Embedded Files
When strong funding programs do not yet add up to an understanding of portfolio-level impact
Many research funding organisations already have:
organisational strategy
established funding programs
program-level impact pathways
data and metrics
isolated examples of impact of supported research.
But these components may have been developed separately across programs, teams or funding cycles.
As a result:
funding programs may use different definitions of impact
intended impacts may be expressed in different ways
data and metrics may be difficult to compare or synthesise
portfolio reporting may focus on grants awarded, funds invested, publications or other outputs
boards and executives may receive information about individual programs but not the collective value of the portfolio
it may be difficult to identify gaps, overlap, strengths or strategic opportunities across funding programs.
The Funding to Impact Portfolio Build creates a practical portfolio-level impact system
It connects, across funding programs within the portfolio:
funding purpose
contribution to organisational strategy
impact themes
program-level impact pathways
data and metrics
To allow portfolio reporting and impact communication, strategic learning and investment decisions.
The goal is not to make every funding program the same. It is to create enough shared structure to understand how different programs make complementary contributions to the organisation’s broader priorities.
At a glance
The standard Portfolio Build includes:
one research funding portfolio
portfolio-level diagnostic and alignment review
data and metics inventory
facilitated stakeholder workshops
Portfolio Impact Charter
Portfolio Impact Architecture
Program-to-Portfolio Contribution Matrix
Portfolio Evidence Framework
Portfolio Impact Brief Template
Implementation Roadmap
What the Portfolio Build enables
It enables:
a clear account of the collective value of the funding portfolio
stronger alignment between investment and organisational strategy
consistent language for impact across funding programs
clearer understanding of how different programs make complementary contributions
better use of existing data and evaluation findings
identification of portfolio gaps, overlap and strategic opportunities
reduced duplication and unnecessary reporting burden
more credible communication with boards, government, donors and other stakeholders
improved cross-program learning
All without automatically requiring:
identical metrics across all funding programs
one standard impact pathway for every program
a new technology platform
another standalone impact framework
additional layers of reporting
Who the Portfolio Build is for
The Funding to Impact Portfolio Build is designed for:
national and international research funding organisations
government research funding agencies and departments
philanthropic funders with research portfolios
disease-specific research charities
research organisations managing multiple internal funding schemes
mission-driven funders supporting research, translation, capability or system change.
It is particularly useful when:
individual funding programs are performing well, but their collective contribution is difficult to explain
impact frameworks or evaluation approaches differ across programs
boards, executives, government or donors are asking what difference the full funding portfolio is making
current reporting relies heavily on expenditure, grant numbers, publications and other outputs
there is no consistent language for impact across the portfolio
data is being collected but cannot easily be compared or synthesised
the organisation is developing a new strategy or reviewing its investment portfolio
leaders need clearer evidence to guide future funding allocation
What you will receive
Portfolio Impact Charter, a shared statement establishing why the funding portfolio exists, who or what is expected to benefit, how the portfolio contributes to organisational strategy.
Portfolio Impact Architecture, a shared structure connecting the organisation’s strategic priorities to portfolio-level impact themes.
Program-to-Portfolio Contribution Matrix, a map showing how each funding program contributes to the portfolio’s strategic priorities and shared impact themes.
Portfolio Evidence Framework, a framework connecting portfolio impact pathways and themes to the data and metrics needed to assess progress and contribution.
Portfolio Impact Brief Template that shows how the new architecture can be used in practice and may include portfolio purpose and strategic contribution, progress across shared impact themes, key learnings, evidence gaps and implications for future investment.
Implementation Roadmap, a prioritised roadmap setting out immediate actions, longer-term improvements, responsibilities and ownership, reporting and synthesis cycles, required changes to templates or processes, staff or grantee capability requirements, 90-day priorities.
How it works
Phase 1: Define and diagnose the portfolio
We begin with:
your Funding to Impact Diagnostic result
a scoping conversation with the executive sponsor and portfolio lead
a rapid review of relevant documents
a structured inventory of programs within the portfolio.
