strategic plan research

Research Strategic Plan

In 2019, the Department of Medicine invested considerable effort and resources to devising a strategic plan that will provide a roadmap for our research mission today and into the future.

This work was guided by a Research Planning Committee that convened throughout the first half of 2019, reviewing the current state of research in the Department, generating recommendations for strengthening our research efforts, and developing the following plan. Many of our faculty and research administrators participated and contributed ideas as part of this process—through interviews, a survey, and robust discussions at the 2019 Research Retreat.

The result of this combined effort is the clear, direct, ambitious, and ultimately achievable research strategic plan that follows.

We identified five strategies for achieving our vision.

We will foster the success of our current faculty by enhancing our faculty development, mentoring, and funding programs while also strengthening the pipeline of the next generation of outstanding investigators in Medicine.

Lead: Andrew Alspaugh, MD

Initiatives:

• Strengthen faculty career development programs (Xunrong Luo, Matthew Crowley)
• Build a diverse and inclusive Department of Medicine (Laura Svetkey, Julius Wilder)
• Foster a culture of outstanding mentorship in the Department (Alspaugh, Cathleen Colon-Emeric)
• Expand physician-scientist recruitment and programmatic support (Rodger Liddle, Matt Hirschey)
• Launch a Department partnership hires program (Xunrong Luo, Chris Holley)
• Expand cadre of independent PhD investigators (Scott Palmer, Amy Porter-Tacoronte)

We will enhance our partnerships with other departments, centers, institutes, schools, and programs across Duke University.

Lead:  David Simel, MD, vice chair for veterans affairs

• Duke Clinical Research Institute
• Duke Cancer Institute
• Durham VA Medical Center
• Duke Molecular Physiology Institute
• Pratt School of Engineering and MEDx
• Duke Human Vaccine Institute
• Duke Global Health Institute
• Center for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine

We will solidify a leadership position in data science by leveraging the clinical disease expertise of our faculty; building our data assets; and improving our data collection, storage and analytics resources.

Lead: Chetan Patel, MD, vice chair for clinical affairs

• Cultivate DOM data assets into open science platform
• Augment biostatistics & bioinformatics resources
• Create new leadership role for data science
• Implement learning health units
• Continue implementation of Science Culture and Accountability Plan

We will foster a community and culture of rich scientific investigation by making research easier while achieving the highest levels of research integrity.

Lead: Erica Malkasian

• Provide outstanding grants and administrative support to investigators
• Position Duke as a leader in site-based research
• Develop next-generation biorepository capabilities
• Catalyze innovation and entrepreneurship
• Expand international research efforts

We will invest in emerging research content and method areas that leverage our strengths and address important unmet patient-centered medical needs.

Lead: Heather Whitson, MD

Cross-cutting themes:

• Immunology, inflammation & fibrosis
• Aging, resilience & pain
• Energy, obesity & metabolic disease
• Precision medicine
• Population health & disparities research

To learn more about our research strategies and initiatives, contact

• Scott Palmer, MD, MHS, Vice Chair for Research
• Saini Pillai, MBA, Senior Program Coordinator, Research

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Strategic planning

• Strategy formulation

The Board View: Directors Must Balance All Interests

• Barbara H. Franklin
• Sarah Cliffe
• From the May–June 2017 Issue

The Data: Where Long-Termism Pays Off

• Dominic Barton
• James Manyika
• Sarah Keohane Williamson

How One Family Business Found Its Sweet Spot

• George Stalk, Jr.
• April 05, 2013

Managing the Right Tension

• Dominic Dodd
• From the December 2006 Issue

Strategy as Revolution

• From the July–August 1996 Issue

Charting Your Company's Future

• W. Chan Kim
• Renee A. Mauborgne
• From the June 2002 Issue

Stock Prices, Beta, and Strategic Planning

• Diana R. Harrington
• From the May 1983 Issue

Every CEO Should Write an Annual Memo to the Board

• Anthony K. Tjan
• November 12, 2009

Fast Heat: How Korea Won the Microwave War

• Ira C. Magaziner
• Mark Patinkin
• From the January–February 1989 Issue

What Strategists Can Learn from Architecture

• Andrew Campbell
• Mark Lancelott
• November 13, 2013

Coupling Strategy to Operating Plans

• John M. Hobbs
• Donald F. Heany
• From the May 1977 Issue

Just in Time for the Holidays (HBR Case Study)

• Eric McNulty
• December 01, 2005

Link Manufacturing Process and Product Life Cycles

• Robert H. Hayes
• Steven C. Wheelwright
• From the January 1979 Issue

Moon Shots for Management

• From the February 2009 Issue

Beyond Silicon Valley

• Alexandre Lazarow
• From the March–April 2020 Issue

Give My Regrets to Wall Street (HBR Case Study and Commentary)

• Mark L. Frigo
• Joel Litman
• Tom Copeland
• John J. Mulherin
• From the February 2004 Issue

Hardball: Five Killer Strategies for Trouncing the Competition

• Rob Lachenauer
• From the April 2004 Issue

Dinner At Six

• Allison Rimm
• April 01, 2011

How to Design a Strategic Planning System

• Peter Lorange
• Richard F. Vancil
• From the September 1976 Issue

Leading for Value (HBR OnPoint Enhanced Edition)

• Brian Pitman
• April 01, 2003

The Allstate Corporation, 2019

• John R. Wells
• Benjamin Weinstock
• August 23, 2019

The New Normal 2009 (A)

• Chuck Grace
• Arthur Soong
• Stephanie Zhang
• August 09, 2010

Telecomunicacoes de Sao Paulo SA (Telesp)

• Lynda M. Applegate
• Elizabeth Collins
• Ricardo Reisen de Pinho
• April 05, 2004

Chesapeake and Shorewood Hostile Bids: A Tale of Two Boards (A)

• John L. Colley
• January 17, 2001

Change at Whirlpool Corp. (C)

• Jan W. Rivkin
• Dorothy Leonard
• April 15, 2005

Human Resource Champions: The Next Agenda for Adding Value and Delivering Results

• Dave Ulrich
• October 30, 1996

E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.: Titanium Dioxide

• W. Carl Kester
• Robert R. Glauber
• David W. Mullins Jr.
• Stacy S. Dick
• February 24, 1984

Some Skin in the Game: Negotiating the End of a Campus Health Menace

• Eric Weinberger
• December 01, 2014

New Orleans After Katrina Sequel

• Jose Gomez-Ibanez
• Jonathan Schlefer
• May 31, 2007

Coloring the Narrative: How to Use Storytelling to Create Social Change in Skin Tone Ideals

• September 18, 2017

The Northwest Passage

• Herman B. Leonard
• Peter Brannen
• October 24, 2008

Tektronix, Inc.: Global ERP Implementation

• Robert D. Austin
• Richard L. Nolan
• George Westerman
• Mark Cotteleer
• February 02, 1999

Cybersecurity: The Insights You Need from Harvard Business Review

• Harvard Business Review
• Andrew Burt
• Boris Groysberg
• Roman V Yampolskiy
• September 17, 2019

Matching Dell (Condensed)

• Michael E. Porter
• November 21, 2003

Argentina's Telecommunications Industry and the Economic Crisis of 2002

• Santiago Urbiztondo
• December 16, 2002

Parks and Partnership in New York City (A): Adrian Benepe's Challenge

• John D. Donahue
• June 01, 2004

PSA: The World's Port of Call

• Nancy Bartlett
• Dolly Chang-Leow
• Boon Siong Neo
• July 31, 2001

NTT DOCOMO's Race to 5G

• Juan Alcacer
• Horst Melcher
• Akiko Kanno
• April 07, 2020

Paul Newman's Last Act: The Second Generation

• Randel Carlock
• May 28, 2018

What Makes a Policy Intervention Successful? Part A: Background: Glimpses of experience in Brazil's Fundescola education reform

• Matthew Andrews
• December 02, 2010

Real Value of Strategic Planning

• Steven Kaplan
• Sarah Kaplan
• Eric D. Beinhocker
• December 01, 2003

Harvard Management Update, December 2004, Volume 9, Number 12

• December 01, 2004

Business Model and Strategic Direction

• Francine Newth
• December 15, 2012

Execute Your Strategy--Without Killing It

• Lauren Keller Johnson

Balanced Scorecard Report, July/August 2005, Volume 7, Number 4

• July 15, 2005

Babbitt Ranches: Governance and Strategic Planning in a Family Business, Teaching Note

• Lisa F Majure
• Kathryn S Savage
• July 15, 2011

Popular Topics

Partner center.

• Open access
• Published: 18 September 2020

An analysis of the strategic plan development processes of major public organisations funding health research in nine high-income countries worldwide

• Cristina Morciano 1 ,
• Maria Cristina Errico 1 ,
• Carla Faralli 2 &
• Luisa Minghetti 1  

Health Research Policy and Systems volume  18 , Article number:  106 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

10k Accesses

9 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

There have been claims that health research is not satisfactorily addressing healthcare challenges. A specific area of concern is the adequacy of the mechanisms used to plan investments in health research. However, the way organisations within countries devise research agendas has not been systematically reviewed. This study seeks to understand the legal basis, the actors and the processes involved in setting research agendas in major public health research funding organisations.

We reviewed information relating to the formulation of strategic plans by 11 public funders in nine high-income countries worldwide. Information was collected from official websites and strategic plan documents in English, French, Italian and Spanish between January 2019 and December 2019, by means of a conceptual framework and information abstraction form.

We found that the formulation of a strategic plan is a common and well-established practice in shaping research agendas across international settings. Most of the organisations studied are legally required to present a multi-year strategic plan. In some cases, legal provisions may set rules for actors and processes and may establish areas of research and/or types of research to be funded. Commonly, the decision-making process involves both internal and external stakeholders, with the latter being generally government officials and experts, and few examples of the participation of civil society. The process also varies across organisations depending on whether there is a formal requirement to align to strategic priorities developed by an overarching entity at national level. We also found that, while actors and their interactions were traceable, information, sources of information, criteria and the mechanisms/tools used to shape decisions were made less explicit.

Conclusions

A complex picture emerges in which multiple interactive entities appear to shape research plans. Given the complexity of the influences of different parties and factors, the governance of the health research sector would benefit from a traceable and standardised knowledge-based process of health research strategic planning. This would provide an opportunity to demonstrate responsible budget stewardship and, more importantly, to make efforts to remain responsive to healthcare challenges, research gaps and opportunities.

Peer Review reports

Advances in scientific knowledge have contributed greatly to improvements in healthcare, but there have been claims that health research is not adequately addressing healthcare challenges. These concerns are reflected in the increasing debate over the adequacy of the mechanisms used to plan investment in health research and ensure its optimal distribution [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ].

