How Sourcing Decisions Shape Site Experience and Study Execution

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: As sponsors reconsider sourcing models, how might these decisions directly impact site experience and study execution next year?

Williams: Yeah. As you look at the different sourcing models, going back to my earlier comment on operational switching, sites are burdened with a lot of different switching.

The switching is, do I have to log into a different system, or how do I use a different system to accomplish the same thing? There’s general process switching as well. I contract one way with one sponsor and do it differently with another sponsor. The same thing applies to payments—how do I submit invoices—or other types of things. EDC is really no different, with different types of systems.

As sponsors evaluate what their sourcing strategy should be, they should be accounting for that as well. A larger sponsor is never going to put all their eggs in one basket with a CRO. Even the biggest sponsors pick at least a couple of different CROs.

But when evaluating whether to bring a function in house, think about functional sourcing and the intent behind it. Is it bringing more consistency? For a lot of sponsors, it’s consistency for sites—around payments or contracting—but it’s also consistency for the sponsor to be able to manage those processes, be one step closer to them, and feel a better connection with their sites.

The second component of sourcing strategy should also include application strategy. Is there a better way of actually doing things? Many CROs have traditional models, and even sponsors that operate in house often have older practices. They may not use purpose-designed systems.

There are ways those things can be combined to improve functionality. Is there a better mousetrap? And how are you actually going to approach that function?

One of the things we’ve seen is a desire to bring things in house, but if you’ve never done a certain function internally, you’re burdened with the reality that you’re not prepared to do it. You need a team first. Organizations like ours can bridge that gap by providing a functional solution alongside a technological solution that ultimately gets sponsors where they need to be.