Contact Us

Category: CRO

  • Why Customers Leave Good CROs, and How High-Performance Teams Earn Repeat Business 

    THE SHORT ANSWER 

    High-Performance Science Teams™ helps service CROs , study directors, project managers, laboratory teams, QA, report writing, and business development, operate as one team from quote to final report. It targets the behaviors that cost repeat business: timelines sold before operations validates them, late bad news, unmanaged scope change, and sponsors hearing different answers from different people. 

    Why do sponsors leave CROs whose science is good? 

    Sponsors rarely switch CROs because the data was wrong. They switch because the experience was: a study start that slipped after the contract was signed, a report that arrived three weeks late with no warning, a scope change that became a billing dispute, a study director who was the only person who knew what was happening. 

    Every one of those is a team failure dressed up as an individual one. In a services business, the sponsor experiences the seams between your functions as your brand. 

    What does team dysfunction look like inside a service CRO? 

    • BD sells a timeline operations didn’t validate. The quote goes out on a study-start date the lab schedule can’t support, and the study director inherits the credibility problem. 
    • The study director as single point of failure. Scientific, client, and operational decisions all route through one person, who becomes the bottleneck. 
    • Blurred study director and project manager roles. Sponsors don’t know who owns the timeline versus the science, and neither do the teams. 
    • Scope creep absorbed instead of managed. Added endpoints, extra timepoints, and protocol changes get done without change orders, margin leaks and resentment builds. 
    • Late bad news. A failed run, a QA audit finding, or an animal-availability issue waits until it can’t be hidden. 
    • Report turnaround drift. The handoff from in-life or bench teams to report writing and QA review has no shared deadline owner. 

    What does team science say about fixing it? 

    Two of the most cited findings on team effectiveness apply directly. Gallup’s research on managers found they account for at least 70% of the variance in team engagement across business units. And Google’s Project Aristotle found psychological safety whether team members feel safe to take risks and raise problems to be the most important factor distinguishing effective teams. 

    Neither was studied in CROs specifically. But both describe exactly the conditions under which bad news travels early and scope changes get raised instead of absorbed. 

    How does High-Performance Science Teams™ work for CRO teams? 

    The program applies Guttman Development Strategies’ horizontal high-performance team model to CRO site leadership and study teams, working on live sponsor programs. 

    Client-risk pattern Root behavior What HPT installs 
    Timelines sold that ops can’t hit BD and operations goals misaligned A quote-to-study-start protocol with operations sign-off before commitment 
    Study director bottleneck Hub-and-spoke decision-making Explicit decision rights across study director, PM, and lab leads 
    Unmanaged scope change Avoidance of difficult sponsor conversations Shared norms and scripts for raising scope and change orders early 
    Late bad news Low psychological safety An early-warning protocol: raise risk within a set window, no blame 
    Report turnaround drift No shared owner across handoffs Peer accountability for report milestones across lab, writing, and QA 

    How does this connect to the customer-facing side of the CRO? 

    High-Performance Science Teams™ aligns the team behind the study. Bench to Business™, our companion program, builds the customer-facing skills of study directors, scientific project managers, and BD scientists,  discovery conversations, sponsor updates, and handling objections. CROs that run both close the gap between what is sold and what is delivered. 

    Who is it for? 

    Presidents and general managers, VPs of Operations, heads of study direction and project management, and BD leaders at discovery, safety assessment, DMPK, bioanalytical, and specialty service CROs — especially organizations growing site headcount or consolidating after acquisition. 

    How do we get started? 

    Start with the Science Team 360™, a short, confidential team-level diagnostic that shows exactly where decision rights, alignment, and accountability are breaking down inside your CRO site or study team. You get a readout before anyone commits to a full engagement. 

    Request a Science Team 360™ conversation at bench2business.bio. 

    Frequently asked questions 

    Why do sponsors switch CROs? 

    Sponsors commonly switch because of the service experience rather than the science: missed study-start dates, late or surprising updates, unmanaged scope changes, and inconsistent communication across the CRO team. 

    How can a CRO improve client retention? 

    By aligning BD, study direction, project management, lab operations, and QA on shared commitments to each sponsor, validating timelines before quoting, raising risks early, and managing scope changes openly. 

    What is the difference between a study director and a project manager in a CRO? 