Over recent decades, methods and tools have been produced in order to guide the process of setting the health research agenda and facilitate more explicit and transparent judgment regarding research priorities. There is no single method that is considered appropriate for all settings and purposes, yet it is recognised that their optimal application requires a knowledge of health needs, research gaps and the perspectives of key stakeholders [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ].

A number of studies have described initiatives to set health research agendas. Several articles refer to experiences focusing on specific health conditions, for example, those undertaken under the framework of the James Lind Alliance [ 11 ]. There are also reviews of disparate examples of research agenda-setting in low- and middle-income countries [ 12 , 13 ] as well as in high-income countries (HICs) [ 14 ]. These initiatives were highly heterogeneous with regard to their promotor (public organisations, academics, advocacy groups, etc.), the level of the research system (global, regional, national, sub-national, organisational or sub-organisational) and the scope of the prioritisation process (broad themes or specific research questions).

However, there are no studies that have specifically investigated the way large public organisations in HICs devise their research agendas and to what extent this is linked to regulations and organisational setup. In 2016, Moher et al. reported on how research funders had addressed recommendations to increase value and reduce waste in biomedical research [ 15 ]. Within this framework, they provided a general overview of setting the overall agenda in a convenient sample of six public funders of health research. They also affirmed the need for a “ periodic survey of information on research funders’ websites about their principle and methods used to decide what research to support ” [ 15 ]. At the same time, Viergever et al. identified the 10 largest funders of health research in the world and recommended further study of their priority-setting processes [ 16 ].

Given this context, we wished to provide an updated and thorough description of the way public funders of research in HICs devise their research agenda. We therefore analysed the regulatory framework for the actors and processes involved in developing the strategic plan in 11 major English and non-English speaking public research funders across 9 HICs worldwide.

Strategic planning

Our analysis focused on the development of the strategic plan, or strategic planning, at organisational level as a crucial step in the setting of the research agenda by the organisation. By the term ‘setting the research agenda’, we meant the whole-organisation research management planning cycle, which may encompass multiple decision-making level (organisational, sub-organisational, research programme level, etc.) actors and funding flows.

Strategic planning has been defined in social science as a “ deliberative, disciplined effort to produce fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization (or other entity) is, what it does, and why ” [ 17 ].

The strategic plan is assumed to be the final outcome of the strategic planning process, in which priority-setting is the key milestone. It is therefore expected that the research priorities of the organisation will be included. Depending on mandate, priorities could be related to research topics (e.g. health conditions or diseases), types of research (e.g. basic or clinical) and/or other planned initiatives (e.g. workforce or research integrity).

The choice to focus on strategic planning was also guided by the fact that it is known from social science that strategic planning is a well-established practice within public organisations worldwide [ 17 , 18 ]. This would enable us to ensure comparability of information on modalities of decision-making in research planning across organisations from different countries.

Selection of public organisations

We created a list of public funders of health research, drawing from a previous study in which the authors identified 55 public and philanthropic organisations and listed them according to their annual expenditure on health research [ 16 ]. In order to strike a balance between learning about the practices of health research funders, and keeping data collection feasible and manageable, we restricted our sample to two organisations per country, with health research budgets of more than 200 million USD annually. In doing so, we identified a manageable subsample of 35 organisations having the greatest potential influence on research agendas, both locally and globally, and representing different health research systems in different countries.

We based our overview on publicly available information and restricted our sample to those organisations with published strategic research plans in English, French, Italian or Spanish (Additional file 1 ).

Information search and abstraction

Since we expected processes to vary across organisations, we did not use guidelines or best practices for strategic planning, which allowed us to document a wide range of experiences. As mentioned earlier, we based this overview on the collection of publicly available information by means of a conceptual framework and an information abstraction form (Box  1 , Additional file 1 ).

We based the conceptual framework on Walt and Gilson’s policy analysis model [ 19 ] and the information that could actually be retrieved after an initial assessment of the available information. The conceptual framework and the data abstraction form were conceived in an effort to (1) standardise the search for and collection of information across organisations, (2) render the collection process more transparent, and (3) make the retrieved information more understandable to readers.

Three authors (CM, CF and MCE) performed the review of information and the compilation of the form independently, with differences of opinion resolved by discussion. Information was collected in duplicate from 1 January 2019 to 31 July 2019. Before submitting the article, we updated the information by accessing and reviewing the official websites of the included organisations until 10 December 2019.

We searched for information that answered our questions by (1) browsing the funding organisations’ official websites and following links providing information about the organisations, e.g. Who we are, About us, Mission, Laws and statutes, Funding opportunities and other similar web pages, and by (2) identifying and reviewing strategic plans. When an organisation was composed of multiple sub-organisations, we limited our analysis to the strategic planning of the overarching organisation.

A second phase of research consisted of producing a profile for each organisation according to the data extraction form (Additional file 1 ). Bearing in mind that the results of this analysis could have been very general, we also used two organisations as case studies to provide more detailed examples of planning and implementing research priorities at the organisational level. We accessed and reviewed the official websites of the case study organisations until 14 April 2020. We did not contact organisations directly to obtain additional information. After collecting and analysing the information, we produced a narrative overview of our findings.

Box 1 Conceptual framework

Organisation profile

 This section describes the funding organisation and its role and relationship with other overarching governmental bodies.

What are the contents of the strategic plan?

 This section examines the publicly available strategic plan of the funding organisation. The strategic plan is assumed to be the final outcome of the strategic planning process and includes the research priorities of the organisation. Depending on the mandate of the organisation, the research priorities are those related to research topics (for example, health conditions/diseases), types of research (for example, basic research, clinical research) and/or other planned initiatives within the mandate of the organisation (e.g. workforce, research integrity).

Regulatory basis

 This part seeks to understand if there is an official basis for strategic planning, for example, a law or a government document that establishes processes and actors for setting priorities.

What are the process and tools of strategic planning?

 This section seeks to describe the processes and tools for identifying the research priorities included in the strategic plan, including whether or not there are explicit mechanisms, criteria, instruments and information to guide and inform the process of strategic planning such as a research landscape analysis or a more structured experience of priority-setting.

Who are the actors involved?

 This section examines who the involved actors are in preparing the strategic plan; for example, who coordinates the process and who is involved in the process (e.g. clinicians, patients, citizens, researchers) and how the organisation relates with other entities in preparing the strategic plan.

Included organisations

We included 11 public organisations with a publicly available strategic plan in English, Spanish, French or Italian (Additional file 1 ). There were two from the United States, two from France, and one each from the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan, Italy, Spain and Singapore. The mandates of the organisations were diverse – some had the task of funding research and other activities in support of health research, while others were involved in both funding and conducting health research (Table  1 ).

The strategic plan: format and content

The strategic plans varied in format (Additional file 1 ). While some organisations indicated broad lines of research, others structured their strategic plan in a complex hierarchy with high-level priorities connected to goals and sub-goals. In some cases, indicators, or menus of indicators, were added to monitor progress of the planned work and/or assess the impact of the research. In some research plans, the type of research funding (e.g. responsive, commissioned, research training) and budget were explicitly linked to research priorities.

With regard to content, some organisations focused their strategy on supporting the production of new knowledge of specific diseases or conditions. Others prepared a comprehensive strategy to support different functions of the health research system, such as producing knowledge, sustaining the workforce and infrastructure, developing policies for research integrity and conceiving processes for making more informed decisions. Some strategic plans briefly described the research environment at the national, organisational or programme level. One organisation described the process used to develop health research priorities.

Most of the organisations are legally required to present a multi-year strategic plan or at least annual research priorities. In addition, legislation sets rules and procedures by covering subjects such as the actors to be involved, the documents to be consulted and the format of the strategic plan document to be adopted. In some cases, legal provisions indicate areas and/or types of research to be funded (Table  1 ).

Commonly, the main actors are the top-level policy-makers of the organisations. A spectrum of external stakeholders from multiple sectors may be involved and their participation varies across organisations. External stakeholders can be members of academia or government research agencies, or industry professionals and policy-makers. Most frequently, they have a membership role in organisational governing bodies (boards and committees) (Table  1 ).

The government maintains a role in shaping the strategic plan to various extents in different organisations. This may involve producing nationwide strategic plans for research that the organisations have to adopt or align to, directing attention to specific research priorities or types of research, having representatives in the governing bodies of the organisations and retaining the power of final approval of the organisations’ strategic plans (Table  1 ). Other actors involved are overarching government agencies, which play a role in managing or coordinating the research plan at the national level. Examples of this are the Spanish National Research Agency and United Kingdom Research and Innovation (UKRI). When this study was being conducted, the latter had just been established and been given the role of developing a coherent national research strategy.

The participation of civil society in governing bodies, temporary committees or consultation exercises was far less common. There are representatives of the public in the advisory bodies of the National Institutes of Health (NIH; e.g. the Advisory Committee to the Director).

The Chief Executive Officer of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), acting under the terms of the NHMRC Act, established the Community and Consumer Advisory Group. This is a working committee whose function is to provide advice on health questions and health and medical research matters, from consumer and community perspectives. Most notably, the United States Department of Defense – Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (DoD-CDMRP) involve consumers (patients, their representatives and caregivers) at all levels of the funding process, from strategic planning to the peer-review process of research proposals. Organisations also have external consultation exercises, in which the target audiences and mechanisms implemented vary (Table  1 ).

In order to illustrate the interactions between different actors, we identified two broad categories of organisation. The first comprises those organisations that develop their own plans with a certain degree of independence. Government and legal provisions might provide some direction. In this group are the NIH, the Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (Inserm), the Italian Ministry of Health (MoH), the NHMRC, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Medical Research Council (MRC), the DoD-CDMRP, the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) (Table  1 ).

The second category is made up of those organisations whose research planning derives from the strategic plan of an overarching entity. In this group are the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII), the National Medical Research Council (NMRC) and the MRC. Both categories are represented in the case studies below.

An example of the first category from the United States is the 5-year strategic plan, NIH-Wide Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2016–2020: Turning Discovery Into Health, developed by the NIH at the request of Congress. Legislation provides direction on some criteria for setting priorities in the plan, but it is the NIH Director who develops it in consultation with internal (Centres, Institutes and Offices) and external stakeholders (see the NIH case study).

In Australia, the Chief Executive Officer of the NHMRC identifies major national health issues likely to arise during the 4-year period covered by the plan and devises the strategy in consultation with the Minister for Health and the NHMRC governing bodies. The Minister provides guidance on the NHMRC’s strategic priorities and approves or revises the plan. In Canada, the governing bodies of the CIHR are responsible for devising the strategic plan. The Deputy Minister of the Department of Health participates as a non-voting member of one of the governing bodies.

