Pros
There is an ample selection of dedicated (line, study team) managers. Departmental leadership is commendable (CRG). The CEO is dependable. Working with reputable institutions and clinical sites is a consistent delight. Mentoring is an engaging experience that supports accountability for seasoned employees within the department.
Cons
Line management (LM) admits to spending inappropriate amounts of time inadvertently 'relaxing,' 'taking breathers,' 'walking dogs,' 'taking children to school,' 'taking (coffee) breaks,' etc. when CS and CAS teams necessitate their involvement and/or support during periods of high impact. USA Study teams (US site, US clinical teams) are more progressively being assigned and headed by STM/CTMs that are outside of the country, with great timezone differences from US-based personnel, evidently inexperienced, inconsiderate of study site office hours, or are unable to properly speak and/or write in the English language. This is consistently reprimanded by site management and PIs, and interferes with timelines and study activation goals. USA study clinical teams continuously neglect pre-qualification work that is purposed to determine site feasibility, only to be realized during the activation effort by CASs. 'Forgetful' LMs cause escalation issues as study STMs/CTMs 'get away' with misrepresentation and/or neglect of responsibilities.