This post was written by Science Practice and Toni Brasting at Wellcome.

Hands pointing at medicinal tablets

Last year, Wellcome’s Public Engagement, Population Health, and Epidemics teams worked with Science Practice to establish a first-of-its-kind lab for investigating the impact of public engagement on clinical trial research outcomes.

Public engagement has great potential to support better research outcomes on clinical trials – for instance, by improving recruitment and retention, or by mitigating ethical and operational risks. However, its benefits are not being experienced as consistently, meaningfully, or widely as they could be because public engagement is not yet seen as essential for conducting clinical trials.

While there are ethical arguments for it, there may also be a case for requiring public engagement on clinical trials based on its instrumental contributions. From speaking with researchers about their experiences, Wellcome learned that public engagement can support a trial’s overall success by improving how it works with people. For example, some research centres work with community advisors or use public engagement to support informed consent. However, for the most part, funders like Wellcome as well as publishers, regulators, and researchers themselves lack formal evidence on whether and how public engagement impacts research outcomes.

Wellcome wanted the Clinical Trials Engagement Lab to respond to this evidence gap, and partnered with Science Practice to help imagine what the lab could look like, find researchers who could build on this vision and lead it, and develop an application and review process to help a funding committee select between several possible leadership candidates.

Given that launching a lab was a much more specific ‘ask’ than those posed by Wellcome’s existing grant funding opportunities, we realised that setting it up would require a different approach. We needed to invite grantees in to understand the very nature of the opportunity – and to work alongside us to figure out the right response. In the interest of sharing what worked, here are five practices for more open, collaborative grant-making that we’re taking away from this project.

1. Recruit instead of issuing an open call

Rather than posting a request for proposals on an existing platform, we took a directed approach to connecting with potential grant applicants. Open calls put the ‘reach-out’ responsibility on applicants, leaving them to judge for themselves whether or not they fit the grantee profile, if they even learn of the opportunity in the first place. But when funders instead take a recruitment-led approach, they assume responsibility for identifying potential grantees and promoting the funding opportunity. Opting to recruit saved us time. It helped us widen the pool of qualified applicants beyond those we’d expect to hear from if we posted an open call, and headed off the possibility that too few would come forward – a risk given the specificity of our expectations. It also gave us a chance to iteratively tailor our search criteria to identify a more diverse range of individuals and teams, and to allow the profile of an ideal candidate to emerge over time through conversations between Wellcome and the grant candidates. Long before it was time to make a funding decision, working like this helped set the tone for the more open funder-grantee relationship needed to enable applicants to propose their own vision for the lab.

2. Engage applicants in strategy, not just the application process

Some grant opportunities leave it up to researchers to specify a project focus and methodology. In this case, to align with Wellcome’s wider strategy, we defined the ambition in advance – set up a lab to help fill an identified evidence gap – but were actively seeking researchers’ suggestions for how this should be achieved. With this request, we needed to put in extra time and effort to ensure we successfully communicated our vision to applicants so that they could confidently propose suitable approaches. Going beyond a typical application onboarding process, we guided them through a lengthier, more in-depth alignment phase. We gave applicants full transparency over what motivated this work and what Wellcome was looking for by sharing a theory of change, detailed description of the problem and opportunity, and potential forms the lab could take. On calls with each grant applicant, we were clear about what thinking had been done to shape the vision for the lab, and what needed further development, refinement, and leadership from them. Briefing applicants in this way helped position them as collaborators – a role they needed in order to take on Wellcome’s initial vision, develop it, and suggest how to deliver it. During the initial expression of interest phase and later, during the formal application process, we regularly checked in with applicants to offer clarification, reviews, and feedback on their initial ideas to ensure they aligned with the funder’s goals. We also shared and invited continuous contributions to an open Q&A document collecting questions from all potential grantees. This helped to avoid one group having access to information others didn’t, and ensured helpful strategic insights were shared across the applicant cohort. This approach fostered ongoing dialogue between funder and researchers, balancing Wellcome’s vision with the applicants’ own ideas.