The common characteristic of the second category is that the process of strategic planning derives from one or more overarching entities. This means that the strategic plans of the organisations are informed to various extents by the research programmes of such an entity or entities. In some cases, there is a main institution with research coordination and/or management roles at the national level. For example, in Spain, in order to inform funding grants, the ISCIII adopted the research priorities set out in the Strategic Action for Health included in the State Plan for Science, Innovation and Technology 2017–2020 . This plan, elaborated by the Government Delegated Committee for the Policies for Research, Technology and Innovation ( la Comisión Delegada del Gobierno para Política Scientífica, Tecnológica y de Innovación ), in cooperation with the Ministry of Fianance, is aligned with the four strategic objectives of the Spanish Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation 2013–2020. The newly established Spanish State Research Agency ( Agencia Estatal de Investigacion ) also participated in the development of the State Plan. However, its role is mainly in monitoring the plan’s funding, including ISCIII funding for the Strategic Action for Health.

UKRI, sponsored by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, is the body responsible for the development of a coherent national research strategy that balances the allocation of funding across different disciplines. In 2018, the MRC became a committee body of UKRI, alongside eight other committees, called ‘Councils’, which represent various research sectors. The MRC is required to develop a strategic plan that is coherent with the strategic objectives set by UKRI. This plan must be approved by the UKRI Board, the governing body responsible for ensuring that Council plans are consistent with the UKRI strategy.

In Singapore, the NMRC refers to the strategic plan developed by the National Research Foundation, a department within the Prime Minister’s Office. The NMRC has a well-described system for incorporating national priorities into the organisation’s research plan (see the NMRC case study).

With regard to the information, sources of information, criteria and mechanisms used to shape decisions, the included organisations were less explicit. Most commonly, organisations introduced health research priorities with an overview of major general advancements in biomedical research or a catalogue of organisational activities and a research portfolio.

A small number of organisations presented a brief situational analysis of the health and health research sectors. In these cases, the scope and nature of the presented information varied from one organisation to another (Additional file 1 ).

For example, the NIH-Wide Strategic Plan contains a brief summary of the state of research at the organisational level. The plans of each DoD-CDMRP health research programme present a summary of both the current health and health research landscapes at the national level.

Other organisations stated that the plan had been supported by information analysis of the research field, but they did not report explicitly on this work.

Case studies

The national institutes of health (nih).

The NIH is an operating division of the United States Department of Health and Human Services whose mission is to improve public health by conducting and funding basic and translational biomedical research. It is made up of 27 theme-based Institutes, Centers and Offices, each of which develops an individual strategic plan [ 20 ].

The first 5-year strategic plan, NIH-Wide Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2016–2020: Turning Discovery into Health, was prepared at the request of Congress and published in 2016 [ 21 ]. The legal framework stipulates that the NIH-coordinated strategy will inform the individual strategic plans of the Institutes and Centers. In addition, it provides some direction regarding content and the process to be adopted for generating the overall NIH strategy [ 22 , 23 ]. For example, it sets out specific requirements for the identification of research priorities. These include “ an assessment of the state of biomedical and behavioural research ” and the consideration of “ (i) disease burden in the United States and the potential for return on investment to the United States; (ii) rare diseases and conditions; (iii) biological, social, and other determinants of health that contributes to health disparities; and (iv) other factors the Director of National Institutes of Health determines appropriate ” [ 23 ]. The NIH Director is also required to consult “ with the directors of the national research institutes and national centers, researchers, patient advocacy groups and industry leaders ” [ 23 ]. To fulfil the request of Congress, the NIH Director and the Principal Deputy Director initiated the process by creating a draft ‘framework’ for the strategic plan. This framework was designed with the purposes of identifying major areas of research that cut across NIH priorities and of setting out principles to guide the NIH research effort (‘unifying principles’).

The development of the NIH-Wide Strategic Plan involved extensive internal and external consultations throughout the process. Consultees included the ad hoc NIH-Wide Strategic Plan Working Group, composed of representatives of all 27 Institutes, Centers and Offices, the Advisory Committee to the Director, which is an NIH standing committee of experts in research fields relevant to the NIH mission, and representatives of the research community (from academia and the private sector) and the general public. The framework was also presented at meetings with the National Advisory Councils of the Institutes and Centers.

In addition, the framework was disseminated to external stakeholders for comments and suggestions, which were solicited via a series of public webinars and through the initiative Request for Information: Inviting Comments and Suggestions on a Framework for the NIH-Wide Strategic Plan. In this case, a web-based form collected comments and suggestions on a predefined list of topic areas from a wide array of stakeholders representative of patient advocacy organisations, professional associations, private hospitals and companies, academic institutions, government and private citizens [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ]. A report on the analysis of the public comments is publicly available [ 27 ].

The National Medical Research Council (NMRC)

The NMRC is the organisation that has the role of promoting, coordinating and funding biomedical research in Singapore [ 28 ]. It has developed its own research strategy by adopting the research priorities indicated by the national research strategy in the domain of health and biomedical sciences [ 29 ].

The national research strategy is the responsibility of the National Research Foundation, a department of the Prime Minister’s Office. It defines broad research priorities relating to various areas of research identified as ‘domains’. Within the health and biomedical sciences domain, five areas of research have been proposed with input from the Ministry of Health and the Health and Biomedical Sciences International Advisory Council. These are cancer, cardiovascular diseases, infectious diseases, neurological and sense disorders, diabetes mellitus and other metabolic/endocrine conditions. Criteria for selection of the areas of focus were “ disease impact, scientific excellence in Singapore and national needs ” [ 29 ].

The approach of NMRC to implementing the national research strategy at organisational level involves the establishment of ‘task forces’, i.e. groups of experts, with the role of defining the specific research strategy for each of the five areas of focus. Each task force provides documentation of research recommendations and methods used to prioritise research topics [ 30 ].

For example, the Neurological and Sense Disorders Task Force identified sub-areas of research Footnote 1 after analysing the local burden of neurological and sense disorders as well as considering factors such as local scientific expertise and research talent, ongoing efforts in neurological and sense disorders, industry interest, and opportunities for Singapore. As part of the effort, input was also solicited from the research community and policy-makers. This research prioritisation exercise served for both the NMRC grant scheme and a 10-year research roadmap [ 31 ].

Our study is the first to report on the processes used by a set of large national public funders to develop health research strategic plans. In line with findings from public management literature [ 16 , 17 ], we found that the formulation of a strategic plan is a well-established practice in shaping research agendas across international settings and it is a legal requirement for the majority of the organisations we studied.

We were able to reconstruct the process for developing the strategic plan by identifying the main actors involved and how they are connected. A complex picture emerges, in which multiple interactive entities and forces, often organised in a non-linear dynamic, appear to shape the research plans. In general, an organisation has to take into account legislative provisions, government directives, national overall research plans, national health plans and specific disease area plans. In some cases, it has to consider ‘institutionalised’ allocation of resources across organisations’ sub-entities (institutes, centres and units), which are historically associated with a particular disease or type of research.

On the other hand, we found little documentation of the decision-making mechanisms and information used to inform decision-making. There were, for example, few references to health research needs, research capabilities, the sources of information consulted, and the principles and criteria applied. This despite the increasing attention being paid nationally and internationally to the need for an explicit evidence-based or rational approach to setting health research priorities, particularly in the light of current economic constraints [ 3 , 32 , 33 ]. Given the complexity of the influences of different parties and factors, the governance of the health research sector would benefit from a traceable knowledge-based process of strategic planning, similar to that advocated for the health sector [ 34 ].

We found, however, evidence of an increasing interest in improving ways to establish research priorities at the organisational level. For example, NIH has brought forward the Senate request to develop a coordinated research strategy by including, in the strategic plan, the intention to further improve the processes for setting NIH research priorities and to optimise approaches to making informed funding decisions [ 21 ].

Recently, the DoD-CDMRP, the second largest funder of health research in the United States, reviewed its research management practices upon the recommendations of an ad hoc committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. In the area of strategic planning, the committee recommended an analysis of the funding landscape across different agencies and organisations, the identification of short- and long-term research needs, and harmonisation with the research priorities of other organisations [ 35 ].

In its strategic plan, the JSPS has placed particular emphasis on the development of research-on-research capacity and infrastructures to analyse the research landscape at organisational, national and international levels in order to ensure that funding decisions are evidence based [ 36 ].

The allocation of sufficient resources to develop the infrastructure and technical expertise required for collection, analysis and dissemination of a portfolio of relevant data should be considered a necessary step when a funding organisation or country decides to implement standardised approaches for strategic planning and priority-setting.

Additionally, from the perspective of health research as a system, data collection and analyses should not be limited to ‘what is funded’, but should also include ‘who is funded and where’, and be linked to research policies and their long-term outcomes. The benefit of such an approach is not limited to the prevention of unnecessary duplication of research. Support would also be provided for producing formal mechanisms to coordinate research effort across research entities, within and among countries. Collaborations with other non-profit as well as for-profit organisations would be promoted and the capacity for research would be created and strengthened where necessary.

A number of resources and initiatives in this field already exist at organisational and national level. For example, the NIH has the Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools, a public repository of data and other tools from NIH research activities [ 37 ]. This repository is linked to Federal RePORTER, an infrastructure that makes data on federal investments in science available. In the United Kingdom, the Health Research Classification System performs regular analysis of the funding landscape of United Kingdom health research to support monitoring, strategy development and coordination [ 38 ].

At the international level, there is ongoing global work to shape evidence-based health research decisions and coordination. In 2013, the WHO Global Observatory on Health R&D was established “ in order to monitor and analyze relevant information on health research and development, […] with a view to contributing to the identification of gaps and opportunities for health research and development and defining priorities […] and to facilitate the development of a global shared research agenda ” [ 33 ]. This effort has been coupled with a global call to action, which asks governments to create or strengthen national health research observatories and contribute to the WHO Observatory. Furthermore, the Clinical Research Initiative for Global Health, a consortium of research organisations across the world, has ongoing projects that will map clinical research networks and funding capacity and conduct clinical research at a global level [ 39 ].

A further key area that deserves comment is the engagement of stakeholders. In general, a spectrum of external stakeholders from multiple sectors is involved and the extent of this involvement varies across organisations. Decision-making processes commonly include people from government bodies, academia, research agencies and industry. However, we found that the participation of civil society, here represented by the intended beneficiaries of research such as health professionals, patients and their carers, remains limited. The fact that decision-making is still the domain of government officials and experts is an unexpected finding. There is a widespread consensus that the participation of a mix of stakeholders can improve the process of strategic planning. The logic behind this is that representatives of those who are affected by decisions can bring new information and perspectives and improve the effectiveness of the process [ 17 , 32 , 40 ]. Broader inclusion is desirable, both for granting legitimacy to strategic planning and for advancing equity in healthcare. Decisions on research priorities shape knowledge and, ultimately, they determine whether patients and their carers will have access to healthcare options that meet their needs [ 41 ].

