Today, I want to share the think day template that I developed to see how I can connect my research better with industry and government.

Think Day — Real-World Impact: Reaching Industry & Ministries

Total duration: 1 hour 30 minutes
Audience: senior researchers, research leaders, program directors, aspiring deans
Purpose: to move from academic output to sustained, institutionalized impact in industry and public policy.

This Think Day is designed as a structured reflection and planning session focused on how research reaches the real world, where that process breaks down, and how engagement with industry and ministries can be made systematic rather than ad hoc or personality-dependent.

---

0. Opening — Clarifying Your Impact Orientation (10 minutes)

Objective: establish a shared and explicit understanding of what “impact” means in your role and context.

Participants reflect on:

• How their research is intended to influence practice, policy, or society
• Which pathways currently exist between their work and real-world application
• Whether their impact is primarily direct (e.g. applied research, consulting) or indirect (e.g. standards, education, agenda-setting)

Outcome: a short, written statement describing the participant’s working definition of impact for the coming years.
This statement serves as a compass for the rest of the session.

---

1. Mapping the Current Impact Ecosystem (20 minutes)

Objective: visualize where impact already occurs and where friction prevents research from being used.

Participants map their activities across four domains:

• Academia → Students
• Academia → Industry
• Academia → Ministries / Public Authorities
• Academia → Society / Public

For each domain, participants identify:

• Existing strengths
• Weaknesses or blind spots
• Bottlenecks (structural, institutional, capacity-related)
• Latent opportunities not yet activated

Outcome: identification of one root-cause friction per domain, rather than surface symptoms.

---

2. Stakeholder Prioritization (15 minutes)

Objective: reduce scatter and focus engagement where it matters most.

Participants list current and potential stakeholders and position them along two dimensions:

• Strategic relevance (alignment with research agenda, institutional goals, funding potential)
• Willingness to collaborate (based on evidence, not assumptions)

Stakeholders are then categorized into:

• High priority for active engagement
• Secondary or delegated relationships
• Relationships to pause or discontinue

Outcome: a shortlist of three priority stakeholders to deepen engagement with over the next 12–18 months.

---

3. Identifying the Translational Gap (20 minutes)

Objective: understand why research often fails to cross from knowledge into implementation.

Participants reflect on:

• Where their research currently “stops” in the pipeline
• Which formats decision-makers actually need versus what academics usually produce
• Whether missing roles, skills, or intermediaries block translation

Participants then brainstorm concrete translational outputs, such as:

• Policy briefs
• Technical guidelines
• Training modules
• Decision tools
• Templates or standards language

These are ranked by effort versus expected impact.

Outcome: selection of two realistic pilot deliverables to test in the near term.

---

4. Engagement Strategy — Institutionalizing Access (20 minutes)

Objective: move from informal networks to durable, institutional relationships.

Participants consider:

• How engagement with industry and ministries could be made recurring and predictable
• Which interactions should be formalized (e.g. MoUs, joint programs, embedded roles)
• What value the institution offers beyond individual expertise
• How reciprocity can be articulated clearly

Participants outline a 12-month engagement plan, including:

• Flagship activities
• Target stakeholders
• Responsible roles
• Desired outcomes

Outcome: a realistic engagement architecture that reduces reliance on individual effort.

---

5. Closing — Commitments and Focus (5 minutes)

Participants conclude by identifying:

• One action to start immediately
• One activity to stop or deprioritize
• One task to delegate or systematize
• One concrete outreach or follow-up to schedule

Outcome: momentum and accountability beyond the Think Day itself.

---

How This Think Day Can Be Used

This session is suitable for:

• Individual strategic reflection
• Leadership retreats
• Research strategy off-sites
• Preparation for roles involving external engagement or research governance

It works best when repeated annually, allowing participants to track how their impact pathways evolve over time.