Summarize with:
The workflows that served research administration offices well twenty years ago were designed for a different research enterprise. Paper routing, sequential approvals, manual reconciliation, and spreadsheet tracking made sense when portfolios were smaller, regulations were fewer, and complexity was manageable. Today's research environment demands a fundamental rethinking of how grant management workflows function.
Research administration workflows evolved incrementally over decades, with many processes still reflecting pre-digital era thinking. Three converging pressures now create urgency for workflow redesign:
- Portfolio growth that outpaces staff capacity
- Regulatory complexity that requires systematic compliance
- Faculty administrative burden that reduces research productivity.
According to the National Science Foundation's Higher Education Research and Development Survey:
“Federal research expenditures at U.S. universities increased from approximately $40 billion in 2000 to over $60 billion in 2023.”
The Federal Demonstration Partnership Faculty Burden Survey found:
“Principal investigators spend 42% of their time on administrative tasks rather than research activities, with 95% reporting they could devote more time to research with better administrative support.”
The National Science Board Task Force on Administrative Burdens documented more than 50 new regulations affecting federally funded research over the past 30 years. When workflows become barriers rather than enablers, consuming more time than they save, it's time to rethink the fundamental approach to grant management.
Three Forces Driving Workflow Rethinking
Portfolio Growth Without Proportional Staffing
Federal research expenditures increased 50% over two decades, yet many institutions experienced only modest staff growth during the same period. Average institutional portfolios continue growing 3 to 5% annually. Some institutions report 20 to 30% portfolio growth with less than 10% staff growth.
This reality creates predictable challenges:
- The same staff members manage more grants, and each grant carries the full lifecycle of proposals, awards, modifications, reporting, and closeout.
- Sequential workflows create bottlenecks with increased volume, and manual processes simply do not scale linearly with portfolio size.
When proposal volume exceeds workflow capacity, institutions face an unacceptable choice: either turnaround times increase and hurt competitiveness, or staff work overtime in an unsustainable pattern. Neither option serves the research mission long-term.
Regulatory Complexity Requiring Systematic Compliance
The National Science Board Task Force documented more than 50 new regulations in 30 years, and this count does not include revisions to existing regulations or institutional policy additions. Each regulation adds compliance checkpoints to workflows.
Recent examples illustrate the challenge:
- The OMB Uniform Guidance took effect in 2014, creating comprehensive federal grant requirements.
- The Financial Conflict of Interest regulations became effective in 2012, expanding disclosure requirements and shortening reporting timelines.
- The revised Common Rule changed human subjects research requirements in 2019. NSPM-33 added research security and foreign influence screening in 2022.
- The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy introduced new data plan requirements in 2023. Section 117 established foreign gift reporting for transactions over $250,000.
Each regulation creates additional approval checkpoints. Manual tracking of compliance requirements introduces error risk. Paper-based workflows cannot enforce compliance logic, and human memory proves insufficient for tracking dozens of requirements across hundreds of proposals. When compliance requirements exceed human capacity to track manually, systematic workflow automation becomes a necessity rather than a luxury.
Faculty Burden Limiting Research Productivity
The Federal Demonstration Partnership survey revealed that principal investigators spend 42% of their time on administrative tasks rather than research activities. Personnel management, financial reporting, and compliance documentation rank as the top burdens. Three-quarters of faculty members reported willingness to reallocate direct costs for better administrative support.
Principal investigators experience this burden in concrete ways. They:
- Wait for sequential approvals during proposal routing
- Re-enter data across multiple systems
- Chase down forms and signatures
- Certify effort retrospectively
- Reconcile budget discrepancies
- Complete repetitive compliance training
Every hour a principal investigator spends on grant administration is an hour not spent on research, mentoring, or innovation. When workflows consume 42% of research time, the institution's core mission suffers. Workflow redesign offers the most direct path to returning this time to research.
From Sequential to Parallel: Redesigning Core Workflows
Parallel Processing Over Sequential Routing
Traditional sequential workflows create predictable delays. A principal investigator submits a proposal, which then waits in queue for department chair review, then college dean review, then sponsored programs review, and finally institutional official approval before submission to the sponsor. This process typically requires five to ten business days minimum, often longer.
However, rethought parallel workflows eliminate these delays. For instance, when a principal investigator submits a proposal:
- All reviewers receive notification simultaneously.
- Reviews happen concurrently rather than sequentially.
- The system tracks completion status, and final approval occurs when all reviews are complete.
This approach typically requires two to three business days. And the impact is substantial.
- Significant reduction in routing time
- Competitive advantage for time-sensitive opportunities
- Improved principal investigator satisfaction
- Better submission deadline management
Automated Compliance Over Manual Checklists
Traditional manual compliance requires administrators to review checklists, verify principal investigators completed conflict of interest disclosures, check IRB approval for human subjects research, confirm export control review for international activities, and validate cost share documentation. This manual verification is time-consuming and error-prone.