Additionally, our study shows that the involvement of civil society is not only desirable but is also feasible. Organisations that support the participation of civil society have this practice firmly embedded in their governance, although it may be implemented in different ways.

Strengths and limitations

A particular strength of our study is the innovative way in which we approached the disorienting complexity of whole-organisation planning cycle management. This allowed us to contribute to an understanding of the processes used by large public funders not only in English-speaking countries but also in France, Italy and Spain.

However, one potential limitation concerns the accuracy and completeness of the information. This drawback was imposed by both the unstructured nature of the information and its fragmentation across multiple webpages and legal and/or administrative documents. Nevertheless, we strove to ensure accuracy, consistency and a clear presentation of the relevant information by means of a conceptual framework and a data abstraction form. In addition, to guarantee the reliability of the data, two reviewers abstracted the information independently, before discussing it and reaching a consensus. The use of more accessible information, e.g. through single documents, would therefore be advisable to improve accountability and transparency. This would also be of particular importance for exchanging knowledge and promoting research in the specific field of research governance.

In addition to the limitations imposed by the available data, there is a potential limitation in the methodology of the study. In conducting our research, we decided to rely only on publicly available information and we did not ask organisations for further details. Consequently, we may have missed some actions and drawn an incomplete picture of the organisations presented. Our strategy was based on the assumption that, if a strategic plan existed, both it and a description of its associated decision-making process would be present in the public domain, given that transparency in decision-making is an acknowledged element of good public organisation governance [ 42 ]. We would therefore counter that the process should be more transparent and should address, in particular, the criteria and information used to support decision-making.

In addition, it was not possible to ascertain in detail how processes actually took place. For example, engaging external stakeholders, such as representatives of civil society, is a key feature of the organisations included in the study but we do not know whether this engagement was meaningful or simply granted legitimacy to leadership decisions.

Furthermore, by limiting our inclusion criteria to organisations with strategic plans publicly available in English, French, Spanish and Italian, we excluded two German organisations (the German Research Foundation and the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung – the Federal Ministry of Education and Research) and two Chinese bodies (the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Ministry of Health). These organisations could have been included on the basis of their health research budgets. While it is unlikely that these bodies from two countries with similar health research systems have practices that would have changed our conclusions, it would nevertheless be useful in the future to acquire information regarding their experiences in this area.

Future research

Having considered the abovementioned limitations, we recommend that qualitative research be conducted to further validate our findings by complementing the information presented here with data gathered from key informants within each organisation. We also suggest that the study be extended to include other organisations and countries. Additional research should also expand on our study by more deeply exploring the perspectives of the members of external stakeholder bodies regarding their involvement in strategic planning within each organisation. Making this information accessible would benefit those funder organisations who wish to both increase public engagement in health research decision-making and make it more meaningful.

It would also be interesting to explore whether and why funder organisations are influenced by the research plans of other organisations (including academic, advocacy and international bodies) within and among countries, and whether they have formal mechanisms in place to coordinate with other such organisations. This information would be of use in guiding research coordination policies, with the aim of avoiding duplication of effort and identifying not only gaps in research but also overlapping interests and opportunities for partnerships.

Our study illustrates the variety of the processes adopted in developing strategic plans for health research in the international setting. A complex picture emerges in which multiple interactive entities appear to shape research plans. Although we found documentation of the actors involved in the processes, much less was available on the mechanisms, information, criteria and tools used to inform decision-making.

Given the complexity of the influences of different parties and factors, both funding organisations and health sector governance would benefit from a traceable knowledge-based process of strategic planning. The benefits of such an approach are not limited to demonstrating responsible budget stewardship as it would also provide opportunities to respond to research gaps and healthcare needs and to move more effectively from basic to translational research.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article in Additional file 1 .

Neurodegenerative diseases (vascular dementia and Parkinson’s diseases), neurodegenerative eye diseases (age-related macular degeneration and glaucoma), mental health disorders (depression) and neurotechnology.

Abbreviations

High-income countries

United Kingdom Research and Innovation

National Institutes of Health

National Health and Medical Research Council

U.S. Department of Defense - Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs

Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale

The Italian Ministry of Health

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Medical Research Council

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

Japan Society for Promotion of Science

Instituto de Salud Carlos III

Singapore National Medical Research Council

Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374:86–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

World Health Organization. The WHO strategy on research for health. Geneva: WHO; 2012.

Google Scholar  

Viergever RF. The mismatch between the health research and development (R&D) that is needed and the R&D that is undertaken: an overview of the problem, the causes, and solutions. Glob Health Action. 2013;6:22450. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v6i0.22450 .

Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383:156–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1 .

UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose. The people’s prescription: re-imagining health innovation to deliver public value. IIPP policy report, 2018–10. London: IIPP, Global Justice Now, Just Treatment, STOPAIDS; 2018.

Global Forum for Health Research. The 3D combined approach matrix: an improved tool for setting priorities in research for health. Geneva: Global Forum for Health Research; 2009.

Montorzi G, de Haan S, IJIsselmuiden C. Priority setting for research for health: a management process for countries. Geneva: Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED); 2010.

Viergever RF, Olifson S, Ghaffar A, Terry RF. A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice. Health Res Policy Syst. 2010;8:36. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-8-36 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Nasser M, Ueffing E, Welch V, Tugwell P. An equity lens can ensure an equity-oriented approach to agenda setting and priority setting of Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(5):511–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.11.013 .

Sharma T, Choudhury M, Rejón-Parrilla JC, Jonsson P, Garner S. Using HTA and guideline development as a tool for research priority setting the NICE way: reducing research waste by identifying the right research to fund. BMJ Open. 2018;8(3):e019777. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019777 .

James Lind Alliance. About the James Lind Alliance. http://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/about-the-james-lind-alliance Accessed 14 Apr 2020.

Tomlinson M, Chopra M, Hoosain N, Rudan I. A review of selected research priority setting processes at national level in low and middle income countries: towards fair and legitimate priority setting. Health Res Policy Syst. 2011;9:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-9-19 .

McGregor S, Henderson KJ, Kaldor JM. How are health research priorities set in low and middle income countries? A systematic review of published reports. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e108787. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108787 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bryant J, Sanson-Fisher R, Walsh J, Stewart J. Health research priority setting in selected high income countries: a narrative review of methods used and recommendations for future practice. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014;12:23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-12-23 .

Moher D, Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Nasser M, Bossuyt PM, Korevaar DA, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who’s listening? Lancet. 2016;387(10027):1573–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00307-4 .

Viergever RF, Hendriks TC. The 10 largest public and philanthropic funders of health research in the world: what they fund and how they distribute their funds. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-015-0074-z .

Bryson JM, Hamilton Edwards L. Strategic planning in the public sector. In: Oxford research encyclopedia of business and management. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.128 . Accessed date 2 Sep 2020.

Bryson JM, Hamilton Edwards L, Van Slyke DM. Getting strategic about strategic planning research. Public Manage Rev. 2018;20(3):317–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1285111 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Walt G, Gilson L. Reforming the health sector in developing countries: the central role of policy analysis. Health Policy Plan. 1994;9(4):353–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/9.4.353 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

National Institutes of Health. Who we are. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are Accessed 14 Apr 2020.

National Institutes of Health. Department of Health & Human Services. NIH-Wide strategic plan. Fiscal year 2016–2020. https://www.nih.gov/sites/default/files/about-nih/strategic-plan-fy2016-2020-508.pdf Accessed 14 Apr 2020.

National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce. Consolidated and further Continuing Appropriation Act 2015 (P.L.113–235). https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/director/legislation/fy2015/MAIN_NIST_APPN_LANG_PL-113-235.pdf . Accessed 14 Apr 2020.

21st Century Cures Act. H.R. 34, 114th Congress. 2016. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/34 . Accessed 14 Apr 2020.

National Institutes of Health. NIH Wide Strategic Plan. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/nih-strategic-plan . Accessed 14 Apr 2020.

National Institutes of Health. Advisory Committee to the Director. https://acd.od.nih.gov . Accessed 14 Apr 2020.

National Institutes of Health. Council of Councils. https://dpcpsi.nih.gov/council . Accessed 14 Apr 2020.

National Institutes of Health. NIH Request for Information: Inviting Comments and Suggestions on a Framework for the NIH-wide Strategic Plan. Analysis of Public Comments. October 2015. https://www.nih.gov/sites/default/files/about-nih/nih-strategic-plan-rfi-comments-suggestions-framework.pdf Accessed 14 Apr 2020.

National Medical Research Council Singapore. Who we are. http://www.nmrc.gov.sg/about-us . Accessed 14 Apr 2020.

Singapore Government, National Research Foundation. Research, Innovation Enterprise 2020 Plan. https://www.nrf.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/rie2020-publication-(final-web).pdf . Accessed 14 Apr 2020.

National Medical Research Council Singapore. Who we are. HBMS Disease Taskforces’ Reports. https://www.nmrc.gov.sg/who-we-are/hbms-disease-taskforces-reports . Accessed 14 Apr 2020.

National Medical Research Council Singapore. Neurological and Sense Disorders Taskforce Report. http://www.nmrc.gov.sg/docs/default-source/about-us-library/nstf-summary-report.pdf . Accessed 14 Apr 2020.

Nuyens Y. Setting priorities for health research: lessons from low- and middle-income countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2007;85(4):319–21. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.06.032375 .

World Health Organization. Follow up of the report of the Consultative Expert Working Group on Research and Development: Financing and Coordination. Resolution WHA66.22, 27 May 2013. https://www.who.int/phi/resolution_WHA-66.22.pdf . Accessed 27 Mar 2020.

World Health Organization. WHO strategizing national health in the 21 century: a handbook. Geneva: WHO; 2016. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/250221 . Accessed 14 Apr 2020.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Evaluation of the congressionally directed medical research programs review process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2016.

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. About us, Brochure JSPS 2017–2018. http://www.jsps.go.jp/english/aboutus/data/brochure17-18_e.pdf . Accessed 10 Dec 2019.

National Institutes for Health. Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). https://report.nih.gov/index.aspx . Accessed 14 Apr 2020.

Carter JG, Sherbon BJ, Viney IS. United Kingdom health research analyses and the benefits of shared data. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14:48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0116-1 .

