production.

Journal Publication: Where commissioned work produces a suitable scholarly contribution, it may be developed into a journal article and submitted through the Journal Publication layer.

Repository: Final reports, briefs, guidelines, tools, datasets, and other approved outputs may be preserved in the Repository.

Knowledge Translation

Outputs may be adapted into policy, professional, educational, or implementation formats for specific audiences.

The complete pathway is:

• Institutional need
• Commissioning brief
• Commission request
• Provider selection
• Project delivery
• Final output
• Journal Publication and knowledge translation
• Repository preservation
• Future discovery and reuse

Begin a Commission

If your organization has a defined question, decision, or practical need, begin by preparing a Commissioned Research Request.

Before submitting, clarify:

• What needs to be understood or decided.
• Why the work is needed.
• Who will use the findings.
• What outputs are expected.
• What timeline and resources are available.
• What ethical, data, or governance requirements apply.

What Completion Means

Commissioned Research is complete when the work has not only been delivered, but responsibly concluded.

Completion means that:

• The work has been assessed against the agreed purpose.
• The outputs have been accepted.
• Findings have been made available to appropriate audiences.
• Restrictions and licensing have been recorded.
• The knowledge has been documented and preserved.
• Lessons have been captured.
• Future use remains possible where appropriate.

The endpoint is therefore not the Commissioning Brief and not even the final report. The endpoint is a durable, accountable, and usable body of knowledge.

See Also

The Commissioning Brief

Provider Engagement and Selection

Project Initiation and Governance

Commissioned Research Group.

Commissioned Research.

How to Submit a Commission Request.

The Commissioning Brief.

Provider Engagement and Selection.

Project Initiation and Governance.

Delivery, Review, and Quality Assurance.

Outputs, Dissemination, and Use.

Repository Deposit and Preservation.

Project Closeout and Learning.