3. Warm up with pitches before proposals

It’s not so unusual anymore, but we held an initial ‘pitching’ round before asking for longer, more involved full-length proposals. Sometimes, funders open calls for expressions of interest to fulfill a similar purpose. In this case, asking for short and pithy pitches gave us an opportunity to invite more groups to apply because we felt comfortable asking them for a relatively small investment of time and effort, and also confident in our reviewers’ corresponding capacity. Importantly, the pitching step also offered applicants a chance to get to know Wellcome as a funder – its funding requirements, and the ambition for this funding opportunity – so that they could decide if they were interested in the prospect of working more closely with Wellcome, and therefore whether they wanted to develop their thinking into a longer proposal. We chose the pitch format to emphasise that Wellcome didn’t have preconceptions for the proposals it was looking for, but was instead on the lookout for original ideas drawing on researchers’ expertise. The format for this pitch was intentionally left open so applicants could build on their conversations with us and readily express their key thoughts however made sense to them.

4. Offer applicants visibility of each other and the opportunity to connect

Holding a pitching round also gave us an opportunity to preview candidates and invite the most promising ones to the full proposal stage. With this increased visibility over the different approaches applicants were working on, we noticed complementarity between some of the teams and ideas, and saw potential for partnership between them. To pass this opportunity on to the applicants, we gave each team a chance to ‘opt in’ to share their contact information with the others. Some applicant teams took this as a chance to make themselves known to the others while using this information to further refine and differentiate their proposals.

5. Balance funder oversight and grantee autonomy with grants that work like contracts

While it was Wellcome who initially came up with the idea to start a Clinical Trials Engagement Lab, they were very keen for applicants to bring their own vision and approach to leading it. At the same time, they wanted to retain visibility over the lab’s progress because even emergent findings could inform Wellcome’s ongoing conversations around public engagement policies and practices in funding and publishing circles. To support Wellcome’s leadership and influence in both public engagement and clinical trials research, the evidence and insights would need to be of sufficient quality and relevance to unlock further action. Given this interest, Wellcome wanted more visibility over preliminary insights and interim results and more opportunities to interact with the lab’s experts than a traditional grant-making relationship might provide. They were considering funding this work through a contracting process, but this arrangement would have been unusual for the applicants, most of whom were situated within research institutions where grants are the norm. Instead, they chose a third alternative: the milestone grant. Milestone grants are awarded as grants but work somewhat like contracts in that funding is attached to different milestones that the funder and grantee agree upon ahead of time. This option gives funders built-in opportunities for collaborative involvement and visibility over preliminary findings, while giving grantees more autonomy within the set milestone periods.

In situations like this, when a funder has identified a problem and developed a vision of addressing it, reaching out to experts who can figure out how to go about this can be daunting. There may be uncertainties about who to approach, how to reach them, what to communicate, and how to share control over the vision and its delivery. Adopting funding practices like the ones we’ve highlighted above can help by shifting the power dynamic between funder and grantees toward something more open, collaborative, and aligned.

To the funders out there: Have you applied any of these practices in your own work? Reach out to share your experience – we’d love to hear about it.

Join our Good Problems Team to help us design a more inclusive, transparent, and strategic funding sector.

  • Permanent (3-month probation)
  • Full time (40 hours per week)
  • £35k - £42k
  • Family-friendly and flexible working arrangements
  • Location: London, Old Street (we are open to other arrangements; as a result of COVID-19, the team is currently working remotely for the foreseeable future)

To apply, please submit your details via this form. The deadline for applications is 9am on Tuesday, 8 September 2020. We will review applications on a rolling basis.

About us

Our Good Problems Team at Science Practice works with science and innovation funders to design effective programmes to tackle important problems. We have designed over 40 innovation programmes, including challenge prizes – such as the £10M Longitude Prize – and innovation funding calls around problems in healthcare, food and water sustainability, transportation, and humanitarian aid. Our clients include Wellcome Trust, the Humanitarian Innovation Fund, and Nesta.

Our ambition is to improve the philanthropic sector by supporting funders to make more inclusive, collaborative, and evidence-based funding decisions to tackle the problems that matter most.

We are a dedicated team of four with skills ranging across information and interaction design, research, innovation, strategy, social entrepreneurship, and programming.

Right now, we’re scoping opportunities for public engagement in health research, designing sandpits around nutrition and diets, and designing an upcoming innovation challenge for the humanitarian sector.

The role

We are looking for someone to join our team and help us design impactful, problem-led funding programmes.

As a programme designer, you will be working on client-facing projects in a small team of two or three, or will lead projects with support from the wider team.

