An audience of research administrators transformed a scheduled conference session into an active exchange of ideas and practical solutions at the National Council of University Research Administrators’ 68th Annual Meeting in New York City.

Simone Whitehead, CRA, CPRA, assistant director of sponsored programs for pre-award in the Department of Public Health Sciences at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, guided the discussion, “Scaling Pre-Award Success: From Dashboards to Delicate PI Relationships.”

Participants represented institutions with different organizational structures, resources and levels of leadership support. Despite those differences, they quickly recognized many of their own challenges in one another’s experiences.

The conversation addressed last-minute proposal submissions, significant budget revisions immediately before deadlines, staffing limitations, collaborations across multiple time zones and the need to establish clear expectations with principal investigators.

“Early in my career, I believed success was measured by submitting proposals accurately and on time,” Whitehead said. “While that remains an important responsibility, I realized many of the recurring challenges we experience are not caused by people. They often stem from systems that do not consistently support them.”

That realization changed the question guiding her work.

“Instead of asking, ‘How do we fix this proposal?’ I began asking, ‘How do we improve the process, so the next person doesn’t face the same challenge?’” she said.

A Framework for Intentional Improvement

As participants shared their experiences, Whitehead introduced the Intentional Systems Framework, a practical approach she developed around four interconnected pillars:

• Intentional systems: Creating consistent, repeatable processes that reduce unnecessary complexity and preserve institutional knowledge
• Communication: Establishing clear and proactive communication that sets expectations and minimizes preventable challenges
• Partnerships: Building trusted relationships with investigators, colleagues, leadership and institutional partners
• Stewardship: Supporting research through responsible decision-making, accountability, compliance and thoughtful management of institutional and sponsor resources

Rather than asking participants to adopt a single model, Whitehead encouraged them to identify which pillars reflected their institutions’ most pressing challenges.

“To me, scaling means creating systems and relationships that allow excellence to be repeated consistently, regardless of changes in workload, staffing or organizational complexity,” she said.

Communication emerged as the discussion’s strongest theme. Participants repeatedly emphasized the importance of setting expectations early, maintaining transparency throughout proposal development and addressing recurring issues before they become deadline-driven emergencies.

One of the questions raised during the session was how to change a culture built around the response, “That’s the way we’ve always done it.” The group discussed approaching organizational change through small, intentional improvements instead of expecting immediate transformation.

“We have to start somewhere, and we have to be intentional,” Whitehead said. “Intentionality does not happen overnight. It is built through consistent actions, thoughtful communication and a commitment to continuous improvement.”

Learning From One Another

The conference’s theme, “The Power of Community,” became evident as participants began responding directly to one another’s challenges.

When one attendee asked how other institutions handle last-minute proposals that cannot be declined, another participant shared a strategy used at their institution: documenting that the short turnaround prevented a comprehensive departmental review. The attendee immediately recorded the recommendation as a possible approach to bring back to their organization.

Participants also discussed how research administrators can respond to recurring late-stage budget changes. Suggestions included referring to previous submissions, beginning budget conversations earlier and helping investigators develop more realistic plans from the outset.

Another part of the conversation addressed the professional identity of research administrators. Participants emphasized that their role extends beyond processing documents or providing customer service. Their expertise contributes strategically to institutional research through compliance, stewardship, professional judgment and the management of sponsor requirements.

“Simone did more than represent the Department of Public Health Sciences at a national meeting; she created a space where research administrators could turn shared challenges into practical solutions,” said Margie Jimenez, M.A., CRA, assistant chair of the department. “Her ability to connect systems, service and relationships reflects the kind of leadership that strengthens research from the earliest stages of proposal development. The ideas exchanged during this session can also inform how we continue improving our own processes and supporting investigators.”

Participants received a companion guide, discussion workbook and resource library to help them continue applying the ideas discussed during the session. Several attendees requested additional materials and contact information for future collaboration.

For Whitehead, the session demonstrated that progress in research administration does not require one institution to have every answer. It begins when professionals are willing to share their experiences and help one another improve.

“Meaningful change doesn’t begin with perfection,” she said. “It begins with one intentional conversation, one practical improvement and a community willing to help one another succeed.”

Written by Deycha Torres Hernández, published August 11, 2026.