Research administration software is one of those platform categories where the options look similar on paper but deliver very different experiences in practice. For VP of Research, Director of Sponsored Programs, or research compliance officers, here is what to know when evaluating platforms.
Cayuse is the largest independent research administration platform. It handles pre-award (proposal development and submissions), post-award (budgeting and compliance), and IRB tracking. Most major research universities use Cayuse or Cayuse modules.
Strengths: Comprehensive pre-award and post-award functionality. Large user base means strong feature set and research community. Deep integration with federal compliance requirements.
Gaps: Can be complex to configure and customize. User interface feels legacy compared to cloud-native platforms. Some institutions report inflexible workflow templates that do not match institutional processes.
InfoReady is a cloud-based research administration platform focused on proposal management, IRB tracking, and compliance. It is popular at mid-size research universities and liberal arts colleges.
Strengths: Cloud-native, modern interface. Strong in proposal workflow and IRB management. Growing feature set.
Gaps: Less comprehensive than Cayuse for post-award management. Does not deeply integrate with financial systems.
Kuali is an open-source research administration platform used primarily by institutions in the Kuali financial management ecosystem. It integrates with Kuali Financials and other Kuali modules.
Strengths: Open-source and customizable. Good for institutions already committed to the Kuali ecosystem.
Gaps: Requires institutional technical resources for deployment and customization. Limited third-party support compared to proprietary platforms.
At minimum, your platform should handle:
Pre-award functionality: Grant opportunity tracking, proposal development coordination, internal review routing, compliance checking, and submission management.
Post-award functionality: Budget setup and monitoring, expense tracking, effort certification workflows, milestone reporting, and closeout procedures.
Compliance management: IRB protocol submission, continuing review workflows, adverse event reporting, export control screening, and federal regulation compliance (OMB Uniform Guidance).
Reporting and analytics: Portfolio-level dashboards, grant pipeline, compliance status, and upcoming deadlines.
Researcher portal: Interface for PIs and faculty to submit proposals, track status, and access compliance information.
Research administration spans two distinct phases with very different requirements:
Pre-award includes everything from identifying a funding opportunity to submitting a proposal. Key stages:
Opportunity identification: Researcher identifies a funding opportunity, shares with department.
Proposal development: Researcher drafts proposal, includes budget, timeline, and approach.
Internal review: Proposal routes to department chair for review, then to sponsored programs for administrative compliance check, then to VP of Research for final approval.
External submission: Sponsored programs submits to the funding agency by the deadline.
Award notification: Funder notifies the university of award decision.
Pre-award platforms need to support customizable routing workflows, document collaboration, and proposal content management. They need to handle different review workflows for different funding agencies (federal, foundation, industry each have different requirements).
Post-award includes everything after funding is awarded. Key stages:
Award setup: Sponsored programs creates the award in the financial system, allocates funds to accounts, and sets grant parameters.
Budget monitoring: Finance tracks spending against budget, calculates spending rates, and alerts if spending is off pace.
Effort certification: Faculty must periodically certify that their actual effort on the grant matched the proposed effort in the grant. Effort certification requires routing forms and approvals.
Reporting: Many grants require quarterly or annual reporting to the funder. Sponsored programs must compile reports from researchers and finance.
Closeout: At grant end, the institution must close out the award, reconcile final spending, and file final reports.
Post-award platforms need deep integration with financial systems, automated compliance monitoring, and effort tracking. They need to handle complex multi-year budgets and compliance requirements that vary by funder.
Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocols are a special category within research administration. IRB automation includes:
Protocol submission: Researchers submit IRB protocols with required sections (hypothesis, methodology, human subjects protections, data security). Forms should be customizable by institution.
Protocol review workflow: Protocols route to IRB staff for completeness check, then to full board or expedited track depending on risk level. Reviewers receive assignments automatically.
Continuing review: Approved protocols require continuing review annually. The platform should automatically generate continuing review tasks at the correct interval.
Amendment tracking: When a researcher wants to change an approved protocol (new site, new procedures), amendments route through a similar review process.
Adverse event reporting: If a study participant experiences an adverse event, the PI must report it. The platform should provide forms and routing for adverse event handling.
Compliance documentation: Complete audit trail showing every action, decision, and revision in the protocol review process.
Federal funding carries extensive compliance requirements defined by OMB Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200). Key compliance elements that software must support:
Cost sharing: Federal grants often require the institution to contribute a percentage of the project cost. The system must track and report cost sharing.
Effort certification: Faculty must certify that their actual effort matches their proposed effort. Falsified effort certification is a federal compliance violation.
Time tracking: Some federal grants require time tracking systems to document faculty effort.
Allowable costs: Federal guidance specifies what costs are allowable (salary, equipment, travel) and what are not (entertainment, lobbying). The system should support allowable cost configurations.
Equipment tracking: Federal grants often pay for equipment. The institution must track which equipment was purchased with federal funds and maintain capitalization.
Compliance certifications: Universities must certify to federal auditors that they comply with federal grant requirements. The system must support audit preparation.
Despite software, PI coordination remains challenging:
Multiple funding sources: A single PI may have grants from multiple funding agencies (NIH, NSF, DOE, foundations), each with different reporting and compliance requirements.
Multi-site grants: Many grants involve multiple institutions. Coordination across sites is often manual.
Budget flexibility: Some grants allow budget modifications, others do not. Some allow carry-forward of unspent funds, others require return. The system must track these variations.
Budget disputes: Finance often wants to allocate costs differently than the PI proposed. Resolving these disputes requires workflow and documentation.
Kissflow provides the workflow orchestration layer that research administration platforms often lack. Most research admin platforms handle data management (opportunity tracking, budget tracking, compliance documentation) but do not handle the multi-step approval and coordination workflows that research administration requires.
Kissflow fills this gap. Grant proposals route through customizable approval workflows with compliance checkpoints. IRB protocols follow structured submission and review processes. Post-award modifications (equipment purchases, budget reallocations, timeline changes) route through appropriate approval chains with documented decisions.
Integration with Cayuse, Kuali, or other research administration systems means workflows pull data from those systems and feed actions back. Your research administration platform handles the authoritative grant and compliance data.
Kissflow handles the approval and coordination workflows around that data.
Research universities report 30% reduction in proposal cycle time and dramatically improved compliance documentation when combining research administration software with Kissflow's workflow orchestration.
Streamline grant administration and compliance. Discover how Kissflow accelerates research workflows.