What holds back collaboration between sponsors, CROs, and multisite clinical research corporations (MCRCs)?
That’s the question AMRC tackled in the most recent webinar of our The Network Advantage series. As Clinical Leader’s Dan Schell, who moderated the panel, pointed out, “Everyone talks about collaboration, but we wanted to dig into what’s actually stopping it; and what we can do about it.”
Dan was joined on the panel by Adam Kinsey from Merck, Parexcel’s Karen McIntyre, Carlos Orantes, CEO of AMRC founding member Alcanza, and AMRC’s Jim Kremidas. Each brought a different viewpoint to the discussion as they covered the pain points that exist between CROs and MCRCs – and what’s getting better.
Rethinking ‘Control’: Why MCRCs Matter Now
There is growing recognition within the industry that the traditional sponsor-site model doesn’t scale, a theme that was repeated throughout the discussion.
Sponsors remain accountable for trial oversight under GCP guidelines, but as Merck’s Adam Kinsey put it, “we’re not giving up control, we’re sharing it.” MCRCs offer a more integrated and consistent way to deliver studies at scale, with central oversight and infrastructure baked in.
Karen McIntyre of Parexcel agreed, noting that the CRO role can actually be strengthened when communication is streamlined: “When performance, budgets, and timelines are all coming from a single, consistent source, and cascaded out to sites, that’s powerful.”
Not New, But Still Misunderstood
Despite the rise of large site networks, there’s still confusion about what they do, and a lot of inertia when it comes to changing how trials are delivered. “This isn’t a new model,” Alcanza’s Carlos Orantes highlighted. “But we’re finally seeing the conversation shift. When networks are empowered to select sites and allocate patients, everything moves faster with less rework.”
Kinsey echoed this, pointing out that many sponsors are “fitting MCRCs into an old way of working” rather than building truly strategic partnerships. The biggest missed opportunity? Treating MCRCs as transactional vendors instead of long-term collaborators.
“We want people to stop thinking of sites as transactional,” Jim Kremedia noted. “If you can negotiate with two or three MCRCs instead of fifty individual sites, that’s not just more efficient, it’s smarter.”
Dan Schell pointed out that, “MCRCs are gaining ground, but the collaboration model hasn’t caught up. We’re still seeing friction every day.”
The Real Pain Points… and What’s Behind Them
So, if our panelists largely agree that MCRCs have an important role to play, what’s getting in the way when it comes to Sponsor and CRO relationships? The panel zeroed in on three issues that keep surfacing:
- Study startup delays: “We’re still far too reactive,” Orantes said. “Sites are looped in too late, which impacts quality, planning, and the patient experience.”
- Inconsistent communication: Even when a site has a single point of contact, that’s often mirrored by 10–20 different people on the CRO or sponsor side.
- Rigid processes and tools: Many sites invest heavily in their own infrastructure, only to be asked to abandon it for sponsor-mandated systems. The result? Staff frustration, compliance risk, and higher costs.
The solution, the panel agreed, isn’t more complexity — it’s more trust. “We need to collaborate early, define expectations clearly, and stop reinventing the wheel every time,” said McIntyre.
Emerging Sites, New PIs, and Playing the Long Game
The group also discussed how to make research more sustainable, particularly when it comes to onboarding new investigators and diversifying trial participation.
“It’s a Catch-22,” Kinsey admitted. “You can’t be a PI until you’ve been a PI.” That’s where MCRCs come in: by offering mentoring, oversight, and structure, they can help more physicians step into research without compromising quality.
Orantes added that while the industry talks a lot about the need for new PIs, it still lacks a clear, consistent path to approval. “We’ve got to solve that, or it’s going to catch up with us,” he said.
Taking the Leap
But that’s not to suggest it’s all doom and gloom; there are plenty of examples of good collaboration, as well. Orantes introduced a trial Alcanza worked on with two other MCRCs in the AMRC network, where each was given freedom to allocate patients and select sites. The result? Faster startup and enrollment completion up to three weeks ahead of schedule.
“Once trust is established, the results follow,” said Orantes. “And those early partnerships turn into deeper collaborations.”
Kinsey described how Merck uses MCRC partners to run user testing, troubleshoot recruitment strategies, and gather site feedback at scale. “That kind of built-in feedback loop is a huge advantage, and we can do it without adding layers.”
Change Starts with You
The webinar closed with a call to action: what should each stakeholder do right now?
- Sponsors: Start early. Choose a pilot program and begin building the relationship before protocol design is final.
- CROs: Spotlight MCRCs across internal teams — from feasibility to strategy — and share performance stories widely.
- MCRCs: Be transparent about what’s working, what’s not, and how you can support evolving sponsor needs.
And from Jim Kremidas: “Measure everything. Show the data. Compare your default model to one that includes a strategic MCRC partnership. That’s how we get buy-in.”
Watch on Demand
Catch the full webinar on demand here.
