The use of intensive longitudinal studies, also called ecological momentary assessment (EMA) studies, to examine the variable nature of suicidal thoughts and behaviors has rapidly expanded. Multiple review papers find that EMA studies are perceived as feasible and often well-received by participants (Porras-Segovia et al., 2020; Rabasco & Sheehan, 2022; Sedano-Capderila et al., 2021). Additionally, reviews have examined researchers’ study protocols for safety procedures (Bentley et al., 2021) and provided expert consensus on best practices for conducting EMA studies (Nock et al., 2021) to guide scholars who wish to study suicide with this methodology. However, there is a lack of data regarding the researcher’s perceived feasibility and the realities of conducting EMA studies, especially in collaboration with large non-academic healthcare systems. Advancing suicide research requires transparency in the research process and it is imperative that researchers also share their failed EMA studies to impart wisdom to other scholars pursuing this methodology. This paper will detail the rise and fall of an ethics approved, published EMA protocol (Sharma et al., 2022) examining risk correlates of suicide among high-risk psychiatric outpatients. This study protocol was part of a collaborative partnership between a regional healthcare system partner in the US and the University of the presenting author. Participants were recruited through electronic medical records, completed baseline assessments, a 21-day EMA protocol on their smartphone, and a concluding assessment. Twenty-Five (92.6% enrollment rate) participants completed the study across a period of 15 months (Mage = 35.6, SD = 14.36; 58.6% Female; 84% had attempted suicide in their lifetime; 16% attempted suicide in the past year). Adherence to the EMA survey prompts was 82.6%. The study was terminated shortly after the 25th participant completed the EMA protocol due to numerous challenges, setbacks, and obstacles largely out of the researchers’ control. Challenges faced in securing ethics approval, training research support staff, and contracting with the EMA software company will be reviewed. Obstacles in recruitment, technology, hospital system flow, and adherence to safety protocols will also be discussed. A discussion of ethics related to risks/benefits (or “return on investment”) analysis of the study value that occurred will be presented, leading to a review of lessons learned and practical tips for future researchers conducting EMA studies of suicide. The proposed paper provides a new perspective of the feasibility of conducting EMA studies from the researcher’s perspective. This candid discussion of failures and the realities of conducting an EMA study of suicide within a non-academic healthcare system provides valuable insight to future scholars who aim to conduct their own independent EMA study of suicide.