Phase 2: Align portfolio purpose and shared impact themes
We facilitate structured workshops with executives, strategy, evaluation, impact and program stakeholders where we clarify:
the portfolio’s purpose and its relationship to organisational strategy
shared impact themes and impact pathways
citical assumptions and contextual influences
Phase 3: Map program contributions
Each funding program is mapped against the shared portfolio impact themes and strategic priorities. We examine:
what each program is designed to enable
where contributions overlap
where programs are complementary
whether any programs lack a clear strategic connection
whether the overall balance of investment reflects organisational priorities.
Phase 4: Align data and metrics
We review the data and metrics currently collected across programs and assess alignment with impact pathways. This includes identifying:
data and metrics that can be meaningfully aggregated
evidence that could be synthesised thematically
duplication and underused data and important gaps
Phase 5: Build the data collection and synthesis model
We develop a practical process for turning program evidence into portfolio-level insight. This may include for example:
a consistent reporting structure for program teams
a consistent approach to data collection, where feasible and appropriate
rules for quantitative aggregation
portfolio reporting cycles
a structure for board and executive reporting.
Phase 6: Validate and hand over
We facilitate a final validation and handover process with key stakeholders. This is used to:
test the usability of the architecture
resolve outstanding decisions
prioritise implementation actions
identify where further capability or system development is required.
What's not included in the Portfolio Build
Unless separately agreed, the Portfolio Build does not include:
a formal evaluation of funding programs
primary data collection from researchers, partners or beneficiaries
data analysis
economic evaluation or return-on-investment analysis
software or dashboard development
redevelopment of every program document
implementation of every roadmap recommendation
Availability of implementation support
The Portfolio Build provides the shared structure, tools, prototype and roadmap needed to strengthen portfolio-level impact design and reporting.
Quality for Outcomes can also provide separately scoped implementation support to help your organisation:
revise program or grant reporting requirements
develop shared reporting templates
update funding guidelines and application questions
embed portfolio impacts into assessment processes
establish minimum shared evidence requirements
develop staff or grantee guidance
build an annual portfolio synthesis process
develop specifications for dashboards or data systems
produce an annual portfolio impact report
facilitate portfolio learning and investment reviews
A fixed 90-Day Portfolio Implementation Support package can be included in the proposal where appropriate.
Implementation support is not included in the initial Portfolio Build investment unless explicitly specified.
What it costs
What it costs
Indicative investment for the Funding to Impact Portfolio Build™ is from AUD $45,000.
The standard starting scope includes:
one funding portfolio
up to six funding programs
review of up to 20 documents
up to four facilitated workshops
the core Portfolio Build outputs
one consolidated review round.
The final investment depends on:
the number of programs
portfolio diversity and complexity
the number of stakeholder groups
volume and quality of existing evidence
number of workshops
additional operational ouputs
Following the initial discussion, Quality for Outcomes provides a tailored proposal confirming scope, deliverables, responsibilities, timeframe and investment.
Sprint, Program Build or Portfolio Build?
Choose the Sprint when:
there is one relatively clear issue
the work relates to one part of the funding-to-impact system
your team can implement the resulting actions
you need a focused decision and roadmap.
Explore the Funding to Impact Sprint
Choose the Program Build when:
several components are disconnected
stakeholders do not share a consistent understanding of the program
purpose, strategy, pathway, data and metrics and narrative all require alignment
you want a complete model that can later be applied to other programs.
Explore the Funding to Impact Program Build
Choose the Portfolio Build when:
you need to connect multiple funding programs
program-level frameworks or evidence already exist but do not combine into a clear portfolio view
programs use inconsistent language, measures or reporting structures
leaders need to understand collective contribution, gaps and strategic opportunities
the organisation needs a portfolio-level narrative for boards, government or donors
portfolio insight is needed to guide future investment.
Where program-level foundations are need attention, the Portfolio Build may include a preliminary Program Build or a phased approach for selected priority programs.
These options are designed to work for most research funding organisations. If your priorities or context require something different, contact us and we can tailor an approach that best meets your needs.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse