Assigned towork with a only one sponsor Get lots of positive feedback. Treated as a professional. Assigned sites are regional As part of the PSP, I am assigned to a a only one sponsor and 4 sister protocols for the same therapeutic area. The managers on my team have worked hard to keep our assigned sites local or regional. I've had 3 really good managers, all of whom were supportive and gave a lot of positive feedback. We've been treated as professionals and our time is flexible. We are given lots of updates which can be good or bad.
Things are in upheaval since bought by inVentiv. Lots of turnover at present. Too many managers. Not enough worker bees. Although we are given frequent updates about the merger, it is hard to know what to expect when all of the changes are finalized. It feels like it is taking forever to sort things out. I'm not sure how much of my dissatisfaction is from the merger and how much is due to the sponsor I am currently assigned to. This particular sponsor has a lot of unwieldy applications and requires an excessive amount of training. There are a lot of tasks that are given higher priority than monitoring sites, which should be of utmost importance. We are overworked because of this and because we can't keep enough monitors to make up a complete team. It is impossible to do the job in a 40-50 hour work week. I was able to deal with this until the merger. The added stress of all of the resulting changes have been too much. I will probably be leaving soon..
Advice to Management
Streamline management and hire more CRAs. Be more judicious when negotiating contracts with sponsors so CRAs are not overworked. Sponsor expectations should be more clear cut and consitent from beginning to end of each protocol. Allowing sponsors to add extra work with immediate deadlines leads to low morale and higher turnover in staff.
Provided good health benefits through United Healthcare.
Poor management and leadership skills, inconsistent promotions and bonuses.
Advice to Management
i3research would have been a great company to work if they had not allowed many highly skilled and competent employees over a period of time to leave because of continued dissatisfaction and frustration due to decisions not to act on their issues and concerns. If the company had been willing to correct or replace bad upper management employees with managers who possessed good management and people skills, it could have been an enjoyable place to work.
Your feedback has been sent to the team and we'll look into it.