Category: high performance scientific team insights

  • Why Reagent and Kit Launches Slip, and How High-Performance Product Teams Ship On Time 

    THE SHORT ANSWER 

    High-Performance Science Teams™ helps life science product teams R&D, product management, QC, regulatory, operations, marketing, and technical support launch reagents, assay kits, and consumables on time and on spec. It targets the cross-functional behaviors behind spec creep, late lot-release criteria, and launches the commercial team isn’t ready to support. 

    How often do new life science products actually deliver? 

    Less often than roadmaps assume. In TechLink’s 2024 R&D Innovation Performance Study of R&D-driven companies, about three-quarters of respondents reported that half or fewer of their new product development projects result in sales, more than half said half or fewer hit projected sales targets, and about a quarter take more than a year to develop a new product. Meanwhile, 83% plan to increase their number of SKUs over the next three years. 

    The study spans industries life science is a minority of respondents so treat these as directional. But for a reagent or kit company adding SKUs every quarter, the implication is uncomfortable: more launches through the same cross-functional machinery means more of the same slippage. 

    Where do reagent and kit launches break down? 

    • Spec creep in R&D. The assay team keeps optimizing sensitivity or dynamic range after the product requirements were set, because no one has the authority or the protocol to freeze the design. 
    • Product managers with accountability but no authority. Product management owns the launch date but can’t make R&D, QC, or supply chain commit to theirs. 
    • Lot-release criteria set late. QC specifications and stability data arrive after design transfer, and lot-to-lot consistency complaints arrive after launch. 
    • Design controls treated as regulatory’s problem. For products moving from RUO toward IVD or ISO 13485 environments, documentation is back-filled instead of built into how the team works. 
    • Claims the data doesn’t yet support. Marketing launches on application notes and validation data that R&D considers preliminary. 
    • Technical support and FAS learn about the product at launch. The people customers call first are the last to be trained. 

    Why doesn’t a new stage-gate process or PLM system fix it? 

    When launches slip, tools companies reach for vertical fixes: a formal stage-gate process, a PLM or QMS platform, a reorganization that moves product management under a different executive. In the same TechLink study, only 40% of companies reported extensively using a gating process so formal process is a real gap for many. 

    But a gate only works if the team at the gate is willing to make the call. A PLM system documents the bill of materials; it doesn’t resolve the argument between R&D and product management about whether the kit is ready. That argument is a team behavior, and it needs a team-level fix. 

    How does High-Performance Science Teams™ work for product teams? 

    The program applies Guttman Development Strategies’ horizontal high-performance team model to the intact new product introduction team, working on real launches in your pipeline. 

    Launch pattern Root behavior What HPT installs 
    Spec creep and slipped design freeze No agreed decision rule for “good enough” A decision protocol tied to product requirements, with a named decision owner and date 
    PM accountability without authority Functional goals outrank launch goals Shared launch goals and cross-functional commitments each function signs 
    Late QC and stability criteria QC brought in at design transfer QC, regulatory, and operations seated in the core team from feasibility onward 
    Marketing–R&D claims conflict Disagreement handled by escalation A conflict protocol that settles claims against the validation data, in the room 
    Unready tech support and FAS Commercial handoff treated as an event Peer accountability for launch readiness across R&D, marketing, and support 

    How does this connect to commercial readiness? 

    High-Performance Science Teams™ aligns the team that builds the product. Bench to Business™, our companion program, builds the customer-facing skills of the Field Application Scientists and technical specialists who support it. Many product companies run both: one for the launch team, one for the people carrying the product to customers. 

    Who is it for? 

    VPs of Product Management and R&D, CCOs, product marketing leaders, and QC, QA, and operations heads at life science tools, reagent, antibody, assay kit, and consumables companies — typically in the $10M–$500M revenue range and launching multiple products a year. 

    How do we get started? 

    Start with the Science Team 360™, a short, confidential team-level diagnostic that shows exactly where decision rights, alignment, and accountability are breaking down inside your product development team. You get a readout before anyone commits to a full engagement. 

    Request a Science Team 360™ conversation at bench2business.bio. 

    Frequently asked questions 

    Why do life science product launches slip? 

    Most slips trace to cross-functional behavior rather than technical failure: design specs that never freeze, product managers without authority over other functions, QC and regulatory brought in late, and commercial teams trained after launch. 

    What is a high-performance product development team? 