Clinical Research Initiative for Global Health. About Crigh. https://crigh.org/about-crigh . Accessed 14 Apr 2020.

Fung A. Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Adm Rev. 2006;66:66–75.

Pratt B, Merritt MM, Hyder AA. Towards deep inclusion for equity-oriented health research priority-setting: a working model. Soc Sci Med. 2016;151:215–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.01.018 .

Greer SL, Vasev N, Jarman H, Wismar M, Figueras J. It’s the governance, stupid! TAPIC: a governance framework to strengthen decision making and implementation (Policy Brief 33). Geneva: WHO; 2019. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/416100/PolicyBrief_PB33_TAPIC.pdf?ua=1 . Accessed 14 Apr 2020.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Letizia Sampaolo, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, the information specialist who made an initial search of relevant scientific articles, and Stephen James for English language review of the manuscript.

This research was partly supported by funding for 'Ricerca Corrente' of  the Istituto Superiore di Sanità. 

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Research Coordination and Support Service, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena, 299, 00161, Rome, Italy

Cristina Morciano, Maria Cristina Errico & Luisa Minghetti

National Centre for Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy

Carla Faralli

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

CM conceived of the study and made a first drafted the work. CM, MCE and CF abstracted the data and compiled the organisations’ profiles. LM contributed to the draft and substantively revised the work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristina Morciano .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1..

Data abstraction form. (a) Table of the included and excluded organisations with reasons; (b) table of the included organisations with budget; (c) the organisations’ profiles according to the fields of the conceptual framework; and (d) full list of the consulted references and web pages for each organisation’s profile.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Morciano, C., Errico, M.C., Faralli, C. et al. An analysis of the strategic plan development processes of major public organisations funding health research in nine high-income countries worldwide. Health Res Policy Sys 18 , 106 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00620-x

Download citation

Received : 18 April 2020

Accepted : 09 August 2020

Published : 18 September 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00620-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Health research
• Research plan
• Health research system
• Research priority-setting

Health Research Policy and Systems

ISSN: 1478-4505

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

JavaScript appears to be disabled on this computer. Please click here to see any active alerts .

• Strategic Research Action Plans Fiscal Years 2023-2026

Research in EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) provides solutions needed to meet today’s complex environmental and human health challenges. Research is organized around six highly integrated and transdisciplinary national research programs that are closely aligned with the Agency's strategic goals and cross-Agency strategies. Each program is guided by a Strategic Research Action Plan (StRAP) developed by EPA with input from its many internal and external partners and stakeholders:

• Air, Climate, and Energy StRAP
• Chemical Safety for Sustainability StRAP
• Health and Environmental Risk Assessment StRAP
• Homeland Security StRAP
• Safe and Sustainable Water Resources StRAP
• Sustainable and Healthy Communities StRAP

In addition to outlining a research framework, the StRAPs also describe the overall structure and purpose of the Program. The strategic directions and research areas identified in each StRAP serve as planning guides for ORD’s research centers to design specific research products that address the needs of both internal and external Agency partners and stakeholders. Partner engagement is an essential part of the StRAP development process to identify research needs to be addressed.

Additional information on ORD's research planning process: ORD's Strategic Research Planning

EPA's previous StRAPs can be found here: Strategic Research Action Plans FYs 2012-2022

Air, Climate, and Energy

ACE StRAP for FYs 2023-2026 (pdf) (2.1 MB, 10/5/22, EPA/600/R-22/234)

EPA’s Air, Climate, and Energy (ACE) National Research Program (NRP) recognizes that addressing the increasing risks posed by climate change and reducing the disproportionate burdens faced by low-income and minority communities requires effective air quality risk management with consideration of criteria and other toxic air pollutants, indoor air quality, wildfires, and the transformation of the Nation’s energy and transportation systems. It lays the foundation for research that promotes the strategic objectives of the Agency to improve air quality, address the causes and consequences of climate change, and protect public health and the environment. Research activities in ACE are organized broadly around two topics: 1) understanding air pollution and climate change and their impacts on human health and ecosystems, and 2) responding to risks and impacts and preparing for the future.

Chemical Safety for Sustainability

CSS StRAP for FYs 2023-2026 (pdf) (1.6 MB, 10/5/22, EPA/600/R-22/238)

EPA's Chemical Safety for Sustainability (CSS) National Research Program is focused on addressing the pressing environmental and health challenge of a lack of sufficient information on chemicals needed to make informed, risk-based decisions. Improving the safe production, use, and disposal of chemicals is a major priority in support of actions to protect human health and the environment. Research activities in CSS are organized broadly around three topics: 1) chemical evaluation, 2) complex systems science, and 3) knowledge delivery and solutions-driven translation to support chemical safety decisions.

Health and Environmental Risk Assessment

HERA StRAP for FYs 2023-2026 (pdf) (2 MB, 10/5/22, EPA/600/R-22/237)

EPA’s Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HERA) National Research Program is designed to develop and apply state-of-the-science research to characterize the impacts on human and ecological systems, whether they result from exposure to single, complex, or multiple physical, chemical, or biological stressors. In doing so, HERA provides key components of the scientific foundation for risk assessments to inform decisions aimed at protecting human health and the environment. Research activities in HERA are organized broadly around two topics: 1) science assessments and translation and 2) advancing the science and practice of risk assessment.

Homeland Security

HS StRAP for FYs 2023-2026 (pdf) (1.6 MB, 10/5/22, EPA/600/R-22/240)

EPA’s Homeland Security (HS) National Research Program addresses science gaps related to oil spill response, protecting water systems, and cleanup of wide areas contaminated with high-priority Homeland Security Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear agents. This includes contamination incidents due to natural disasters, pathogens that cause communicable diseases, covert release of chemicals, and agricultural incidents with animal and crop diseases. Research activities in HS are organized broadly around three topics: 1) contaminant characterization and risk assessment, 2) environmental cleanup and infrastructure remediation, and 3) community engagement and systems-based tools supporting resilience equity.

Safe and Sustainable Water Resources

SSWR StRAP for FYs 2023-2026 (pdf) (2.4 MB, 10/5/22, EPA/600/R-22/242)

EPA’s Safe and Sustainable Water Resources (SSWR) National Research Program provides robust research and scientific analyses to innovatively and economically support safe and adequate supplies of water—protecting people’s health and livelihood while restoring and maintaining watersheds and aquatic ecosystems. Targeted research will yield the innovative tools and information needed to protect and restore watersheds, aquatic ecosystems, and water infrastructure to provide clean, adequate, and equitable supplies of water for optimum human health and ecosystem functions. Research activities in SSWR are organized broadly into three interrelated topics: 1) watersheds, 2) nutrients and harmful algal blooms, and 3) water treatment and infrastructure.

Sustainable and Healthy Communities

SHC StRAP for FYs 2023-2026 (pdf) (2.7 MB, 10/5/22, EPA/600/R-22/241)

EPA’s Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) National Research Program takes a systems approach to integrate the full range of available data from public health, physical, natural, and social sciences, toxicology, engineering, and ecosystems research to support Agency priorities and empower communities to make scientifically informed decision. Research is done with and for communities to improve their access to clean air, water, and land for increased health and well-being where people live, learn, work, and play. Research activities in SHC are organized broadly into three interrelated topics: 1) advancing remediation and restoration of contaminated sites, 2) materials management and beneficial reuse of waste, and 3) integrated systems approaches to building healthy and resilient communities.

• EPA Research Home
• Research Topics
• Publications
• Funding & Career Opportunities
• Stay Connected
• EPA Research Events
• About Our Research
• Science Models and Research Tools (SMaRT) Search

Strategic Research Plan

Simon Fraser University is well-positioned to continue to expand our research activities, to deepen our engagement with community and to grow the impact of our scholars on the world.

Officially launched in January 2023, Simon Fraser University's 2023-2028 Strategic Research Plan (SRP) captures some of the breadth of activities at the university. It also defines priority areas of research strength and focus for 2023-2028. The SRP is accompanied by an implementation plan that identifies specific actions that will be taken to enhance the impact of the university in its key research priority areas.

SFU's 2023-2028 Strategic Research Plan

In preparing the SRP, we have interacted with hundreds of community members through townhall-style meetings, survey responses and email. We have discussed their priorities and where they see their research going in the coming years. Clear themes emerged from these discussions, such as the role of SFU in confronting the climate crisis, the growth of human-health focused research at the institution, the need for the institution to value diverse forms of scholarship, the need to respect and incorporate Indigenous perspectives and knowledge(s) into research at the institution, and the need to support graduate students and other early career researchers in our community.

Research approaches supporting SFU's core values

A broad consultation for the university's new strategic plan has been undertaken, led by the SFU President and the Provost and VP Academic, called " SFU: What's Next? ". As part of the consultation, a draft set of core values was identified to help define our university. Those core values include:

Academic freedom and critical thinking 

Excellence and responsibility

Respect and reciprocity

Equity and belonging

Engagement and openness

Resilience and sustainability

Innovation and adaptability

To enact these values in the way we do research at SFU, there are several approaches we employ:

A culture of inquiry

We are here to advance knowledge and understanding on a wide range of topics from a wide range of perspectives.  Our researchers will ask hard questions about challenging topics. SFU’s support of academic freedom should create a safe environment in which these topics can be addressed. 

Indigenous approaches, and knowledge(s)

To understand and then address the complexity and urgency of many of the problems our society faces, we recognize that we need a broad and inclusive understanding of the world that incorporates many knowledge systems and world views. Our commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples includes reconciling different approaches to understanding the world. Frameworks such as two-eyed seeing and walking on two legs guide our approach.   

Interdisciplinarity 

Many of the most interesting academic questions are rooted in very complex problems that cannot be solved by a single researcher. Team-based work—often requiring team members from a variety of disciplines and trained in multiple methodologies—is the path to answering these questions. In addition to offering strong support for specialized disciplinary work, at SFU we support scholars working across disciplines by supporting partnerships both within the university and with other universities.

Linking research to teaching and learning

We mentor students to be the next generation of researchers, innovators, and educators by engaging them in research processes. This enriches their education and the research produced. We embed practices of systematic inquiry, mentorship and apprenticeship in our research programs and extend and model these practices in preparation of educators who go on to work in early learning, K-12, community and post-secondary contexts.

Engagement with partners or communities

In many fields of inquiry, engaging with communities outside academia leads to better scholarship. Those communities may include individuals, municipalities, First Nations, industry, NGOs or others. At SFU we support partnership within and outside academia to drive better scholarship and greater impact. This includes local and regional partnerships, national partnerships and international partnerships. 

