Streamlining Internal Approvals for University Research Contracts

If you’ve successfully built out a robust university contract clause library, you might be wondering how to address the internal approval bottleneck.

And if there is a way to standardize the hand-off between your office, the Principal Investigator (PI), and the Dean so that you aren’t stuck manually chasing signatures—without losing the necessary oversight that protects the university from risk.

If that’s you, you’re not alone.

Here are the 5 steps to streamlining internal approvals for university research contracts:

Step 1: Define Clear Signature Authority and Escalation Paths

To keep contracts from sitting on a desk indefinitely, we recommend codifying exactly who has the authority to sign based on the contract type and dollar amount.

To remove the guesswork, consider:

• Role-Based Routing: Set the software to automatically identify if a Dean’s signature is required based on the funding threshold or department.
• Automated Escalation: We suggest setting 48-hour "pings" that remind a busy PI or Department Chair that a contract is waiting for their review.

Step 2: Implement Parallel Review Streams

Instead of a "relay race" approach, we recommend using parallel workflows where all stakeholders review the agreement simultaneously.

To speed up the review, try to:

• Draft with Pre-Vetted Language: Use your contract drafting software to generate the initial agreement from your library so that reviewers are only focusing on project-specific variables rather than re-reviewing standard terms.
• Enable Simultaneous Commenting: Let Export Control and Research Integrity provide feedback at the same time so you can address all issues in one go.
• Segment Access: We suggest allowing the PI to see the scientific scope while keeping the legal clauses locked for the Contracts Office.

Step 3: Use "Decision-Based" Routing for Compliance Checks

To avoid clogging up the Export Control or Conflict of Interest (COI) offices, we recommend using conditional logic to trigger their review only when specific risk factors are present in the agreement.

To optimize your routing, implement:

• Trigger by Keyword: If a contract includes "International Shipping" or "Foreign Talent," the system should automatically route it to Export Control.
• COI Integration: Consider setting a rule where the software flags the contract for the Research Integrity office only if the PI has an active disclosure on file.

Step 4: Create a "Single Pane of Glass" for Status Tracking

To reduce the volume of "status update" emails, we recommend providing a real-time dashboard where researchers can see exactly whose desk their contract is sitting on without calling the office.

To improve visibility, consider:

• Live Status Dashboards: Give PIs a "read-only" view of the approval timeline so they can see progress independently.
• Bottleneck Reporting: We suggest using data to identify which departments are taking the longest to approve so you can adjust your internal timelines accordingly.

Step 5: Transition to Native Electronic Signature Workflows

To prevent delays during the final execution stage, we recommend integrating electronic signatures directly into the workflow so that the document is sent for execution the moment internal approvals are cleared.

To close the loop, try:

• Mobile-Friendly Signing: Ensure that Deans and PIs can sign from their phones or tablets to avoid delays during travel or field research.
• Automatic Filing: We suggest setting the system to automatically file the fully executed agreement back into your grant management system once the final signature is captured.

Conclusion

And there you have it.

We hope these steps help you turn your internal approval process from a manual bottleneck into a streamlined, predictable workflow. By combining pre-vetted drafting with structured routing, you can protect the university’s interests without slowing down the pace of research.

If you found this helpful, check out our next article on generating contract drafting analytics for university board reporting.