How to Submit a Commission Request

How to Submit a Commission Request

Entering the Commissioned Research lifecycle

A Commission Request is the formal point at which an organization asks the Commons to consider a defined research, evaluation, evidence, or knowledge need.

It is not a funding application, procurement response, final research proposal, or completed Commissioning Brief. It is an authorized institutional statement that a need exists and that the commissioning body is prepared to work with the Commons to define the assignment more fully.

Commission Requests are raised through the CBOX Commissioned Research group.

The group provides a shared point of entry where commissioning bodies can present their need, attach an official Concept Note, respond to clarification, and follow the initial development of the request.

Who should submit?

A Commission Request should be submitted by an authorized representative of:

• A university or research institution.
• A government department or public agency.
• A professional or regulatory body.
• A health or social-care organization.
• An education or training institution.
• A non-governmental or civil-society organization.
• A foundation or funding organization.
• A partnership or consortium.
• A private-sector organization.
• A community or grassroots organization.

The person submitting the request should be able to:

• Confirm the authority of the commissioning body.
• Provide or verify the primary contact details.
• Answer questions about the proposed work.
• Participate in clarification and scoping.
• Contribute to development of the Commissioning Brief.
• Confirm or facilitate approval of the proposed assignment.
• Support the review and acceptance of final outputs if the project proceeds.

A personal idea, an emerging topic without an institutional sponsor, or an issue that is still at the stage of open exploration may be better developed through a Collaborative before it is submitted as a formal commission request.

When is a Commission Request appropriate?

A request is appropriate when the commissioning body can explain:

• What problem, gap, opportunity, or decision requires attention.
• Why the work matters.
• Why it is needed now.
• What is already known.
• What remains uncertain.
• Who will use the findings.
• What decisions or actions may be informed.
• What outputs may be required.
• What broad timeframe or resource conditions apply.

The request does not need to resolve every methodological question. It should, however, be sufficiently clear to support an informed discussion about purpose, scope, feasibility, ethics, and intended use.

Before you begin

Prepare:

• A Commons account.
• Access to the Commissioned Research group.
• The name of the commissioning body.
• The department, unit, or programme responsible for the request.
• A primary contact.
• A working title.
• A completed request-topic template.
• An official Concept Note.
• Relevant supporting documents or links.
• Any known information about timing, resources, stakeholders, ethics, or data.

The Concept Note should normally be approximately three to five pages. It may be prepared specifically for the request or adapted from an existing official document.

The Concept Note

The Concept Note is the commissioning body’s official account of the proposed work. It provides the substantive context that cannot be conveyed adequately through a short topic title or summary.

It should address:

• Proposed commission title.
• Commissioning body.
• Background and rationale.
• Purpose and objectives.
• Main research or advisory questions.
• Intended users and intended use.
• Broad scope.
• Expected outputs.
• Indicative timeline and resources.
• Stakeholders and participants.
• Ethics, safeguarding, and data considerations.
• Related Commons or institutional work.
• Internal authorization.

The Concept Note is not expected to be a complete research proposal. It does not need to contain a final methodology, named provider, complete budget, full ethics application, or final project plan.

An existing official concept paper, internal commissioning paper, request memorandum, programme proposal, or draft terms of reference may be submitted instead, provided that it contains substantially equivalent information.

Access the Commissioned Research group

Open the Commissioned Research group in CBOX.

Depending on the group’s settings, you may need to:

• Log in.
• Request group membership.
• Wait for membership approval.
• Accept an invitation.
• Review the group’s access and posting requirements.

Before creating a topic, read the pinned instruction topic:

READ FIRST — How to Submit a Commission Request

The group is the shared entry point for requests. More detailed or sensitive work may later be moved to a request-specific private or hidden workspace.

Create the Commission Request topic

Create a new topic in the group forum.

Use the following title format:

Commission Request: [Organization] — [Proposed Commission Title]

For example:

Commission Request: National Professional Council — Review of Continuing Practice Standards

A clear title is important because it becomes part of the project’s persistent record and may be used when the request is referenced in later discussions, documents, or Repository records.