You will have an opportunity to work across diverse domains; at the moment, we are focusing on a range of healthcare topics (eg, vaccines, mental health, nutrition) and humanitarian challenges (eg, sanitation, sexual and reproductive health).

We are looking for someone available to start in early September 2020.

The role will include the following activities:

  • Conducting desk research and interviews with diverse stakeholders to better understand specific problems.
  • Synthesising research insights into compelling and engaging materials for senior decision-makers.
  • Helping funders prioritise problems they are best placed to address (alone or in collaboration with others).
  • Developing strategic recommendations for funders on how to respond to identified/prioritised problems or gaps.
  • Designing innovative funding programmes to address identified/prioritised problems. Testing proposed programmes through interviews and workshops.
  • Designing and facilitating workshops to gather feedback on priority problems or programme designs.

We’re looking for someone who:

  • Has strong research skills and enjoys exploring new topics through a range of research methods including desk research and interviewing diverse actors such as scientists, policy-makers, people with lived experience, industry representatives, and civil society.
  • Has experience designing funding programmes or programmes to incentivise innovations (eg, funding calls, prizes, competitions, accelerators).
  • Is interested in the philanthropic sector and motivated by improving how funding decisions are made and resources allocated.
  • Is naturally curious and interested in making connections between ideas, practices, and people from across different fields.
  • Writes well and communicates complex subject matter in simple, engaging language.
  • Is comfortable with scientific subject matter (in particular, health research).
  • Can rapidly gain an understanding of new topics in unfamiliar domains and make judgements based on complex evidence.
  • Is excited about engaging with domain experts, other organisations and the general public through talks, workshops, events, and social media.

We are keen to hear from a range of applicants, not just those with explicit programme design experience. We are particularly interested in researchers or service designers interested in applying their skills to the development of impactful and evidence-led funding programmes.

We are a small but committed team. To help us evolve our practice and achieve our ambitions, we are looking for a new team member who will challenge us, build alongside us, and play an active role in shaping our ideas, practices, and approaches.

Right to work

In order to apply for this job, you should have the right to work in the UK.

How we work

Our approach to working is open, agile, and iterative. This means that you will work closely with the team and clients to understand the challenges they face, develop programmes, and iterate on these based on ongoing conversations and feedback.

We have weekly team catch-ups on Mondays to plan the week and on Fridays to reflect, as well as daily stand-ups to check in with the team and plan the day. We also run a weekly Journal Club to delve deeper into topics that shape our practice.

Every quarter, we have team and individual reviews to reflect on what went well, what we can improve on and how we’re achieving our strategic ambitions as a team.

We aim to keep our work setup lean and simple. We use Slack, G Suite, and Airtable.

What we are offering

  • A competitive salary and matched pension contributions.
  • Family-friendly and flexible working arrangements.
  • The opportunity to grow your skills and professional interests as part of a curious, supportive, and dedicated team.
  • All our activities are currently online because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Before all this, we would say in this final point something about our lovely London studio filled with cheese plants, snacks, and colleagues from our sister company Ctrl Group who develop digital health products. While we are unable to offer this space at the moment, we look forward to introducing our cheese plants to new faces as soon as it will be safe to do so. 🌱

How to apply

We value diversity at our company. This is core to our work as developing a robust understanding of problems requires a diversity of thought, experience, and perspectives. We welcome applications from people of all backgrounds and ages.

To apply, please submit your details via this form. The deadline for applications is 9am on Tuesday, 8 September 2020. We will review applications on a rolling basis.

We look forward to hearing from you! 🙌

No agencies, please.

Join our Good Problems Team to explore ways of making health research more open and inclusive through public engagement. 🧬

  • 3–6 month contract, with the possibility to join the team permanently
  • £28k – £40k pro rata
  • Family-friendly and flexible working arrangements
  • Great workspace, 5-minute walk from Old Street Underground

About us

Our Good Problems Team at Science Practice works with science and innovation funders to identify pressing global challenges and design programmes to act on them. We have designed over 40 innovation programmes including the £10M Longitude Prize and our clients include Wellcome, the Humanitarian Innovation Fund and Nesta.

We are a dedicated team of five with skills ranging from design and research to social entrepreneurship, development studies, programming, and radio. Our ambition is to maximise the impact of existing resources by helping funders make informed and transparent strategic decisions.