Knowledge mobilization

Research is not complete until the created knowledge is shared. That sharing happens via many mechanisms including traditional academic publication, policy creation, newspaper op-eds, white papers, social media, performances, creative artifacts, patents/licensing, new product development, creation of a company and other forms. At SFU we embrace open science, data and publishing. We also foster a culture of innovation both in the way that we perform scholarly work and in the way that we support it. 

Priority areas

SFU is a comprehensive research university, with research and other scholarly activity spanning a wide range of disciplines and approaches. The priority areas identified below capture institutional priority areas for 2023-2028. 

Each of the priority areas below spans multiple disciplines. As an academic institution we are committed to building multi-disciplinary communities of practice in these areas. We also note that these priority areas intersect with each other and that some of the most interesting research happens at those intersections. For example, climate change is precipitating biodiversity loss. The One Health approach, which is actively employed by SFU researchers, recognizes that human health is connected to the health of animals and the environment thus strongly linking priority areas #1 and #2 below.  

The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide an international framework covering many of the most pressing issues of our time. Our university and our community members are committed to the SDGs and are putting them at the heart of our international engagement framework. Where relevant, links to SDGs are included in the priority areas .

Climate change represents one of the greatest challenges of our age. As a research topic, it crosses disciplines, touching deep societal, health and justice issues as well as climate science, mathematical modelling, biodiversity, and profound technological and economic change. While climate change is a global issue, its effects and the resources available to adapt and to mitigate future warming differ from community to community. Some communities will be pressed to adapt to drought and fire, while others will be combatting floods and landslides. Some will have access to considerable local renewable energy sources, and some will not. Different communities may therefore embrace different paths to resilience. Helping communities become resilient to the effects of the changing climate by integrating low-carbon approaches into their planning and integrating low-carbon technologies into their infrastructures is a daunting multidisciplinary challenge. Working with these same communities to provide education and support for their citizens is another aspect of the challenge. SFU’s approach includes developing solutions at the community and regional level, followed by sharing and scaling those solutions to make impacts globally. With research strengths that span all of the relevant disciplines, SFU is well-positioned to take on these challenges. This priority area— community-centred climate innovation —engages our researchers with all levels of government, industry and community members.

Learn more about community-centred climate innovation .

(SDGs  3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13)

The connection between the health and wellness of an individual, and the (global) community in which they live has never been more obvious. As we write this plan, British Columbia is in the midst of two public health emergencies—the global COVID-19 pandemic and a sharp rise in drug overdoses and deaths (the “opioid crisis”). These simultaneous emergencies have together exposed the effects of deep social inequities and discrimination, the fragility of our health systems, the psychological consequences of isolation, a lack of trust in authority/science and many other profound issues that can only be addressed through world-class research. SFU researchers are engaged in responding to the threats and burdens of disease via many approaches, including basic research into fundamental molecular and cellular processes, development of new technologies, tests and treatments for individuals, as well as education and public health approaches. They are also leaders in transforming our response to health issues through social determinants and cultural critique. Harnessing big data, genomics, molecular and cellular tools and treatments, wearable technologies, digital technologies, and other technological and social interventions, our researchers are influencing therapeutic development, health policy and individual health throughout the lifespan. SFU researchers also generate wellbeing in the communities they work with by engaging in mutual, respectful and empathetic processes of knowledge production. Harnessing research informed by indigeneity, nature-based experience, contemplation, and anti-racism can make important contributions to wellbeing, both individual and collective. 

(SDGs 1, 2, 3, 6, 10)

SFU researchers ask fundamental questions about the natural world, as well as our societies and cultures. Insights that arise from this work change the way we think about the world and the place of humans in it. SFU researchers measure and predict natural phenomena on multiple scales from the subatomic to the cosmic, from a single gene to a multi-celled organism, and from single entities to complex interacting systems of those entities. A fuller picture emerges when we examine the development and progression of our languages, cultures and knowledge systems. This includes examining the role of human creativity and critical making in the production of new knowledge and understanding. Our researchers use data, quantitative techniques, as well as qualitative approaches across a wide range of disciplines within this priority area. With more thorough insights into our complex world—both natural and cultural—we are better equipped to look forward, pushing the boundaries of discovery into new frontiers. Driven by curiosity, our researchers are deepening our understanding of the world.

The polarization of our society, mis/disinformation, threats to democracy, population migration and changing patterns of convergence and conflict challenge the structures of societies and shape the ways we interact with each other. Researchers at SFU are deeply engaged in studies of data and media democracy, and in questions of equity and justice in relation to environmental, educational, health, economic and governmental systems. This includes the causes and consequences of poverty and inequality. Matters of social inclusion, identity, diversity and belonging are key drivers behind how individuals and groups perceive, connect with, and learn about society at large. Considerations related to justice, equity and social responsibility also shape the ways we engage with communities, value their contributions, and inform a commitment to fostering dialogue, relationship building, imagination, critical design, and transformative learning. Environmental Social Governance research provides opportunities to foster the implementation of these values by industry. Fostering community participation in research is both a vehicle for social change and a critical source of scholarship.

(SDGs 5, 8, 10, 16)

Technology impacts every aspect of our lives—at multiple scales—from nanotechnology to satellite communication to technology for work and home life. These technologies are applied to all areas of human endeavor, from building a sustainable world, to improving human health, to transforming the way we teach and learn. SFU researchers are involved in new technology creation at all levels: creating the new materials that enable those technologies; engaging in design research and developing creative technologies that change how we interact with technology and each other; developing new types of hardware to enable future platforms like quantum computers; writing the algorithms required to process data and model the world around us as well as critiquing and educating people about the effects of those algorithms; and integrating and adapting existing technologies to a changing world. The adoption and use of emerging technologies are guided by management and policy research as one means to create economic and societal value and to engage in critical modelling of alternative technological futures. These research domains investigate the economic, environmental, health, political, educational and societal tradeoffs between incumbent industries and technologies and the emerging alternatives. SFU researchers also study the processes that underlie the adoption and use of new technologies—the process of bringing technologies “out of the lab” and into the hands of consumers and communities, as well as inequalities in technological uptake and impacts.

(SDGs 9, 12)

Have a question about the SFU's Strategic Research plan or the implementation plan?

Connect with us:  [email protected]

Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning

Strategic plan for research, scholarship, and creative activities.

In Appalachian State University's 2022-2027 Strategic Plan , one of the six strategic priorities is advancing research, innovation and creativity. The university has developed a strategic plan to accomplish this priority by building a roadmap to facilitate research, scholarship and creative activities (RSCA) at App State. This is the first such plan in the history of the university. 

The new Strategic Plan for RSCA has four goals, each of which is supported by multiple strategies and action items:

• Goal 1: Increase Awareness and Understanding of the Vital Role RSCA Plays in Fulfilling the University’s Mission.
• Goal 2: Enhance the Overall Productivity and Efficiency of App State’s RSCA.
• Goal 3: Bolster App State’s Capacity for Exceptional and Innovative Research, Scholarship and Creative Activities to Generate Knowledge and Address Critical Issues in the Region, State, Nation and World.
• Goal 4: Increase External Engagement and Investment in RSCA.

Process for Developing the Strategic Plan for RSCA

The Strategic Plan for RSCA was developed through an inclusive, iterative process that reflects the diverse perspectives of the App State Community. A steering committee and working group led the development effort, with the support of faculty and staff members who contributed their ideas through a series of meetings held in person and on Zoom, as well as through an anonymous online survey.

Implementation Plan and Next Steps

Interim Vice Provost for Research and Innovation Christine Hendren, Ph.D. is leading implementation of the Strategic Plan for RSCA through a systematic process that engages members of the App State Community in a range of activities to help bring the new plan to life. The implementation plan will enable our community to collectively articulate and enhance our shared vision for excellence in research, scholarship and creative activities at our university.  Learn more about the detailed implementation plan, including its five themes, specific actions for each theme and the timeline for those actions. 

Launching Carolinaʼs Strategic Research Roadmap

By Penny Gordon-Larsen

Today, I am thrilled to announce the official launch of Carolina’s Strategic Research Roadmap — a bold, actionable plan to solidify Carolina’s position as a global research leader and drive even greater impact and achievement. Developed over a year-long collaborative effort with key stakeholders from across campus, Carolina’s Strategic Research Roadmap serves as a blueprint to propel our research enterprise to even greater heights.

Why a Roadmap?

Our research enterprise has expanded tremendously over the last few decades, and we have had a steady rate of growth in awards. Yet there is more we can do to fully leverage our incredible potential for achievements and impacts. Since its inception, the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research (OVCR) has been without a strategic plan to guide Carolina’s research enterprise. As a result, we have often operated opportunistically, which can have its benefits. Yet at the same time, without a campus-level strategy, we run the risk of not fully leveraging our incredible research potential and leaving opportunities on the table.

Strategic plans bring focus to complex organizations by setting clear goals and objectives. By creating alignment across departments and teams, we will capitalize upon shared goals and vision, allowing mutually-agreed-upon strategic priorities to take shape. The Strategic Research Roadmap we have developed is responsive to gaps and opportunities identified by key stakeholders. Together, we will work to ensure Carolina’s continued research leadership and impact.

Strategic Research Roadmap:

The who (ovcr) and how of implementation.

To cultivate the optimal research ecosystem that fuels breakthroughs in the expansion of human knowledge and discovery and improves the health and well-being of people, communities, and environments in North Carolina, the nation, and the world.

The state, the country, and the world will turn to Carolina to solve the most critical challenges of today and tomorrow.​​

We harness the true power of the University to deliver results that transform the state, the nation, and the world.

Excellence:

As a top public global research university, we pursue the highest standards of excellence and rigor in our research and scholarship.

Collaboration:

We bring researchers and partners together for true synergies that expand the boundaries of science and impact.

Innovation:

We stimulate discovery and foster opportunities so they can be translated to products and outputs for the public good.

We ensure that Carolina’s research and researchers operate at the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior.

Our strength lies with our people and our research participants. We value and treat each other with dignity, honesty, and transparency.

Responsibility:

With great accountability, we honor our commitments and the trust placed in us by our stakeholders, partners, and research participants.

How We Got Here

The OVCR engaged a diverse group of stakeholders across campus in a comprehensive process to develop this roadmap. During Phase 1, we gathered insights from key stakeholders including University leaders, deans of schools and research units, directors of pan-campus centers and institutes, and faculty members deeply involved in research activities. We conducted a campus-wide survey and held many stakeholder group discussions to determine how to move forward. Within the OVCR, we analyzed data from the survey and stakeholder meetings to draft the Strategic Research Roadmap, which we then vetted with our key stakeholders and University leadership to finalize.