Do not submit a request by replying to the instruction topic or the topic template. Create a new topic for each proposed commission.

Complete the request-topic template

Copy the template below into the new topic and replace the prompts with information about the proposed commission.

Commission Request: [Organization] — [Proposed Commission Title]

Commissioning body:
Department, unit, or programme:

Primary contact:
Role or position:
Email:
Telephone:

Commission category:

Proposed commission title:

Background and rationale:

Purpose and objectives:

Main questions:

Intended users and use:

Broad scope:

Expected outputs:

Indicative timeline and resources:

Stakeholders, ethics, and data considerations:

Related Commons work:

Concept Note:
[Attach the official Concept Note]

Additional information:

The topic should provide a meaningful summary of the proposed work. It should not simply state “please see attached” or reproduce a title without explaining the need.

Commissioning body

Identify the organization responsible for initiating and supporting the request. Include the relevant department, unit, programme, or partnership where applicable.

Primary contact

Identify a person who can respond to questions and participate in the review or scoping process. The primary contact should be able to coordinate with the commissioning body rather than acting only as a passive administrative contact.

Commission category

Indicate the broad type of work proposed, such as:

• Research study.
• Evidence review or synthesis.
• Evaluation.
• Needs assessment.
• Feasibility or options study.
• Consultation or stakeholder research.
• Guideline, framework, or standard development.
• Data analysis or evidence mapping.
• Knowledge translation or resource development.
• Other.

The category is provisional and may be refined during scoping.

Background and rationale

Explain the context in which the need has arisen. Identify the problem, gap, opportunity, decision, or development that has prompted the request.

Where possible, indicate what is already known and what remains uncertain.

Purpose and objectives

Explain what the proposed work should help the commissioning body or its partners understand, decide, design, improve, evaluate, or implement.

If objectives have already been established, state them clearly. If they remain provisional, identify them as such.

Main questions

List the primary research, evaluation, advisory, or practical questions that the work should address.

The questions do not need to be final, but they should reveal the intended inquiry. Avoid listing every related question that might be interesting. Prioritize the questions most closely connected to the decision or use.

Intended users and use

Identify who is expected to use the findings and how they may use them.

Potential users may include:

• Policymakers.
• Institutional leaders.
• Programme managers.
• Practitioners.
• Professional bodies.
• Researchers.
• Educators.
• Communities.
• Service users.
• Funders.
• The public.

Explain the decisions, policies, programmes, practices, resources, or further research that the findings may inform.

Broad scope

Indicate the subject, population, institution, sector, geography, and time period involved.

Identify important boundaries or exclusions where they are already known.

Expected outputs

Describe the outputs that would be useful, such as:

• Full research report.
• Evidence synthesis.
• Evaluation report.
• Policy or practice brief.
• Guideline.
• Framework.
• Toolkit.
• Implementation guide.
• Dataset.
• Evidence map.
• Workshop.
• Presentation.
• Training resource.
• Public summary.
• Journal Publication.
• Repository deposit.

Explain why each major output is needed and who it is intended for.

Indicative timeline and resources

Provide the desired start and completion dates where known. Identify fixed deadlines, decision dates, programme milestones, funding deadlines, or other timing constraints.

State whether resources are:

• Secured.
• Partially secured.
• Pending approval.
• Still being identified.
• Not yet known.

A precise budget is not required at the initial request stage, but an indicative range or resource condition is useful where available.

Stakeholders, ethics, and data considerations

Identify relevant stakeholders, participants, communities, institutions, or professional groups.

Also identify any known issues involving:

• Human participants.
• Vulnerable or at-risk groups.
• Consent.
• Confidentiality.
• Safeguarding.
• Personal or sensitive data.
• Restricted data access.
• Institutional approvals.
• Legal or contractual restrictions.
• Cultural or community considerations.

If no such issues are currently known, state that this will be considered during scoping and project initiation.

Related Commons work

Provide links or references to:

• Community groups.
• Existing projects.
• Journal Publications.
• Repository records.
• Reports.
• Policies.
• Datasets.
• Previous evaluations.
• Related Commission Requests.