We work across a diverse range of domains including mental health, vaccines, urban transport, nutrition, sanitation and gender-based violence. Right now, we’re scoping opportunities for public engagement in biomedical and health science, designing sandpits around nutrition and diets, and designing a series of innovation challenges for the humanitarian sector.

The role

We are looking for someone with varied research experience to support us with the design of innovation funding programmes in the public engagement and health research space. On a recent similar project, we helped Wellcome’s Public Engagement team define public engagement funding priorities and develop programmes to tackle these.

This area interests us because we strongly believe that the direction health research takes should reflect the diverse needs, interests, and questions of the public who stand to benefit from it. All communities should be equally able to engage with, make use of, and further advocate for health research. That is why we are actively working with funders interested in ensuring that the resources invested in health research achieve their maximum potential.

For this role, we are open to interviewing both early-career and experienced researchers with a range of research experience including, but not limited to, exploratory research, action research, policy-oriented research, or human-centred research.

We are looking for someone available to start in early March 2020.

The role will involve:

  • Conducting desk research and interviews with various stakeholders to better understand how public engagement can add value to health research.
  • Synthesising research insights into compelling and engaging materials for senior decision-makers.
  • Developing strategic recommendations for funders on how to respond to identified problems or gaps.
  • Designing innovative funding programmes to improve public engagement with science and particularly health research. Testing proposed programmes through interviews and workshops.
  • Facilitating workshops to gather feedback on priority problems or programme designs.

We’re looking for someone who:

  • Has excellent research skills and enjoys exploring new topics through a range of research methods including desk research and interviewing a wide variety of actors such as scientists, policy-makers, industry representatives, and civil society.
  • Has a good understanding of public engagement as well as the challenges associated with its inclusion in health research (this understanding can be gained through either academic and/or work experience).
  • Writes well and communicates complex subject matter in simple, engaging language.
  • Is comfortable with scientific subject matter (in particular, health research) and is familiar with the process of conducting scientific research.
  • Can rapidly gain an understanding of new topics in unfamiliar domains and make judgements based on complex evidence.
  • Is passionate about making health research more open and accessible to diverse communities.
  • Is excited about engaging with domain experts, aligned organisations, and the general public through talks, workshops, events and social media.

Optional

  • Is familiar with or has experience of working in the innovation funding sector.

Right to work

In order to apply for this job, you should have the right to work in the UK.

What we are offering

  • A competitive salary and matched pension contributions.
  • Family-friendly and flexible working arrangements.
  • The opportunity to grow your skills and professional interests as part of a curious, supportive, and dedicated team.
  • Weekly team catch-ups on Mondays to plan the week and on Fridays to reflect.
  • Quarterly sessions to set team and personal goals.
  • A smooth work setup built on Slack, Google Drive and Airtable.
  • We share our studio with our sister company, Ctrl Group, who develop digital health products and Eclipse Experience, a human-centred design agency. We often run show’n’tells to share our work.
  • A desk full of Swiss Cheese plants and a cupboard full of snacks. 🍏

How to apply

We value diversity at our company. This is core to our work as developing a robust understanding of problems requires a diversity of thought, experience and perspectives. We welcome applications from people of all backgrounds and ages.

To apply, please submit your details via this form.

The deadline for applications is 10am on Monday, 2 March 2020.

We will be in touch to arrange a convenient time for an interview by Tuesday, 3 March 2020.

We will start interviewing eligible applicants the w/c 2 March 2020.

We look forward to hearing from you! 🙌

No agencies, please.

Join our Good Problems Team to identify pressing global problems and design impactful funding programmes to solve them. 🌏

  • 3-6 month contract, with the possibility to extend
  • £28k - £40k pro rata
  • Family-friendly and flexible working arrangements
  • Great workspace, 5 minutes walk from Old Street Underground

About us

Our Good Problems Team at Science Practice works with science and innovation funders to identify pressing global challenges and design programmes to act on them. We have designed over 40 innovation programmes including the £10M Longitude Prize and our clients include Wellcome, the Humanitarian Innovation Fund and Nesta.

We are a dedicated team of four with skills ranging from design and research to social entrepreneurship, programming and radio. Our ambition is to maximise the impact of existing resources by helping funders make informed and transparent strategic decisions.