    Roles vary, but typically the study director owns scientific conduct and GLP compliance of the study, while the project manager owns timeline, budget, and sponsor logistics. High-performing teams make these decision rights explicit. 

    Does High-Performance Science Teams™ replace project management tools or GLP processes? 

    No. It improves how the team works within them, how it decides, escalates, and holds itself accountable. 

    How do we start? 

    With the Science Team 360™, a confidential diagnostic that shows where your study teams’ alignment, decision rights, and accountability break down. 

    Sources 

    1. Gallup, State of the American Manager: Analytics and Advice for Leaders (2015) — https://www.gallup.com/services/182138/state-american-manager.aspx 
    1. Google re:Work, “Guide: Understand team effectiveness” (Project Aristotle) — https://rework.withgoogle.com/guides/understanding-team-effectiveness/ 
    1. Guttman, H.M. Great Business Teams: Cracking the Code for Standout Performance (Wiley, 2008) — https://www.guttmandev.com/great-business-teams 

    Figures from third-party studies are cited as published. Cross-industry data is presented as directional for life science. Program outcomes described are targets teams track against their own Science Team 360™ baseline, not guaranteed results. 

  • Why Clinical CROs Lose Sponsor Trust After the Bid Defense, and How High-Performance Teams Keep It 

    THE SHORT ANSWER 

    High-Performance Science Teams™ helps clinical CROs run each study as one team: project management, clinical monitoring, site start-up, data management, biostatistics, medical monitoring, and BD. It targets the behaviors that erode sponsor trust after award: timelines promised in the bid defense that delivery never validated, risk reported late, change orders that become disputes, and sponsors hearing different stories from different functions. 

    Why do sponsors lose confidence in a clinical CRO? 

    The bid defense goes well. The team in the room is sharp, the enrollment plan is credible, the start-up timeline is aggressive but defensible. Six months later, site activation is behind, the sponsor’s clinical lead is escalating to your executive sponsor, and the joint operating committee has become a weekly status interrogation. 

    The science of running the trial rarely fails. What fails is the team behind it: the handoff from proposal to delivery, the way risk moves from a CRA’s visit report to the sponsor’s inbox, and whether project management, monitoring, data management, and biostatistics give the sponsor one answer or four. 

    What does a slipped day cost your sponsor? 

    Your sponsors know the number. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development puts the mean direct cost of running a Phase II or III trial at roughly $40,000 per day, about $23,700 for Phase II and $55,700 for Phase III (Tufts CSDD, 2024). Every day a CRO team loses to an internal handoff is a day the sponsor pays for. 

    Protocol amendments magnify it, and the CRO executes most of them. Tufts CSDD’s latest benchmark  950 protocols from 16 pharma companies and CROs, published in 2024 found 76% of protocols now have at least one amendment, averaging 3.3 each. Implementing one takes an average of 260 days from identifying the need to final oversight approval, and investigative sites operate on different protocol versions for an average of 215 days. Most amendments are now judged unavoidable. How fast and cleanly the CRO team implements them is not. 

    What does team dysfunction look like inside a clinical CRO? 

    • The bid-to-delivery gap. Proposals and BD commit to a site activation curve and enrollment plan the delivery team never pressure-tested, and the project manager inherits a timeline to rebaseline in month three. 
    • Green until it’s red. Risk sits in CRA visit reports, site feasibility notes, and query aging reports long before it reaches the sponsor, because no one wants to be the function that raised it. 
    • The project manager as switchboard. Every decision routes through the PM, who has accountability for the study but no authority over monitoring, data management, or biostatistics resources. 
    • Change orders as conflict. Out-of-scope work is absorbed to keep the sponsor happy, then surfaces months later as a change order the sponsor sees as a surprise. 
    • Amendment rollout without an owner. Regulatory, start-up, monitoring, and data management each implement their piece of an amendment on their own clock, and sites run mixed protocol versions longer than they should. 
    • Four voices to the sponsor. The PM, the clinical team lead, the data manager, and the medical monitor each describe study status differently in the same governance meeting. 

    Why don’t new CTMS platforms, reorganizations, or more PMs fix it? 

    Clinical CROs reach for vertical fixes when delivery slips: a new CTMS or risk-based monitoring platform, a shift between full-service and functional service models, a regional reorganization, more project managers. The dashboard gets better. The handoffs don’t. 

    Adding project managers to a team without clear decision rights adds switchboards, not speed. And sponsors who switch CROs discover that the new provider’s delivery team has the same habits. The problem is horizontal  how functions work together on one study and it needs a horizontal fix. 

