Research Tool Development for Grant-Funded Teams
When your grant promised a tool, dashboard, prototype, or digital output — but your team doesn't have the capacity to build it. Research dashboards, field-data capture apps, custom workflows, and research-data visualization, scoped to the project, not to a product vision.
Where research-tool projects struggle
The Annex promised a digital tool. The research is the team's strength; building maintainable software isn't. The patterns we see:
The 'platform we will build' line item in the work plan has no concrete spec, no UX, no architecture, and no allocated engineer.
A REDCap, Shiny, or Streamlit prototype that needs to become a production research tool — used outside the team that built it.
A dashboard concept the funder expects, but nobody on the team has shipped a web app before.
Field-data capture for multi-site studies where the assistants need a mobile-first tool, not a Google Form.
Academic research software that lives on one developer's laptop and breaks the moment they're on holiday.
What we build
A research tool MVP is a fit-for-purpose tool built around the way your team actually works — not a product. Typical deliverables:
Workflow mapping and scoped feature set
We map how your team and end-users actually work, then define the minimum viable feature set. No bloat, no aspirational roadmap — just what the research needs.
Responsive web app or mobile-first tool
Usable in the field or office, on a phone or laptop. Built on stacks your team can maintain (Next.js, FastAPI, Postgres) — not on niche frameworks that vanish after delivery.
Research dashboards that funders trust
Data visualization, cohort breakdowns, programme metrics — built to be readable by stakeholders, exportable for reports, embeddable in publications.
Admin logic, documentation, and deployment
User management, role-based access where needed, full deployment to your infrastructure or a managed service. The team can run and update the tool after handover.
Handover and training
Runbook, documentation, fresh-laptop test, training session. The tool outlives the engagement.
How a research tool engagement runs
Four to ten weeks depending on scope. We work in tight cycles with weekly user feedback so the tool stays grounded in actual use.
Scope (week 1–2)
Workflow mapping with the actual users (PhD students, RAs, programme officers, field teams). Output: a feature spec that maps to the research, not to a product vision.
Build (weeks 2–8)
Iterative development with weekly checkpoints. The first usable version ships early; subsequent iterations refine based on real use.
Hand over (week 8–10)
Documented deployment, training session, runbook, fresh-laptop test. The team owns and operates the tool from this point forward.
What this typically costs vs alternatives
Generalist dev shops: €80–120/hr × 200–400 hours = €16–48K with no scope guarantee and a stack you may struggle to maintain. Internal RSE engagement: months of priority queue, often without dedicated capacity. A Pragma 4–10 week MVP: fixed scope, fixed timeline, your team owns the code in a stack you can hire for. Project pricing comes from the scope review — no surprise change orders.
What 'doing nothing' looks like: the 'platform we will build' line item in the work plan stays a line item. Six months in, the prototype lives on one developer's laptop and breaks the moment they're on holiday. The funder asks for a demo at the next review — there isn't one. Dissemination, exploitation, and impact scores all take a hit at the worst possible moment. The cost of acting now: 60 minutes for a free scope review.
Research tool questions
Got a tool the grant promised but no team to build it?
Tell us what the work plan committed to, what users you're serving, and your timeline. We'll reply within 2 business days with a scope review.
Request a Scope Review