From biology and medicine to engineering and the social sciences, Stanford’s research engine drives discoveries vital to our world, our health, and our intellectual life. Reflecting the breadth and reach of these efforts, research collaborations with external parties have increased by more than 40 percent over the last seven years. Formal agreements often underpin these relationships, and negotiating them can be a painstaking and time-consuming process.
In the Office of the Vice Provost and Dean of Research (VPDoR), concerted efforts to simplify and streamline research-related processes began in 2022. The work has focused on improving research support services to make complying with regulatory requirements simpler, all without creating undue risks for researchers, research participants, or the university.
“Researchers at Stanford help make the world a better place. But many of the systems meant to support them have, over time, become slow and frustrating, hindering their progress,” said former Provost John Etchemendy. “Reducing bureaucracy, putting decision-makers closer to the research, and simplifying rules help us focus more on what matters – our research and our students.”
Etchemendy, former President Richard Saller, and Vice President for University Affairs Megan Pierson are leading the university’s simplification initiative, which is a top priority for President Jonathan Levin and Provost Jenny Martinez.
“The Stanford name is synonymous with bold ideas and innovation, but there has been a growing sense within our research community that red tape interferes,” said Vice Provost and Dean of Research David Studdert. “While we absolutely cannot shirk our legal and ethical obligations, there is plenty of room to do better. Our north star should be making it as easy as possible for our faculty and students to pursue their best ideas.”
Three VPDoR simplification initiatives are now well underway.
Research contracts
The job of vetting, negotiating, and managing research contracts is led by Russell Brewer, associate vice president of the Office of Research Administration, and Karin Immergluck, associate vice provost of the Office of Technology Licensing. Brewer described a status quo that had evolved slowly and tended to put a premium on mitigating risk for Stanford. The result, Brewer said, was a system with too many touchpoints and approvals that stretched out timelines on contract negotiations.
In response, Immergluck and Brewer helped launch Project Sancus, a multi-year effort to improve efficiency across Stanford’s research contracting process. (The name “Sancus” refers to the Roman god of contracts and trust.)
“We do thousands of agreements a year,” Immergluck said. “We’re trying to reduce turnaround time and get them done more efficiently.”
Project Sancus focuses on simplified intake processes, better risk assessment, and improved collaboration and coordination among offices across the university that frequently weigh in on research agreements. In addition, the project is testing the efficacy of new technologies – including emerging artificial intelligence tools for analyzing contracts.
Immergluck’s office has piloted an AI-enabled contract management platform that helps officers identify risk-laden terms and locate bottlenecks in real time. Brewer’s office is testing an “embedded” model, in which university contract officers work within schools and departments to bring the officers closer to the customers and allow them to develop a keen sense of the challenges researchers face in specific fields. Early results from one test bed at the Graduate School of Business are promising.
Both leaders emphasized the cultural shift underway. “For years, we operated under a mindset that we should strive to minimize risk,” Brewer noted. “We’re now being encouraged to fully utilize our authority, challenge norms, and speed the process.”
“The long-term upside will be faster and more efficient contracting,” Immergluck said. “All while not losing sight of Stanford’s quality standards that the university deserves, and our faculty expect.”
IRB reviews
As associate vice provost for research compliance, Ann Johnson ensures that ethics review – for every one of the thousands of Stanford studies involving human or animal subjects – meets both federal legal requirements and Stanford’s own research integrity standards.
Over the last decade, research in the social and behavioral sciences has shifted markedly toward projects involving large datasets and multidisciplinary teams that often include government and industry partners. These novel study designs and relationships have routed evermore of this research for assessment and approval by Institutional Review Boards (IRB) – a form of ethics peer-review that Stanford conducts on behalf of the federal government.
The long-term upside will be faster and more efficient contracting. All while not losing sight of Stanford’s quality standards that the university deserves, and our faculty expect.”Karin ImmergluckAssociate Vice Provost of the Office of Technology Licensing
Many researchers have chafed at the extra oversight. “We had a lot of faculty and department chairs voicing their concerns and offering suggestions for improvements,” Johnson said.
Working closely with Senior Associate Vice Provost for Clinical Research Judith (Jodi) Prochaska, Johnson has spent the past year focused on simplifying the IRB processes for social and behavioral research protocols. Faculty feedback has led to a number of reforms: streamlining pre-review communications between researchers and IRB reviewers to reduce delays, consolidating reviewer comments, and communicating with faculty earlier when issues emerge.
Among the most impactful changes was hiring a dedicated “education specialist” to help student researchers shape their IRB applications. (Over half of all social and behavioral protocols the IRB receives come from student researchers.) Another reform that immediately produced shorter turnaround times was shifting from the IRB’s monthly review cycle to a rolling review approach, where assessment of study protocols began as soon as they arrived.
Early results are remarkably promising. Median review times have dropped from 56 to 35 days for protocols whose characteristics indicate the need for full-scale review, and from 23 to 11 days for protocols that require less onerous reviews. These improvements in turnaround times form only part of Johnson’s metrics for success. “We’ve done this without sacrificing quality and rigor for speed,” she said.
Johnson hopes to expand aspects of the new approach for social and behavioral sciences research to the IRB’s more challenging – and far more voluminous – caseload: studies involving patients and animals.
Outside professional activities disclosure
Many Stanford faculty and research personnel complement their university-based activities with outside work – including consulting, industry collaborations, and service on boards of directors. These engagements enhance Stanford’s research and teaching mission, but they may also create real or perceived conflicts of interest. Transparent disclosure of these relationships is essential to maintaining the reputation and credibility of Stanford research.
To track and manage these relationships, Stanford uses the Outside Professional Activities Certification System (OPACS), a platform for disclosing outside interests. A third VPDoR initiative involves revamping OPACS to improve the user experience.
“We’re working to reduce administrative complexity and make compliance more navigable for faculty, while maintaining high standards for oversight,” said Linda Coleman, associate vice provost for research policy and integrity.
In making changes to the system, Coleman and her team prioritized the feedback they received from faculty and staff regarding their experience. For example, Coleman’s team implemented changes aimed at eliminating duplicative questions, adding smart automation to support accurate reporting, and enabling the delegation of some tasks to staff. Standardized templates for conflict management plans replace the cumbersome documents many faculty have struggled with.
Looking ahead, Coleman and her team are exploring new ways to improve the user-friendliness of OPACS. “It’s a system that faculty and staff interact with regularly,” said Coleman. “This means even small improvements can have a meaningful impact. We’re approaching this with the goal of making every interaction smoother.”
Writer
Andrew Myers
