Research Administration as a High-Reliability Function: A Paradigm Shift is Overdue

For years, research administration has been stuck in the same unproductive debates—centralization vs. decentralization, administrative burden vs. compliance, homegrown tech vs. third-party. We argue over structures and approaches as if one model will solve all problems when, in reality, the ground beneath us is shifting faster than we can adapt. We must accept the old ways didn't serve us well and won't help us as we look toward the future.

The world is changing at a breakneck pace. Funding structures and availability are evolving, regulatory expectations are tightening, research integrity is under scrutiny, and administrative roles are becoming harder to fill as experienced professionals leave the field. Higher education isn’t immune to these pressures; it’s at the center of them.

I read something recently that stuck with me (paraphrasing): in times of rapid change, we have to be equally skilled at hospice and midwifery. We must recognize what’s dying and let it go while actively bringing in the systems and practices that will allow us to thrive in the future, fully expecting a huge, bloody mess. The old ways—piecemeal training, compliance by fear, and hoping research administration can function on sheer institutional memory—aren’t working. What we need is an entirely different framework, one rooted in high-reliability principles.

Research Administration is a High-Reliability Function

High-Reliability Organizations (HROs) operate in environments where failure is not an option. Aviation, nuclear power, and emergency medicine are classic examples. These fields require constant vigilance, adaptive problem-solving, and a deep commitment to preventing failure before it happens, but in the case of research administration I would add also accepting and learning when failure inevitably does happen (no one dies if we make a mistake).

Research administration has similar characteristics:

• Regulatory compliance is non-negotiable. Federal agencies expect precision, and mistakes lead to financial penalties, loss of funding, or worse.
• Failure has consequences beyond the institution. Research misconduct, mismanagement of funds, or compliance failures erode public trust and impact future funding.
• Stakeholder complexity mirrors other HROs. Research administrators must balance the needs of faculty, finance teams, IRBs, legal offices, and sponsors while ensuring compliance.
• Invisible labor, high cognitive load and decision-making under pressure. Tight deadlines, shifting regulations, and increasing expectations require high-level critical thinking that often goes unnoticed but is critical to operations and execution.

If we start thinking about research administration through the lens of high-reliability operations, it forces us to stop treating it like a bureaucratic necessity and start treating it like the risk-sensitive, mission-critical function it is.

The Five Principles of HROs and How They Apply to Research Administration

1. Preoccupation with Failure
• We should assume that compliance failures, effort reporting issues, and misallocations will happen if we aren’t vigilant.
• Instead of reacting after the fact, research offices should be proactively identifying risk signals and intervening early.
• Example: Instead of waiting for cost transfers to pile up, build or invest in technology and systems, and set unit-level expectations for proper expense allocation.
2. A Reluctance to Simplify Interpretations
• Federal regulations are nuanced—oversimplifying leads to costly mistakes.
• Research administrators must engage in interpretive compliance, balancing strict policy adherence with real-world project needs.
• Example: Too often, faculty in leadership roles—unfamiliar with the complexity of research administration—push for oversimplified, one-size-fits-all solutions to nuanced compliance issues. Instead of oversimplifying the work to fit an unrealistic directive, research offices must advocate for solutions that are both practical and regulatory sound, even when that means pushing back against reductive approaches.
3. Sensitivity to Operations
• Research administrators  and department leaders should maintain real-time awareness of funding trends, policy shifts, and institutional risks.
• Instead of viewing compliance as an isolated function, central offices should operate with a constant connection to the day-to-day reality of faculty, staff, and administrators.
• Example: When the NIH adjusts salary caps or indirect cost rates, research offices should immediately educate stakeholders about the changes, rather than waiting months to address the issue. This proactive approach ensures that those on the ground are prepared and can respond effectively to the evolving landscape.
4. Commitment to Resilience
• Research administration must adapt to funding cuts, policy changes, and workforce challenges.
• Institutions should be conducting transparent post-mortems on compliance failures and effort certification issues to improve processes instead of placing blame, or worse, ignoring them.
• Example: If an institution faces repeated audit findings, the response shouldn’t just be to “fix” the issue and make inane recommendations but to change the system that allowed it to happen in the first place.
5. Deference to Expertise
• Decisions should be made by the people with the most knowledge—not just senior leadership.
• Research administration is specialized; compliance officers, grants analysts, and department administrators often have more insight into risks than those at the top.

• Example: A project manager notices a potential issue with participant payments that could trigger IRS tax reporting requirements. Instead of disregarding the concern, it should be escalated immediately so that those with the right expertise can address it effectively.

  When issues are identified, leadership should empower those with the most knowledge and frontline experience to lead the resolution process.

A Call to Action: Elevating Research Administration as an HRO

It’s time for institutions to stop treating research administration as a back-office function and start treating it as a high-reliability, mission-critical operation.

To get there, we need:

• Institutional leaders to recognize research administration as an HRO function.
• Investment in training, compliance infrastructure, and mentorship. Traditional training methods have failed. Research administration requires deep expertise and critical thinking—not one-hour optional training sessions.
• Standardized, outcomes-based expectations. Research administrators should be evaluated on their ability to prevent compliance failures and improve efficiency, not just process paperwork.
• A fundamental shift away from “we’ve always done it this way.” The old systems are crumbling—transition them to hospice and death. The future needs proactive, resilient, and risk-aware research administration—let’s use our midwifery skills for the birth of that.

The choice isn’t whether we evolve; the world is making that choice for us. The question is how and whether we act in time.

Further reading

• Reliable Organizations: Present Research and Future Directions
• Working in Practice but Not in Theory: Theoretical Challenges of "High-Reliability Organizations"
• Teamwork as an Essential Component of High-Reliability Organizations