    How does High-Performance Science Teams™ work for clinical CRO teams? 

    The program applies Guttman Development Strategies’ horizontal high-performance team model to CRO delivery leadership and cross-functional study teams, working on live studies and live sponsor relationships. Where it helps, sponsor counterparts can be included so governance runs as one team. 

    Sponsor-trust pattern Root behavior What HPT installs 
    Timelines rebaselined after award BD and delivery goals misaligned A bid-to-delivery protocol: delivery leads validate start-up and enrollment assumptions before the bid defense 
    Risk reported late Low candor across functions An early-warning protocol: study risks raised within a set window, without blame 
    PM bottleneck Accountability without authority Explicit decision rights across PM, clinical team lead, data management, and biostatistics 
    Change-order disputes Avoiding hard sponsor conversations Shared norms for flagging scope change at the moment it occurs 
    Slow amendment rollout No cross-functional owner Peer accountability for amendment implementation across regulatory, start-up, monitoring, and data management 
    Mixed messages in governance No single internal position An align-before-you-speak rule so the sponsor hears one study status 

    How does this connect to the CRO’s customer-facing roles? 

    High-Performance Science Teams™ aligns the delivery team. Bench to Business™, our companion program, coaches the people who carry the sponsor relationship — project managers, clinical team leads, CRAs moving into lead roles, and BD scientists to communicate data, negotiate scope, and deliver difficult news with confidence. CROs that run both close the gap between what the bid defense promised and what the study delivers. 

    What is outside the scope of the program? 

    High-Performance Science Teams™ doesn’t replace feasibility analytics, patient-recruitment vendors, or your quality management system. It makes the team that uses them faster, more candid, and more consistent with the sponsor. 

    Who is it for? 

    CRO presidents and COOs, VPs of Clinical Operations and Project Delivery, project directors, heads of BD and proposals, and CHROs at full-service, specialty, and therapeutic-area-focused clinical CROs — especially those scaling delivery teams, integrating acquisitions, or working to become a preferred provider for key sponsors. 

    How do we get started? 

    Start with the Science Team 360™ — a short, confidential team-level diagnostic that shows exactly where decision rights, alignment, and accountability are breaking down inside your CRO delivery team. You get a readout before anyone commits to a full engagement. 

    Request a Science Team 360™ conversation at bench2business.bio. 

    Frequently asked questions 

    Why do sponsors switch clinical CROs? 

    Sponsors most often lose confidence over delivery experience rather than scientific capability: timelines rebaselined soon after award, risks reported late, change orders that arrive as surprises, and inconsistent status reporting across the CRO team. 

    How long does a protocol amendment take to implement? 

    According to Tufts CSDD’s 2024 benchmark of 950 protocols, the average time from identifying the need to amend to last oversight approval is 260 days, and sites operate on different protocol versions for an average of 215 days. 

    How can a clinical CRO improve the sponsor relationship? 

    By aligning BD, project management, monitoring, data management, and biostatistics on shared commitments to each study — validating timelines before the bid defense, raising risk early, flagging scope changes when they occur, and presenting one study status to the sponsor. 

    Does High-Performance Science Teams™ replace CTMS or risk-based monitoring? 

    No. CTMS and risk-based monitoring surface risk and status. High-Performance Science Teams™ improves how the CRO team acts on that information and communicates it to the sponsor. 

    How do we start? 

    With the Science Team 360™, a confidential diagnostic that shows where alignment, decision rights, and accountability break down in your study delivery teams. 

    Sources 

    1. Tufts CSDD, “How Much Does a Day of Delay in a Clinical Trial Really Cost?” White paper, August 2024 — https://csdd.tufts.edu/publications/articles 
    1. Getz K., Smith Z., Botto E., Murphy E., Dauchy A. “New Benchmarks on Protocol Amendment Practices, Trends and their Impact on Clinical Trial Performance.” Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science 58:539–548 (2024) — https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-024-00622-9 
    1. Guttman, H.M. Great Business Teams: Cracking the Code for Standout Performance (Wiley, 2008) — https://www.guttmandev.com/great-business-teams 

    Figures from third-party studies are cited as published. Cross-industry data is presented as directional for life science. Program outcomes described are targets teams track against their own Science Team 360™ baseline, not guaranteed results.