Commentary|Videos|December 18, 2025

Designing Engagement Solutions That Don’t Add to Site Workload

Explore why new tools should aim to remain burden-neutral before delivering efficiency gains, and how sponsors can introduce systems that benefit sites without disrupting daily trial management.

In a recent video interview with Applied Clinical Trials, Kevin Williams, EVP and Chief Strategy Officer at Ledger Run, discussed how sponsors must rethink operational strategies in 2026 to better support clinical trial sites amid rising complexity. He explained why sourcing models, system design, and workflow automation must be evaluated together to reduce operational switching and site burden. Williams also outlined how sponsors can introduce new engagement tools without overwhelming sites, emphasizing neutrality-first adoption and consistency across processes. He explored how AI-enabled workflows can automate existing processes rather than impose new ones, and concluded by identifying the metrics sponsors and CROs should track to assess whether site support investments are improving performance, satisfaction, and long-term collaboration.

The below interview transcript was lightly edited for clarity.

ACT: Given that most site staff say trials are harder to manage, how can sponsors ensure new engagement solutions actually reduce site burden?

Williams: Yeah, excellent question. I think what’s interesting about this is we automatically assume that new systems should immediately reduce burden for everyone—sponsors and CROs.

Even drawing the comparison in our space, there are a lot of things that improve both the site and the sponsor experience. Take site payments, right? Better systems, better processes. Sites benefit, sponsors and CROs benefit.

But then there are other types of systems, even beyond our space, where reducing site burden isn’t the first and foremost objective. One of my colleagues likes to use the phrase crawl, walk, run. The reality is sometimes the first step is just making sure we don’t introduce more burden on the sites as part of a new system.

Maybe it’s great for the sponsor or the CRO, but as long as it at least remains neutral for the time being, with the understanding that it should improve or reduce the burden on the sites over time, that allows them to engage a little bit better.

Newsletter

Stay current in clinical research with Applied Clinical Trials, providing expert insights, regulatory updates, and practical strategies for successful clinical trial design and execution.