But a modern and rethought automated compliance allows the system to check compliance status automatically and block submission if requirements remain incomplete. Real-time status becomes visible to both principal investigators and administrators. Automatic reminders trigger for upcoming deadlines, and the system maintains an audit trail automatically.
The results include:
- Zero submissions with missing compliance
- Administrator time freed for complex reviews
- Reduced audit findings
- Principal investigator clarity on requirements
Single Data Entry Over Multiple Systems Re-Entry
Traditional workflows require data entry multiple times. Principal investigators enter data in the proposal system. Administrators re-enter it in the financial system. Human resources re-enters personnel information. The compliance office re-enters data in tracking systems. Each instance creates an opportunity for transcription errors.
Rethought workflows require data entry once at the source. The data is then shared across integrated systems through real-time synchronization. Changes propagate automatically, creating a single source of truth.
This approach yields:
- Massive reduction in data entry time
- Elimination of transcription errors
- Data consistency across systems
- Staff time reallocated to higher-value work
Proactive Alerts Over Reactive Problem Solving
Traditional reactive approaches create predictable crises. Awards expire, and teams scramble for no-cost extensions. Underspending gets discovered at year-end and prompts rushed spending. Effort certification comes due, and staff chase down faculty. Audit requests arrive, and teams compile documentation manually.
Rethought proactive approaches prevent these crises.
- Systems alert teams 90 days before award expiration.
- Burn rate monitoring flags under-spending or over-spending monthly.
- Effort certification reminders start 30 days early.
- Audit documentation is maintained automatically in real-time.
The benefits include:
- Crisis prevention rather than crisis management
- Smoother workload distribution
- Better financial management
- And an audit-ready status at all times
The Post-Award Workflow Imperative
The growth of NCURA's Financial Research Administration Conference from 300 participants in 2000 to over 1,300 in 2024 reflects a fundamental shift. Post-award grant management has evolved from routine accounting to a specialized professional discipline requiring sophisticated workflows.
Post-award workflows involve numerous touchpoints.
- Daily and weekly activities include expenditure monitoring and reconciliation, purchase order approvals, personnel appointment changes, budget reallocations, and vendor payment processing.
- Monthly work includes financial reports to sponsors, budget versus actual analysis, burn rate assessment, and effort reporting preparation.
- Quarterly and semi-annual responsibilities include progress reports to sponsors, effort certification, subrecipient monitoring, and compliance verification.
- Annual tasks involve no-cost extension requests, budget carry-forward analysis, audit preparation, and award closeout planning.
Traditional workflows designed for pre-award proposal routing do not address the complexities of post-award. A principal investigator with five active grants manages five simultaneous post-award workflows, each with different sponsors, requirements, and timelines. Modern post-award workflows require real-time financial dashboards rather than monthly reports, automated deadline tracking rather than spreadsheets, integrated effort reporting rather than standalone systems, subrecipient monitoring workflows rather than email and Excel, and closeout checklists rather than institutional memory.
Five Questions to Assess Your Workflows
- How long does proposal routing take from principal investigator submission to institutional approval? If the answer is more than three to five business days, sequential workflows may create unnecessary delays.
- Do principal investigators re-enter the same information across multiple systems? If yes, integrated workflows could return significant time to research.
- How do you verify all compliance requirements are met before submission? If the answer involves manual checklists, automated workflows reduce risk.
- Do you regularly face last-minute crises such as award expirations, underspending, or overdue reports? If yes, proactive alerting workflows prevent rather than manage crises.
- Can principal investigators see real-time budget status, or do they wait for monthly reports? If they wait, modern dashboards provide better financial management.
If you answered yes to two or more of these workflow challenges, it's time to rethink your grant management approach.
The Strategic Imperative
Research administration workflows exist to enable research, not to create an administrative burden. When workflows become obstacles by consuming 42% of investigator time, creating bottlenecks, and risking compliance, they undermine the institutional mission.
Workflow rethinking is not about technology for its own sake. It focuses on returning principal investigator time to research, handling portfolio growth without proportional staff increases, building systematic compliance into processes, and positioning institutions for continued growth.
Portfolio growth, regulatory evolution, and faculty burden are not temporary challenges and represent permanent features of modern research administration.
Platforms like Key Solutions eGrants enable workflow transformation through:
- Parallel processing capabilities that reduce routing time
- Automated compliance verification that reduces risk
- Single data entry across the lifecycle that reduces burden
- Real-time dashboards and alerts that enable proactive management
If your institution experiences proposal routing delays, faculty burden concerns, compliance challenges, or post-award visibility issues, it may be worth examining whether current workflows genuinely support your research mission.
Want to know how other research institutions have streamlined their workflows? Schedule a walkthrough when it makes sense for your planning timeline.
.svg)