We work across a diverse range of domains, from mental health and urban transport to nutrition and gender-based violence (GBV). Right now, we’re scoping opportunities for public engagement in biomedical and health science and designing a series of innovation challenges for the humanitarian water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) sector.

The role

We are looking for someone with diverse research experience to support us with the development and design of innovation funding programmes in the humanitarian space. Recent similar projects include the development of the Menstrual Hygiene Management Challenge and the WASH Evidence Challenge for the Humanitarian Innovation Fund.

We are open to interviewing both early-career and experienced researchers with a diverse range of research experience including, but not limited to, exploratory research, action research, policy-oriented research or human-centred research.

We are looking for someone available to start in January 2020.

The role will involve:

  • Conducting desk research and interviews with diverse stakeholders to better understand problems in humanitarian WASH and GBV sectors. This will involve identifying key materials on the topics, understanding the underlying causes of the problems, seeing who is impacted and to what extent, and finding out who is working on solutions and what are their limitations.
  • Synthesising research insights into compelling and engaging materials for senior decision-makers to support the prioritisation of problems.  
  • Developing strategic recommendations for funders on how to respond to the identified problems.
  • Co-designing innovation programmes (eg, funding programmes, prizes, accelerators) to address the identified problems. Testing the proposed programmes through interviews and workshops.
  • Facilitating workshops to gather feedback on priority problems or programme designs.

We’re looking for someone who:

  • Has excellent research skills and enjoys exploring new topics through a range of research methods including desk research and interviewing diverse actors such as academics, policy-makers, representatives from NGOs, industry, and civil society.
  • Writes well and communicates complex subject matter in simple, engaging language.
  • Has a good understanding of the humanitarian sector, as well as its key challenges and actors (this understanding can be gained through either academic and/or work experience).
  • Cares about pressing global problems and is motivated by the opportunity to play an active part in addressing them.
  • Can rapidly gain an understanding of new topics in unfamiliar domains and make judgements based on complex evidence.
  • Is excited about engaging with domain experts, other organisations and the general public through talks, workshops, events and social media.

Optional

  • Is familiar with or has experience of working in the innovation funding sector.

Right to work

In order to apply for this job, you should have the right to work in the UK.

What we are offering

  • A competitive salary and matched pension contributions.
  • Family-friendly and flexible working arrangements.
  • The opportunity to grow your skills and professional interests as part of a curious, supportive and dedicated team.
  • Weekly team catch-ups on Mondays to plan the week and on Fridays to reflect.
  • Quarterly sessions to set team and personal goals.
  • A smooth work setup built on Slack, Google Drive and Airtable.
  • We share our studio with our sister company, Ctrl Group, who develop digital health products and Eclipse Experience, a human-centred design agency. We often run show’n’tells to share our work.
  • A desk full of Swiss Cheese plants and a cupboard full of snacks. 🍏

How to apply

We value diversity at our company. This is core to our work as developing a robust understanding of problems requires a diversity of thought, experience and perspectives. We welcome applications from people of all backgrounds and ages.

To apply, please submit your details via this form.

The deadline for applications is 9am on Monday, 13th January 2020.

We will be in touch to arrange a convenient time for an interview by Wednesday, 15th January 2020.

We will start interviewing eligible applicants the w/c 13 January 2020.

We look forward to hearing from you! 🙌

No agencies, please.

This year, our Good Problems team explored running workshops with funders as a way of sharing our tools for identifying and prioritising problems. This gave us an opportunity to understand how funders are thinking about their role and impact, and how we can evolve the support we offer.

This post features two workshops that we think reflect the sector’s shifting orientation toward problem-led approaches: a workshop with a group of Finnish foundations on how to collaborate around problems, and another with the Centre for Ageing Better on prioritising problems.

Collaborating around problems

We often work with funders who want to know who else is working on the problems they are interested in. It helps them understand where they fit in and prevents duplication of work. But some funders are taking steps to actively collaborate with other funders around particular problems. This helps them have more impact than they could have by acting independently.

Jouni Lounasmaa, Executive Director of the KAUTE Foundation, was interested in a more collaborative approach. He wanted to hold a workshop where Finnish foundations could meet, share best practices, and explore how they could work together to tackle climate change and other pressing problems. Working with Jouni, we co-designed activities to help them share and understand the problems they were interested in, and see how they could work together to solve them.