This helps the Commons identify opportunities for connection and prevents unnecessary duplication.

Attach the Concept Note

Attach the official Concept Note to the request topic.

Before uploading, confirm that:

• It is the correct and current version.
• It has been reviewed or authorized by the commissioning body.
• It is readable.
• It does not contain unnecessary personal data.
• It does not expose confidential or restricted information inappropriately.
• Its title is consistent with the request topic.
• Its access level is appropriate for the Commissioned Research group.

Do not upload:

• Passwords or credentials.
• Unnecessary participant information.
• Restricted datasets.
• Confidential commercial material.
• Sensitive institutional documents that the group is not authorized to hold.
• Documents subject to contractual or legal restrictions unless access has been confirmed.

If you are uncertain whether a document is suitable for upload, contact the Commons coordination team before posting it.

Review the request before submission

Before selecting Submit Topic, confirm that:

• You are authorized to submit the request.
• The topic title follows the required format.
• The commissioning body and primary contact are correctly identified.
• The background and purpose are understandable.
• The questions are sufficiently focused.
• The intended users are identified.
• The broad scope is described.
• Expected outputs are stated.
• Known time, resource, stakeholder, ethics, and data conditions are included.
• The Concept Note is attached.
• The attachment is readable and appropriate for the group.
• You understand that submission does not guarantee approval or authorization.

What happens after submission?

A moderator will normally:

• Acknowledge receipt.
• Assign a Commission Request reference number.
• Review the topic and Concept Note.
• Identify missing or unclear information.
• Request clarification where necessary.
• Update the request status.
• Explain the next stage.

A request may receive one of the following statuses:

• Submitted.
• Under review.
• Clarification required.
• Scoping.
• Commissioning Brief in development.
• Redirected.
• Deferred.
• Closed.

The original request topic remains the record of the initial proposition. If the work requires detailed discussion, sensitive documents, or sustained collaboration, the Commons may create a request-specific private or hidden workspace.

Possible next steps

Clarification

The Commons may ask the commissioning body to clarify:

• The purpose.
• The intended use.
• The scope.
• The questions.
• The expected outputs.
• The timing.
• The available resources.
• Stakeholder, ethics, or data matters.

The commissioning body may respond in the topic or provide a revised Concept Note.

Scoping

The Commons may invite the commissioning body to a focused discussion. Scoping is used to establish a shared understanding of the problem, questions, boundaries, users, outputs, and conditions.

Commissioning Brief development

If the request is sufficiently clear and suitable, the Commons may begin development of the detailed Commissioning Brief.

The brief may be developed through:

• A request-specific private group.
• Forum discussion.
• Shared documents.
• Written clarification.
• Subject or methodological advice.
• Stakeholder consultation.

Redirection

The Commons may recommend that the need be developed through another layer, such as:

• A Community Group.
• A Journal Publication.
• A Repository record.
• An existing project.
• An evidence-sharing activity.

Deferral or Closure

A request may be deferred if it is relevant but not ready, authorized, resourced, or timely. It may be closed if it does not meet the requirements for Commissioned Research or cannot reasonably be developed.

What is not required at initial submission?

The commissioning body does not need to provide:

• A final research design.
• A named provider.
• A final research instrument.
• A complete budget.
• A full ethics application.
• A completed data-management plan.
• A contract.
• A fully developed project management plan.
• A final publication and dissemination strategy.

These matters may be developed after the initial request has been reviewed.

The standard of a good request

A good request is not necessarily long. It is:

• Specific enough to be understood.
• Focused enough to be feasible.
• Honest about uncertainty.
• Clear about intended use.
• Open to refinement.
• Responsible about ethics and data.
• Transparent about constraints.
• Connected to existing knowledge and work.

The purpose of the initial request is not to demonstrate that every decision has already been made. It is to establish a serious and credible basis for the next decision.

Related pages

Contact the Commons Coordination Team.

Commissioned Research.

How Commissioned Research Works.

The Commissioning Brief.

Provider Engagement and Selection.

Commissioned Research Group.