RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT, DREXEL UNIVERSITY

Led user-centered design and collaborated on departmental development for Research Development, employing UX methods through landscape and user research, journey maps, user flows, prototyping, iterative stakeholder testing, and feedback to transform Drexel's research landscape.

Timeline: 18 months

Project Scope: Building infrastructure and services to advance strategic research initiatives university-wide.

Team: Associate Vice provost (lead strategist and supervisor), Research Intelligence Analyst, Events and Networking Manager (strategist), Design Manager - UX Strategist & Communications lead (me) 

Tools: Qualtrics, SharePoint, Teams, Figma, MS Planner, Copilot, Excel, Sitecore

Project Overview

Drexel University, an R1 research institution, cultivates cutting-edge research across multiple disciplines. As the inaugural research development team, we were brought on to establish and launch entirely new departmental processes to expand the research enterprise. Working with a logic model framework that outlined our five year plan and aligned with Drexel’s 2030 strategy, we applied a tailored, user-centered approach focusing on guiding STEM faculty toward securing center-level federal funding, maximizing Drexel's research impact.

 

Problem Statement

Prior to 2022, Drexel's critical research resources were scattered across individual colleges, departments, and administrative offices, creating a fragmented system where faculty had to navigate multiple disconnected networks to access support for obtaining complex, multi-million dollar grants.

Goals

By applying user research, focus groups, and iterative testing to our business development model, we aimed to scale up research development efforts to position faculty for success in securing center-level grants by providing them with the tools, resources, and support needed. This included fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, streamlining communication, and building trust with the research community.

 

Results

Our efforts ultimately enhanced workflows and positioned Drexel to become a leader in research innovation.

Increased engagement: Faculty engagement in interdisciplinary collaborations rose significantly, with a notable increase in participation in center-level grant initiatives.

Streamlined workflows: The implementation of user-centered tools and processes reduced inefficiencies in grant proposal development, cutting preparation time by 30%.

Faculty satisfaction and adoption: Feedback from faculty highlighted improved access to resources and support, with many expressing greater trust in institutional research development efforts. This shift reflects a university-wide adoption of our methodologies, uniting research faculty under a more cohesive and effective approach to pursuing funding opportunities.

Enhanced proposals and presentation: Design methodology was established to enhance proposal submissions with improved narrative storytelling strategy, graphics, and document curation boosting their competitiveness.

Institutional transformation: These efforts redefined how the institution approached research development, fostering a cultural shift within the research community. Faculty are now more aware of funding opportunities and better equipped to pursue them, positioning Drexel to secure significantly more center-level funding in the future.

Process

 

Primary Users

 
 

Mid-career research faculty

Research teams pursuing center level grants in STEM research fields.

 
 
 

Secondary Users

 
 

Drexel’s Greater Research Community

 
 

All Other Drexel research faculty

 
 

EMPATHIZE

 
 

Getting to Know the Research Development Landscape

 

External Research 

We built a  knowledge base of the research development and federal funding landscape to discern best practices.

  • Built an extensive network through conferences, professional organizations, and peer institutions to hone in on successful research development practices

  • Attended industry conferences and webinars to identify emerging trends in research development and establish Drexel's presence in the field

  • Consulted with federal funding experts to understand evolving center-level grant requirements and expectations

  • Spoke with designers working in research settings to inform the creation of specialized design services

  • Interviewed program managers who previously managed large-scale center proposals to understand submission pain points

 

Internal Discovery

To create a user-centered foundation and ensure the department catered to the unique needs of Drexel's research faculty, the team employed a mixed-method research approach.
 

Surveys, Focus Groups, 1:1 Interviews

 

Users and Method

Met with groups of targeted users including Drexel research faculty, deans of research, deans of colleges and schools, and research staff.

Based surveys, focus groups, and interview questions on the existing logic model strategy.

  • By gathering internal insight, our external research could be strategically applied to and tailored to fit the Drexel research community.

  • These methodologies collectively provided a comprehensive understanding of the user base and their pain points.

 
 
 

DEFINE

 

Research Key Findings  

The data collected from our research illuminated several critical issues and opportunities within the academic research environment.
 

  • Many users lacked familiarity with early-phase center-level funding, resulting in missed opportunities

  • No cohesive network made accessing critical information challenging

  • Pre-pandemic community engagement was stronger due to in-person interaction resulting in growing disconnection

  • Fragmented communication across departments, with inconsistent virtual tool usage

  • Limited opportunities for faculty connection and relationship-building

 
 

IDEATE

 
 
The team took time to formulate their ideas and then came together in a series of retreats to ideate and map possible solutions, strategically integrating them into the logic model framework. We generated solutions in the following areas:

  • Ideated activities to respond to pain points identified through data synthesis.

  • Adjusted products and resources that would result from identified activities.

  • Data informed desired outcomes for one, three, and five years as the department matured.

 

This logic model visually represents our process, it was simplified to protect proprietary information and does not fully represent the original logic model document.

 

PROTOTYPE

 
After integrating potential pain point solutions to the logic model, We took prototyping steps to ready solutions for testing.

RD Lifecycle

Finding the Flow 

To map the RD process tailored to Drexel faculty needs, we created a flow chart.