The workshop gathered a dozen foundations, each with its own distinct history, approach to grant-making, and set of priorities. To start with, we invited them to get to know each other’s interests by forming groups and sharing problems they were currently working on or would like to work on. We then asked them to cluster the problems, select a cluster they were particularly interested in, and prototype a shared programme to address that problem.

To help them scope out the potential programmes, we asked funders to fill out a Rapid research and validation plan. They wrote down what they knew about the problem, what they didn’t know, and what they could do to fill the gaps in their knowledge. We often use a version of this validation plan in our own research on problems because it works well to highlight what we still need to learn and to plan how we’ll do this, doubling as a to-do list we can revisit periodically as our understanding of a problem evolves.

Taking this problem-focussed approach made it easier for individual funders to understand what they could work on and how their resources and expertise might be complementary. When you lead with problems, conversations about potential collaborations become much more concrete and grounded.

Science Practice provided a pragmatic approach to an often philosophically slanted discussion. The workshop has inspired us to embark on a journey towards well-researched and problem-oriented co-funding. I have found the tools to be very useful in my own work.

Jouni Lounasmaa, Executive Director of the KAUTE Foundation

Foundations don’t often have the opportunity to meet and explore how to work together on solving problems. However, creating space for these activities is becoming increasingly relevant given the urgency and complexity of the problems we are facing. These problems require a shared vision, action plan, and complementary programmes that build on each other to maximise impact. We were excited by this open and collaborative gathering in Finland and are looking to create similar opportunities for funders in the UK to come together and explore how to tackle important systemic issues.

Prioritising problems

Even when funders have decided on a problem area, it can be challenging to define specific opportunities to intervene. Having a clear set of criteria for problems can support more open and constructive conversations and facilitate decision-making. It can also help funders clearly articulate strengths and pinpoint the biggest opportunities for impact.

The Centre for Ageing Better’s goal is to create a society where everyone enjoys a good later life. One challenge they face is setting priorities among the diverse range of problems they could tackle. For example, should they focus on workers over 50 with health conditions struggling to get back into work – or on transforming UK workplaces into healthy places to increase disability-free life expectancy?

To inform their decision-making, we designed and ran a workshop with around 20 team members focused on developing internal criteria for identifying and defining suitable problems for Ageing Better and exploring how the team could use these criteria to focus their work.

Before the workshop, we shared a short survey with the Ageing Better team to learn more about how they make prioritisation decisions, who is involved, and what criteria they use (whether these are explicit or not). We used the responses as a starting point for the workshop content and activities. This was important because it meant that the workshop built on the team’s own ideas and allowed them to advance and challenge their thinking rather than start from a blank slate.

For the main activity, we created a long-list of the criteria mentioned in the surveys and asked the participants, in groups, to discuss and refine these before selecting the five they thought were most relevant for Ageing Better team members to consider when deciding on which problems to pursue.

We then asked groups to use their resulting criteria to prioritise between three problems they were currently struggling to choose between. The activity proved challenging but productive. The teams said that making decisions over which problem to pursue over others was difficult because the criteria didn’t feel right just yet – the criteria were either trying to cover too many things at once, weren’t as relevant in practice as they had seemed when proposed, or were missing completely. This exercise proved useful for quickly testing the emerging criteria and understanding how they could be used in practice.

By the end of the session, the teams were already thinking of the next iteration of the criteria and how they could use different subsets at different stages of the research and prioritisation.

Having a defined set of criteria for this type of work can facilitate more open conversations and highlight hidden assumptions or potential misunderstandings around an organisation’s role and priorities. Being able to clarify these and speak openly and confidently about them means that you can be more strategic about the problems you decide to prioritise and the impact you can achieve.

Changing the funding narrative

With each conversation and workshop that we have with funders, we see a change in the narrative. Funders are increasingly reflecting on their own activities and looking for more strategic and collaborative ways to increase their impact. While the intent exists, there is still a lot of work to be done to understand how to best achieve this, what works, and what doesn’t. However, this learning needs to happen at an accelerated pace as the global problems facing us are only growing in scale and complexity.

Within this space, we see our role as helping funders become more strategic about the problems they prioritise to achieve greater impact, sharing best practice from across the sector, and defining common goals to enable collaborations. If you’re interested in what a problem-led approach could do for your funding organisation, we’d love to help.