As universities expand in scope, organisation, and research capability, it’s increasingly difficult for universities to manage conflicts of interest (COI).

Large numbers of employees, decentralised faculties, and research commercialisation create high-risk environments. As such, regulation and training alone are no longer sufficient to ensure compliance.

Satori’s COO Troy Nicholson and GM - Customer Success, Natalya Levenkova, were joined by David Lavelle, Director of the Integrity Unit at the University of Queensland (UQ) in a recent webinar to discuss the practical challenges universities face in identifying and managing conflicts of interest, and how data integration and automation can provide stronger, more consistent oversight.

Why conflict of interest is hard to detect

Even with clear governance frameworks, managing conflict of interest (COI) in higher education is difficult. The reasons are both structural and human:

• Staff may forget or misunderstand what needs to be disclosed
• Awareness of COI obligations varies across roles and faculties
• Complex organisational structures make oversight difficult
• In some cases, conflicts are deliberately not declared

Most institutions still rely on self-declaration as their first line of defence. While important, this approach leaves too much to chance, particularly when disclosure registers are static and disconnected from systems that track procurement or personnel.

This creates blind spots across the COI lifecycle. Without integrated detection, informed prevention, and consistent response, risks go unchecked.

Why better data matters

Internal records (employee, vendor, financial) offer valuable signals when analysed together. Cross-referencing these datasets can uncover shared contact details, bank accounts, or relationships that indicate potential conflicts.

External sources, like ABR and ASIC director data, provide added visibility into ownership and associations. Despite being freely available to universities, this data remains underutilised.

When asked, webinar attendees said:

• Most were not currently using ABR or ASIC director data
• But nearly half indicated they plan to in future

The hesitation to use external data sources often stems from information overload. But effective monitoring doesn’t require checking everything. By focusing on key risk indicators, universities can cut through the noise and surface meaningful exceptions faster.

How automation supports the full lifecycle

Conflict detection in higher education should be proactive and systematised. Automation shifts the model, enabling continuous, consistent checks across full datasets.

That’s how Satori supports every stage of the COI lifecycle:

• Early detection – Ongoing monitoring, powered by internal and external data sources.
• Prevention – Satori’s solution educates users on the importance and best practices for monitoring COI.
• Structured response – Workflow to ensure all potential COI instances are investigated, with an audit trail to demonstrate accountability.

With automation in place, COI monitoring becomes embedded assurance, supporting policy and training with a system that’s always on.

Yet despite the value automation brings, most universities are still early in their adoption. When asked, webinar attendees said:

• Most attendees rely on self-declaration
• Some use manual reviews
• Few use automated tools.

What this means is that while many institutions understand the importance of managing COI, few have the systems in place to do so consistently and proactively.

In practice: University of Queensland (UQ)

With 7,500 staff and over 50,000 students, UQ operates in a complex procurement environment. As a research-intensive institution, commercial partnerships add further COI exposure.

But ten years ago, UQ had no dedicated conflict of interest policy. 

“It occurred to me, when I was involved in a couple of cases, that there was no gatekeeper control between an academic, for example, who might have some valuable research commercialised, and the external world where the commercialisation will occur,” explained David Lavelle, Director of the Integrity Unit. 

That gap prompted an overhaul of UQ’s conflict of interest framework, supported by Satori.

UQ applies a structured, closed-loop model to manage conflict of interest across detection, prevention, and response. Working closely with Satori, the university now follows a five-step approach:

1. Assess COI risk profile – Each faculty and function is evaluated to understand where conflicts are most likely to arise.
2. Identify relevant and available data points – This includes employee records, procurement data, and external datasets such as ABR/ASIC director information.
3. Work with Satori to customise exceptions – UQ continuously refines its exception logic, allowing the system to surface relevant matches while reducing noise.
4. Triage, assess and resolve exceptions – High-risk matches are assessed internally. Undeclared conflicts are escalated through investigation workflows.
5. Utilise exception outcomes for improvement – UQ uses the results of exception handling to educate staff, refine processes and strengthen internal controls.

One flagged case illustrates how this process works in practice:

• CCM Alert – A match was detected between an employee and a vendor. Internal and ABR data confirmed the connection, which had been established shortly before the vendor’s registration.
• Triage/Assessment – The vendor was linked to the employee’s spouse. The employee had requested the vendor registration and raised a purchase order, without declaring the conflict.
• Outcome – The PO was cancelled, the vendor suspended, and the matter investigated. Additional payments to a related entity were also identified. The case was referred to Queensland Police, and internal awareness measures were reinforced.

“Without this product, we would not know half of what we now find out about,” Lavelle said. “We’ve been able to terminate contracts where conflicts were undisclosed. We wouldn’t have found these without Satori.”

Satori’s integration with UQ’s master staff and vendor files provides the university with continuous visibility across a high-volume, high-risk procurement environment, aligning its policy, data, and actions. 

Policy to practice

Policies set the tone, but they don’t enforce themselves. Scalable conflict of interest monitoring requires real-time data, external context and consistent checks across the organisation.

As shown by the University of Queensland, automated detection delivers stronger governance, clearer accountability, and reduced compliance risk. 

If your institution is ready to strengthen its conflict of interest monitoring, Satori can help. Contact Satori to explore how automated detection, integrated data sources, and audit-ready workflows can support your university’s COI framework.

Watch the webinar here for practical examples and insights from UQ and Satori’s experts: https://satorigrp.com/webinars/preventing-conflict-of-interest-in-higher-education-webinar/