Addressing pain points around faculty isolation and fragmented center-level funding development, we developed a structured workflow to bridge these gaps. The RD process creates clear connection points between relevant parties and identifies collaborative opportunities, while integrating strategic planning and early relationship building to position faculty for developing more competitive center-level proposals through targeted funding wins.

We presented our workflow to stakeholders to communicate our progress and determine research teams who would most benefit from early testing of the process.

  • Research Development faculty support structure. Researchers are empowered to take action and given agency to succeed in funding their research.

  • Establish an adaptable, iterative pathway for transforming promising research initiatives into successful large-scale funded centers. Each funding cycle builds upon previous experiences, strengthening institutional partnerships and research capabilities, while strategically positioning faculty for increasingly competitive center-level opportunities through targeted team coordination and resource optimization.

 
 

Communication Platforms

Translating the RD lifecycle into a digestible flow for digital platforms.

Self-Service Portal

The team developed a self-service portal that streamlined access to Research Development resources and empower Drexel faculty with tools for competitive proposal development.

The Self-Service Portal was built using Sharepoint Communications Site as a platform.

 

  • The portal guides researchers through each stage of funding development, centralizing essential resources that were previously scattered across multiple locations.

  • The self-service portal, in particular, became a living platform that evolved throughout our implementation phase. Each iteration incorporated user feedback to improve organization, accessibility, and content relevance, demonstrating our commitment to responsive, user-centered service delivery.

 

Site Map

 

Self-Service Portal, Site Architecture

 

RD Website

 
Launched in January 2024, I developed and published an engaging and dynamic site to educate internal and external audiences about Research Development activities at Drexel

Sitecore Gold
RD created the first original Drexel administrations site to be built with Sitecore Gold.

 

    • Showcase critical processes

    • Communicate how our team fosters interdisciplinary collaboration

    • Demonstrates how RD positions Drexel faculty for success in sponsored research.

  • Engage internal and external audiences and educate them about Drexel Research Development activities and resources.

 

Site Map

 

Research Development Website, Site Map

 

Website Home Page

 
 
 

IMPLEMENT & TEST

 

Lifecycle Implementation

To ensure the effectiveness of our services, we initiated a soft launch with four internal, award-winning research teams. This pilot phase was designed to test our processes and adapt them to meet the distinct needs of Drexel’s research faculty.
 
 

  • During this initial phase, we conducted quarterly check-ins, created tailored action plans, supported events, provided researcher education, and connected teams to best practices for collaborations between researchers and industry partners. These programs were supplemented with action plan visuals and continuous testing through surveys and focus groups.

 

Iteration: Defining Where Research Teams Fall on the RD Lifecycle

The RD Lifecycle diagram shown above served as our implementation roadmap. During testing, we discovered that our four pilot teams entered the process at different points. Rather than forcing all teams through the same linear process, we adjusted our implementation to meet each team where they were.

 
 

Communication Platform Usability Testing

Surveys

We utilized surveys to gather feedback on our new self-service tools and website enhancements. Survey results were instrumental in refining the agenda for subsequent focus groups, allowing for more targeted and productive discussions.

Focus Groups

From the pool of internal survey participants, users self-selected their level of involvement, resulting in the formation of an ongoing 18-person working group comprised of Associate Deans for Research (ADRs), Research Faculty, and administrators engaged in research. These focus groups not only allowed for a deeper assessment of our initiatives but also became an ongoing collaboration tool.

 

  • What began as a practical method to evaluate and refine our services evolved into a valuable communication bridge, fostering interdisciplinary connections across schools. These groups provided faculty with a space to re-assess their current research stages, share their progress, and collaboratively plan future initiatives.

 

Iteration: Consistent Branding on Communication Platforms

Consistent Language in Navigation

After several iterations and feedback from the focus groups, we decided on consistent navigation language for all digital platforms to boil down the research development lifecycle, guiding users through the process:
 
 

Color System and Logo

We recognized that consistent branding across all touch points was essential to building recognition and trust with faculty. We developed a cohesive visual identity and communication style that was applied to:

  • The self-service portal, which underwent continuous updates based on user feedback

  • The Research Development website

  • All digital and print materials for events and workshops

  • Action plan documents and visualizations

  • Email communications and newsletters

 
 
 
 
 

Lessons Learned

Over two years, we continued honing this process to align with Drexel’s faculty and institutional research needs. With experience, faculty were able to engage more intuitively, reducing the need for granular training while maintaining up-to-date resources for newcomers. Key lessons learned include:
 

  • Faculty arrived at different stages of the Research Development Lifecycle. By tailoring our processes to their specific needs, teams made significant progress in building interdisciplinary collaborations, connecting students with research opportunities, and strengthening Drexel’s reputation in areas like Advanced Materials, Manufacturing, AI, and Cybersecurity.

  • What began as initial focus groups transformed into long-term working groups. These sessions bridged communication gaps across schools, resulting in enhanced collaboration and better alignment of resources.

  • Initially, we anticipated that more processes could be automated. However, experience showed that a hands-on approach was more effective and time-efficient for fostering meaningful relationships and addressing nuanced needs. However, given new AI tools emerging, it would be beneficial to revisit this option.

 

Major Milestones