Together, we worked to identify areas of strength, opportunities for improvement, and strategies to amplify Carolina’s research impact. In addition, we ensured that the roadmap is synergistic with current strategic efforts being led by the Chancellor, the Provost, and other vice chancellors. For example, our priorities will intersect with the four areas of focus put forward by Interim Chancellor Lee: Enrollment, Master Plan, Applied Science, and Generative AI .

The resulting product is responsive to those needs and aspirations for Carolinaʼs research future that our stakeholders identified during the planning phase. Our thorough process has led to a strong and well-conceived plan that will benefit campus and allow us to do more impactful work that changes and saves lives in North Carolina and beyond.

Strategic Goals

• Enhance Research Assets

Promote growth & opportunity

• Maximize Value & Impact

Key Operational Imperatives

• Support & Grow Talented Research Workforce
• Facilitate Efficient Research Support & Compliance

Our Strategic Goals

The roadmap focuses on three strategic goals necessary to sustain and propel our growth:

• Enhance Research Assets: Build, improve, and maintain state-of-the-art research facilities, equipment, data, and technology to enable success.
• Promote Growth & Opportunity: Grow Carolina’s research by identifying and investing in strategic opportunities, leveraging existing research strengths, and fostering collaboration that leads to discovery and addresses challenges.
• Maximize Value and Impact: Increase the impact of Carolina research and communicate its value.

Operational Imperatives

To support these goals, the roadmap also identifies two key operational imperatives, necessary to support the three strategic goals:

• Research Workforce: Support and grow a talented research workforce to ensure Carolina’s continued excellence in research to serve N.C. and the world.
• Research Support and Compliance: Foster an environment that facilitates efficient research processes, promotes integrity, objectivity, and quality of research outputs.

Implementation

Research touches almost all aspects of the University. Any given research project relies on partnership with many operational units across campus. For this reason, we approach implementation in a systems framework that engages key partners in research, notably, Vice Chancellors who are responsible for Finance & Operations, Innovation, and Development, as well as leaders from Carolina’s schools and colleges. Our collaborative engagement with key campus stakeholders throughout the Roadmap’s development means that we have willing campus partners who are invested in its success and who see benefits of campus alignment around strategic research goals.

As we enter Phase 2 – the implementation phase — we will begin to invite campus stakeholders to join implementation workgroups. Three implementation teams will focus on each of the three strategic goals and will include key partners from across campus, fostering a collaborative approach to ensure success. Two additional implementation teams will focus on the two operational imperatives.

• Advisory Committee
• Support Growth & Opportunity

Who We Are & How We Will Move Forward

As part of the process, we have updated our mission, vision, and values which are essential to guide our Strategic Research Roadmap. Guided by our values, we will be purposeful and strategic in how we engage our research community as we implement the roadmap.

At the same time, we will continue our broader goal to serve the entire Carolina community. Importantly, the OVCR manages all aspects of the University’s research activity including advocating for and promoting research across all fields of study and research areas. Any improvements we create and implement will be broadly beneficial to campus.

From our comprehensive stakeholder engagement in the strategic planning, it became clear that three guiding principles are essential in how we move forward:

• Innovate: We will accelerate our efforts to innovate and expand our portfolio of pro-innovation research.
• Transform: We will create a more agile research ecosystem, fostering greater collaboration and strategic alignment across campus.
• Renew: We will revitalize key strategic partnerships, both within and beyond North Carolina, to maximize the impact of our research and fulfill the mission of the University.

The Future is Bright

The Strategic Research Roadmap is designed to ensure that Carolina’s research will continue to make a significant impact across our state and the world.

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Strategic Research Plans: Defining Challenges, Inspiring Research

Archival notice.

This is an archive page that is no longer being updated. It may contain outdated information and links may no longer function as originally intended.

To support our strategic and overarching research goals, we have developed a series of strategic research plans on topics within crime and justice that span our two science offices. These plans build off of existing research knowledge; input about research needs gathered from practitioners, policymakers and researchers; and the priorities of Congress and the Administration.

We anticipate that investments made under these plans will dramatically improve the body of knowledge that policymakers and practitioners rely on to promote safety, prevent and respond to crime, and advance justice at every level of the criminal justice system.

Each strategic research plan emphasizes the importance of supporting multidisciplinary scholarship and practice that address the spectrum of issues facing criminal justice in the United States. To meet the goals of each plan, we envision researchers from all disciplines working together and connecting areas of research that have not previously been connected. The collaboration necessary to meet the goals of each plan is not limited to the research communities. Researchers will need to engage with and understand policy and practice communities as well. We are confident that in the future NIJ's research will be cross-disciplinary and collaborative, encouraging the field to view the criminal justice system holistically, while drawing on expertise of other fields that have been examining topics relevant to crime and justice.

We anticipate that investments made under these plans will dramatically improve the body of knowledge that policymakers and practitioners rely on to promote safety, prevent and respond to crime, and advance justice at every level of the criminal justice system. Finally, we hope that by clearly outlining the most pressing challenges, we will guide the research community to begin addressing these questions and garner new interest in scientific research as it applies to the criminal justice system.

Current active plans:

• Forensic Sciences, 2022-2026

Current plans under revision. 

• Courts, 2020-2024
• Corrections, 2018-2023
• Law Enforcement Advancing Data and Science (LEADS) Initiative, 2018-2023
• Policing, 2017-2022

Expired plans:

• Safety, Health, and Wellness, 2016-2021 ​
• Strategic Research Plan for the Sentinel Events Initiative, 2017-2021  

NIJ is revising all current strategic research plans. Links to plans under revision have been removed. 

• Skip to content  (access key: 1)
• Skip to Search  (access key: 2)

Institutes, schools, other departments, and programs create their own web content and menus.

To help you better navigate the site, see here where you are at the moment.

Onward Toward the Future: The JKU Unveils its 2030 Strategic Development Plan

As part of its new strategic development plan, the Johannes Kepler University Linz has defined its strategic objectives up to 2030.

Drafted by the Rectorate in cooperation with the other governing bodies, the plan provides the basis for upcoming negotiations regarding the 2025-2027 performance agreement.

JKU Rector Stefan Koch explains: "Our enormous range of subject areas and disciplines means we can break new ground and offer a variety of opportunities to pursue future-oriented educational programs and research, particularly as part of our university-wide focus on digital transformation and sustainable development."

Strategic Flagship Projects The 2025 – 2030 JKU Strategic Development Plan essentially includes several strategic flagship projects geared toward the university's priorities as a whole:

· The Linz Institute for Transformative Change, LIFT_C for short, will serve as a new hub to promote and support interdisciplinary research relating to the bridging topic of "transformation". LIFT_C's goals and mission will be presented during a press conference at the end of February.

· The JKU's Faculty of Medicine will celebrate its 10 th anniversary and the Faculty’s success story is far from over. The "Uni-Med-Impuls 2030" program has created new opportunities in teaching and research, and boosted the number of spots in the program. The goals include supporting cross-faculty and interdisciplinary partnerships, particularly in future-oriented AI and in medicine. This includes, for example, projects that facilitate large amounts of data processing, and supporting personalized medicine, thereby contributing to the future of high-tech medicine.

· Taking advantage of years of expertise and pioneering work in the field of artificial intelligence to create an interdisciplinary competence center in support of university didactics and incorporating AI in education at the JKU.

· In support of a hands-on approach to teacher education studies, plans are in the works to create the first Austrian university school at the JKU as part of the JKU Linz School of Education.

· Building bridges between art and science is set to continue: The ongoing partnership with the University of Applied Arts Vienna will remain active, and, together with the University of Arts Linz, the JKU is planning to launch the “Linz Academy of Design”, focusing on Design Science and Design Thinking.

· As part of a large growth process, the JKU campus will become even more attractive for everyone at the university. Together with the city of Linz, plans are in the works to improve transportation connections and provide better connections between the JKU and the city center, as well as provide better connections between the main JKU campus and the inner-city JKU Medical Campus.

Positioning the JKU as an Attractive Employer As a university in a competitive job market, the JKU is also planning to focus on employer branding by 2030 and position itself even more strongly than before by presenting itself as an attractive employer, supporting its strongest resource - its employees - and providing opportunities to support work/life balance.

The JKU Goes Europe The JKU is also looking to become even more international by 2030: The JKU's recent membership to the EC 2 U alliance - the European Campus of City Universities - represents an important step towards this goal and, in the long term, is expected to result in a higher number of international students and employees.

Stepping up Scholarly Communication The strategic development plan emphasizes the JKU's "third mission" and just how important science communication is. Rector Koch added: "As a university, our responsibility to society is something we intend to actively pursue in the future. Be it through our common goal of becoming a climate-neutral university by 2030, or by means of various interactive formats - such as the Circus of Knowledge or the JKU medTALK - we intend to demonstrate just what science does and why it is so important to society."

The 2025-2030 JKU Strategic Development Plan is available at: https://www.jku.at/die-jku/ueber-uns/leitbild-strategie/

Downloads & Links

• Press release (full text, German only) , opens in new window
• Rector Stefan Koch; photo credit: Robert Maybach , opens in new window

Additional news stories you may be interested in

EC2U: The JKU Joins the Alliance to Support Research and European Values

As the world grows closer, working together to address global issues, such as climate change, and growing an international network, is becoming more important.

The EC 2 U Coordination Team Visits the JKU

The JKU becomes a member of the European University Alliance EC 2 U.

Transformation Studies. Art x Science: A Partnership between the JKU and the University of Applied Arts Vienna

Imagination, a visionary mindset, creativity, and a passion to conduct experiments: A joint program by the JKU and University of Applied Arts Vienna brings art and science together.

Johannes Kepler University Linz

Altenberger Straße 69

4040 Linz, Austria

Use of cookies

Our website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website, for analytical purposes, to provide social media features, and for targeted advertising. This it is necessary in order to pass information on to respective service providers. If you would like additional information about cookies on this website, please see our data privacy policy .

Required cookies

These cookies are required to help our website run smoothly.

Web statistics cookies

These cookies help us to continuously improve our services and adapt our website to your needs. We statistically evaluate the pseudonymized data collected from our website.

Marketing cookies

These cookies help us make our services more attractive to you as well as optimize our advertising and website content. We analyze and evaluate pseudonymised data collected from our website.

• Welcome and how to use the site
• About Tony Bates

• Strategies, planning and management
• change management
• costs and benefits
• e-learning and distant education
• Monthly Feature
• planning, policies and management - institutional
• post-secondary distance education
• Teaching and learning
• Tony's Blog

A personal history: 19. Some reflections on research into the costs and benefits of online learning

I am writing an autobiography, mainly for my family, but it does cover some key moments in the development of open and online learning. I thought I would share these as there seems to be a growing interest in the history of educational technology.

Note that these posts are NOT meant to be deeply researched historical accounts, but how I saw and encountered developments in my personal life. If you were around at the time of these developments and would like to offer comments or a different view, please use the comment box at the end of each post. (There is already a conversation track on my LinkedIn site and on X). A full list of the posts to date will be found toward the end of this post.

This post is really in two parts. The first is about the research, mainly into the costs and benefits of online learning, conducted by the Distance Education and Technology unit at UBC. The second part is a reflection on what was learned about the costs and benefits as a result of this research.

Research in online and distance education at UBC, 1996-2003

When I was still at the Open Learning Agency, I was invited to participate in a proposal for the establishment of a Canadian Telelearning Network Centre of Excellence (TL-NCE) ‘ to spearhead research in online learning applications, train students, transfer knowledge and technology, and inform practice and policy development in schools, post-secondary institutions, and workplaces .’ 

In particular, I submitted a proposal to develop a methodology to analyze the costs and benefits of ‘telelearning projects’ and was awarded a grant of $185,000 just before I left the OLA.

The total funding for the Network in 1995 was $12 million, spread over 240 public- and private-sector organizations including over 130 faculty from 30 Canadian universities. The network co-leaders were Linda Harasim and Tom Calvert and the CEO was Joanne Curry, all of Simon Fraser University. (For more on the NCE-Telelearning program, see the next post.)

I had been interested for some time in the relative costs of campus-based teaching and distance education. I had not specialised in this area as much as some of the other leaders in this field, particularly Greville Rumble at the U.K. Open University, Thomas Hülsmann at the University of Oldenburg, Germany, or Frank Jewett, at California State University, but I was aware of the literature, and as a manager of online learning programs, I wanted to understand how to accurately cost programs. I also believed that you had to look at benefits, not just costs.

My grant was in two stages, and the first stage was for $185,000 to apply a cost-benefit model to six case studies included in the NCE-Telelarning program. Part of the grant was used to hire a research fellow, Silvia Bartolic, who collected and analysed the data for most of the case studies. (Silvia went on to become Professor of Sociology at UBC). One of the UBC post-graduate certificate programs on technology-based distributed learning was one of the case studies.

Silvia and I used the standard costing methods of Rumble, Hülsmann and Jewett (they were very similar) to analyse costs, and parts of my ACTIONS model for media selection (Access, Teaching, Interaction, Novelty and Speed) to measure benefits.

In terms of costs, we looked at three variables:

• capital and recurrent costs
• production and delivery costs
• fixed and variable costs

We also looked at three types of benefits:

• performance-driven: for example, better learning outcomes
• value-driven: for example, increased student access to education.
• societal: for example, reduced traffic on campus; I provided input from the study to UBC’s 2005 Strategic Transportation Plan, which aimed to reduce car traffic to campus.

I followed up the NCE-Telelearning grant with a further grant of $220,000 from the Canadian Federal Government’s Office of Learning Technology (OLT) for a three-year study of the impact of new technologies on adult learners. I used this to hire another research fellow, Adnan Qayyum (who is now Professor of Education Innovation in the Distance Education program at Athabasca University.)

The NCE-Telearning grant was awarded when I was at OLA, but the OLT grant was awarded when I was at UBC. I had already hired Adnan when I got a memo from UBC’s Research Office. They wanted 20% of the grant as university overheads.

I was furious. The OLT program did not contribute to university overheads. Almost all the grant was needed to cover Adnan’s salary and the cost of collecting data from the sample projects. Continuing Studies covered the costs of DET’s overheads, and DET administered the grant in terms of accounting and travel costs. As far as I was concerned there were no overheads such as laboratories or equipment for UBC to cover.

I marched into UBC’s research office with Adnan. There was a heated exchange. I was adamant, and challenged the Research Officer:

‘The money has been paid to DET, and is in Continuing Studies’ accounts. I’m not handing over anything for UBC overheads.’

The Director of the Research Office said he would escalate the dispute to the next level of management, which presumably meant communication between the AVP Research and AVP Continuing Studies (Walter Uegama). I heard nothing back from either. I (and Walter) had protected my research budget but I had made another enemy.

By 2002, DET had built a substantial research program in learning technologies. In 2001-2002 alone we obtained $577,000 worth of research grants, mainly from the Office of Learning Technologies, but also from the private Donner Foundation. This enabled the establishment of the MAPLE Research Centre (Managing and Planning Learning Environments) which allowed me to hire researchers such as Tatiana Bourlova, Leah Macfadyen – who eventually went on to be Director of the MET program -and Josefina Rosado. Beth Hawkes and Mark Bullen played a major role in managing this research program.

Reflections on costing learning technologies

My experience both in researching the costs of online learning and in developing the business plan for the MET program resulted in my questioning the general principles of university budgeting, which is primarily expenditure-driven and historical. In other words in preparing annual budgets the base is the previous budget. Thus the budget is generally the same year-to-year for most departments, apart from across the board variations to take account of inflation or financial difficulties. If in one year cuts have to be made, they tend to be ‘shared’ across all the departments.

This really hampers innovation, which in general needs start-up costs and may require several years before sufficient income is generated to cover the innovation. Wise Provosts usually hold back relatively small sums in a general purpose fund to give themselves some flexibility. Innovation then tends to be driven by ‘Lone Rangers’, working on their own, or by relatively small innovation grants from the Provost’s Office. This limits scaling up or the wider adoption of innovative teaching. but the holding back of substantial funds for innovation, as the BC government did in 1995-1996, is very rare.

In British Columbia, the Ministry of Advanced Education withheld 2% of each institution’s budget for the 1995-1996 financial year, and 1% the following year. To get this money, the institutions had to put forward proposals on how they would spend this money on innovation in using technology for teaching and learning. In a number of institutions, individual faculty or departments had applied for funding, but in UBC’s case, they put in a single institutional bid and were successful. This resulted in an innovation grant of over $3 million for UBC. This had a huge impact (quite apart from helping me get my job at UBC). It helped eventually get WebCT off the ground and laid the basis for the current Centre for Teaching, Learning, and Technology, as well as a university-wide strategy for learning technologies in the late 1990s called ACCULT.

What we did to get the MET program off the ground was to use activity-based costing, tying the costs of the program to the actual revenues generated through tuition fees. The business plan calculated the break-even point for each course in terms of student numbers (in MET’s case, 42), using the same tuition fee as for on-campus students. Below this number the course would lose money but above this number it would not only cover costs but would result in a small profit per extra student beyond 42.

The key difference is that with activity-based budgeting, revenues do not go directly into general revenues and then are generally re-allocated across the university, but go specifically to running the program, with general overheads deducted. One advantage of this model is that general overheads are clearly identified and need to be justified and this puts pressure on administrative and support units to be more effective and keep down their costs. It also allows for new programming without raiding existing programs. However, it works best for new programs, and does not allow for cross-subsidies for programs that would not otherwise be self-financing.

Also, costs are not fixed like gold. Costs can be managed to a certain extent to take into account likely revenues. Less time can be allocated to course production, or adjuncts instead of full professors may be hired, for instance, but this will impact on quality, which is why benefits (or limitations) also need to be measured.

There is also a tendency to compare the costs of online learning with the costs of face-to-face classes. This is, to put it mildly, far too simplistic. In most cases they are not substitutes for one another, but complementary. They provide different benefits for different kinds of students. Thus any analysis of costs should also look at potential benefits (and drawbacks) at the same time.

This is rarely done though in the literature. In the 1990s, I used the ACTIONS model (later amended to SECTIONS) to identify benefits, but this is too narrow a framework. Environmental benefits (and costs) of online learning for instance are substantial, and we learned during Covid the value of online learning when campuses are closed for health reasons. We have also learned that excessive amounts of online learning can also be harmful for mental health, particularly for novice students.

Lastly, it is important to remember that variations within a condition are often more important than variations between conditions. Online learning can be done well, or it can be done badly; the same can be said of face-to-face teaching. Simple cost comparisons then between online learning and face-to-face teaching are not helpful. We need to look at the conditions in which each is used and that means taking account of the full context of teaching and learning. Costs are important, but tend to be badly tracked, and they must be viewed in context, and in particular costs need to be considered alongside the benefits (and limitations) of technology-based teaching. 

The NCE-Telelearning research on costs/benefits is summarized in the following published paper:

Bartolic, S. and Bates, A.W. (1999) ‘Investing in Online Learning: Potential Benefits and Limitations’ Canadian Journal of Communication Vol. 24, pp. 349-366.

Full details of the MET costing model can be found here:

Bates, A. and Sangrà, A. (2011)  Managing Technology in Higher Education  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/John Wiley, pp. 162-179

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

A personal history: 18. developing the first online programs at ubc – and in mexico, a personal history: 17. innovation in distance education at ubc, a personal history: 16. nafta, videoconferencing, and getting lost in texas, a personal history: 15. how technology changed distance education in the mid 1990s, a personal history: 14. strategic planning, nuclear weapons, and the ola, a personal history: 13. ola and international distance education, 1990-1993, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

A personal history: 18. Developing the first online programs at UBC...

WN0SDWK0008E4

Global cathode and precursor market strategic planning outlook - Q1 2024

Get this report

You can pay by card or invoice

Submit your details to receive further information about this report.

• Submit Category

For details on how your data is used and stored, see our  Privacy Notice .

- FAQs about online orders - Find out more about subscriptions

Report summary

Our Q1 2024 strategic planning outlook offers the latest global cathode and precursor market view. We cover supply, demand, and pricing. Giving you insight into how this market will evolve and who will benefit in the long term. We review the drivers that will see growth accelerate and the areas that will provide opportunities.

Table of contents

• No table of contents specified

Tables and charts

No table or charts specified

What's included

This report contains:

Global Cathode And Precursor Market Strategic Planning Outlook Q1 2024.pdf

PDF 545.06 KB

Other reports you may be interested in

Global bulk steel alloys strategic planning outlook - q1 2024.

The latest bulk steel alloys strategic planning outlook forecasts global supply, demand and prices for chromium, manganese and silicon.

Global copper strategic planning outlook - Q1 2024

New mines and higher scrap use will be needed to satisfy copper’s energy transition demand requirements.

Global graphite market strategic planning outlook - Q1 2024

Global graphite market strategic planning outlook - Q1 2024 provides an outlook to 2050, covering future supply, demand and price trends.

Browse reports by Industry Sector

Power and renewables

Metals markets

Metals costs

Macroeconomics, risk and global trends

Upstream oil and gas

Oil and gas markets

Downstream oil refining

An official website of the United States government Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

The National Travel and Tourism Infrastructure Strategic Plan