{"id":35876,"date":"2026-08-19T08:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-08-19T07:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/leadersinsport.com\/performance-institute\/?post_type=article&p=35876"},"modified":"2026-09-16T13:17:34","modified_gmt":"2026-09-16T12:17:34","slug":"how-to-maximise-research-and-innovation-within-your-team","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/leadersinsport.com\/performance-institute\/articles\/how-to-maximise-research-and-innovation-within-your-team\/","title":{"rendered":"How to Maximise Research and Innovation within your Team"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n\t
\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t
\n \n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

\n 19 Aug 2026 <\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>Articles<\/a>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

How to Maximise Research and Innovation within your Team<\/h1>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n \n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
Category<\/div>\n Open Access<\/a> <\/div>\n
\n
Share<\/div>\n Facebook<\/a>\n Twitter<\/a>\n Email<\/a>\n Copy Link<\/a>\n
https:\/\/leadersinsport.com\/performance-institute\/articles\/how-to-maximise-research-and-innovation-within-your-team\/<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/section>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

At a recent virtual roundtable, Dr Robin Thorpe explained what it takes to embed new knowledge and processes in the pursuit of competitive advantage.<\/p>\n \n \n \n

\n

By John Portch<\/h6>\n
While often grouped together, research and innovation are distinct but interconnected activities.<\/h6>\n

\u201c\u2018Research\u2019 is providing and creating new knowledge in a specific area, which is relevant to the theme in hand,\u201d said Dr Robin Thorpe. \u201cWhere \u2018innovation\u2019 comes in is the implementation and how that applied new knowledge creates value for the environment.\u201d<\/p>\n

Thorpe, who has worked across multiple elite high-performance environments, was speaking and presenting at a virtual roundtable for members of the Leaders Performance Institute entitled \u2018Where does research and innovation sit within a high-performance strategy\u2019.<\/p>\n

Knowledge alone, he continued, does not lead to innovation. \u201cHow can we actually embed processes and human behaviour aligned with some of this new knowledge and value it may bring?\u201d<\/p>\n

Building on that question, he explained that confusion around research and innovation often stems from a misunderstanding of what he sees as four connected but distinct stages:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Research<\/strong>: Creates knowledge<\/li>\n
  2. Innovation:<\/strong> Applies knowledge to create value<\/li>\n
  3. Implementation:<\/strong> Embeds change into everyday practice<\/li>\n
  4. Performance impact:<\/strong> Improves outcomes on and off the field<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Organisations can go wrong by jumping straight to technology and bypassing the critical stages that connect knowledge to performance.<\/p>\n

    As he brought the rest of the table into the conversation, Thorpe posed a series of provocations:<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \n
    • Most organisations invest more in technology than they do in innovation.<\/li>\n
    • Research should solve operational problems, not academic ones.<\/li>\n
    • Innovation is rarely limited by ideas; it is usually limited by implementation.<\/li>\n
    • Buying technology is one of the least innovative things an organisation can do.<\/li>\n
    • The success of innovation is determined less by the quality of the idea and more by how effectively its value is communicated.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      In reflecting on where organisations succeed and where they become stuck, the table identified four challenges facing research and innovation across elite sport:<\/strong><\/p>\n

        \n
      1. The tendency to start with the answer instead of the question<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        There is a tendency to jump straight to solutions before properly understanding a problem. Participants argued that research should be driven by performance questions and strategic priorities rather than new technologies or fashionable ideas. One attendee warned that without clarity around the questions an organisation is trying to answer, it becomes easy to pursue \u201ca shiny new tool\u201d without aim or purpose.<\/p>\n

        The table highlighted the value of establishing external research partnerships (e.g. with universities) when seeking to answer performance questions and close knowledge gaps. Such collaborations are relatively common in the UK, Europe and Australasia but less so in North America. The key, Thorpe noted, is ensuring these partnerships are understood for the value they bring and not just as academic exercises.<\/p>\n

        Several contributors also described internal governance structures such as review panels, technology trials and internal pitch processes to help identify those knowledge gaps. As an example, one participant described a process whereby prospective research questions are challenged by specialists from across their organisation in a Dragons\u2019 Den\/Shark Tank<\/em>-style scenario. The aim is to test whether the issue being raised is genuinely a question worth investigating or simply a preconceived answer in search of justification. The exercise occasionally reveals the latter. As the member reflected, \u201cit\u2019s not even a question, it\u2019s just we\u2019ve come up with the answer in the room.\u201d<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Mistaking technology for innovation<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Competitive advantage rarely comes from owning technology; it comes from using knowledge in ways that improve performance. As Thorpe said, \u201cwe tend to think of innovation as technology and technology as innovation\u201d; it is one of the main industry challenges in this space.<\/p>\n

          While the table acknowledged that technology is an important enabler, attendees agreed with Thorpe\u2019s idea that innovation is better understood as the creation of value through the application of knowledge. As one contributor explained: \u201cThe innovation piece isn\u2019t necessarily the technology itself but the process change.\u201d<\/p>\n

          Another noted that \u201ctechnology can accelerate innovation in some respects\u201d but that genuine innovation comes from \u201cthe redesign and the way that people think about that\u201d. \u201cInnovation,\u201d one participant suggested, is ultimately about \u201ccreating value from a problem that matters.”<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. Turning ideas into practice<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Thorpe observed that when innovation fails it is usually due to poor implementation rather than poor ideas. This resonated with attendees who described the realities of introducing change in elite sport. Professional environments often demand immediate answers, which creates pressure to pursue quick solutions rather than carefully embedding new approaches.<\/p>\n

            One participant noted \u201cthe perceived need of the organisation for the speed of an answer\u201d while another spoke of \u201cthe need for speed, the need to be first\u201d creating pressure to solve today\u2019s problems at the expense of investing in initiatives whose value may only emerge over a longer timeframe.<\/p>\n

            Additionally, the table recognised that new ideas alter workflows, responsibilities and behaviours, which means successful implementation depends as much on people as it does on tools.<\/p>\n

              \n
            1. The ability to prove performance impact<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              The table agreed that neither research nor innovation carries inherent value; their worth depends entirely on whether they improve outcomes. Research priorities, they argued, should be linked to strategic goals and organisational performance. Projects should ultimately be judged by their contribution to better decision-making, healthier athletes, improved availability, operational efficiencies or competitive advantage.<\/p>\n

              Just as importantly, organisations must be able to communicate value to key stakeholders. Participants noted that strong ideas frequently fail because decision-makers do not understand their relevance. As one attendee observed, \u201cthe success of innovation is determined less by the quality of the idea and more by how effectively its value is communicated.\u201d<\/p>\n

              Thorpe wrapped up the session with a set of questions designed to encourage the table to further explore the practical realities of research and innovation within their own organisations:<\/strong><\/p>\n

                \n
              • Who owns research and innovation within your organisation?<\/li>\n
              • How do you decide which questions are worth investigating?<\/li>\n
              • How do you communicate the value of innovation to coaches, executives and owners?<\/li>\n
              • How do you measure whether innovation has genuinely improved performance?<\/li>\n
              • How do you balance short-term delivery with long-term innovation?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                What to read next<\/strong><\/p>\n

                <\/p>\n

                Leading Beyond Silos: Dr Robin Thorpe Explains How High-Performance Organisations Can Integrate Expertise<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n