    It is a cross-functional team -R&D, product management, QC, regulatory, operations, marketing, and support, that shares one set of launch goals, has explicit decision rights, resolves conflicts openly, and holds each other accountable for launch readiness. 

    Does High-Performance Science Teams™ replace a stage-gate process? 

    No. It makes gates work by ensuring the team at each gate makes a clear decision on agreed criteria instead of deferring it. 

    Is this relevant for RUO-to-IVD transitions? 

    Yes. Teams moving toward design-controlled environments benefit from building cross-functional documentation and decision habits early, rather than back-filling them. 

    How do we start? 

    With the Science Team 360™, a confidential team diagnostic that shows where alignment, decision rights, and accountability break down in your launch team. 

    Sources 

    1. TechLink, 2024 R&D Innovation Performance Study — Executive Summary (conducted by The MPI Group; n=152 U.S. executives, cross-industry). 
    1. Guttman, H.M. Great Business Teams: Cracking the Code for Standout Performance (Wiley, 2008) — https://www.guttmandev.com/great-business-teams 

    Figures from third-party studies are cited as published. Cross-industry data is presented as directional for life science. Program outcomes described are targets teams track against their own Science Team 360™ baseline, not guaranteed results. 

  • Why Biotech Manufacturing Teams Become the Critical Path and How High-Performance Teams Get CMC Ready 

    THE SHORT ANSWER 

    High-Performance Science Teams™ helps internal manufacturing and technical operations teams at therapeutics companies process and analytical development, manufacturing, MSAT, QC, QA, supply chain, and external manufacturing, operate as one team from clinical supply to commercial launch. It targets the behaviors behind late CMC surprises, inspection-readiness gaps, and CDMO relationships that drift, the issues that increasingly decide approval timelines. 

    Why is manufacturing now the critical path to approval? 

    For most of a program’s life, CMC runs in the background. Then the pivotal readout lands, the BLA or NDA timeline locks, and technical operations becomes the critical path overnight — process performance qualification, comparability, commercial-scale validation, and pre-approval inspection readiness all at once. 

    FDA’s own letters show how often that goes wrong. A peer-reviewed Johns Hopkins analysis of complete response letters for 43 novel therapeutics that were ultimately approved between 2020 and 2024 found manufacturing deficiencies were the most common problem: 65% of letters cited facility issues and 51% cited CMC issues, more than efficacy or safety. The median time from CRL to eventual approval was 1.28 years (Dilek et al., Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 2026). 

    Facility findings and CMC gaps are technical on paper. In practice, many start as team problems: data that didn’t move between functions, risks that surfaced late, and decisions no one clearly owned. 

    What does team dysfunction look like in biotech technical operations? 

    • R&D culture meets GMP reality. Teams that grew up in discovery treat documentation, change control, and deviations as paperwork — until a mock inspection shows otherwise. 
    • Process development versus manufacturing. PD optimizes the process; manufacturing inherits it at scale. Comparability and scale-up questions surface during engineering runs instead of in design. 
    • Quality as the gate at the end. QA and QC review what operations already decided, so issues are found at batch disposition or in the CMC module draft, not when they were cheap to fix. 
    • CMC timelines that don’t match clinical timelines. Clinical development plans the readout; technical operations learns the filing date secondhand and compresses PPQ to fit. 
    • External manufacturing drift. In hybrid models, the CDMO relationship is owned by one person. Tech transfer, person-in-plant oversight, and quality agreements live in silos, and the sponsor hears about problems late. 
    • Hiring faster than norms can form. A new facility or launch ramp doubles headcount, and decision rights, escalation paths, and handoffs never get written down. 

    Why don’t new systems, consultants, or a bigger team fix it? 

    Therapeutics companies reach for vertical fixes when CMC gets tight: a new QMS or LIMS, an inspection-readiness consultant, a reorganization under a new Chief Technical Officer, more headcount. Each has its place. A mock inspection finds the gaps; it doesn’t change how process development, manufacturing, and QA work together to close them. 

    The pattern behind most CMC surprises is horizontal information and accountability that don’t cross functional lines and it needs a horizontal fix. 

    How does High-Performance Science Teams™ work for manufacturing teams? 

    The program applies Guttman Development Strategies’ horizontal high-performance team model to technical operations leadership and cross-functional CMC teams, working on live programs, live filings, and live CDMO relationships. 

    CMC-risk pattern Root behavior What HPT installs 
    Late comparability and scale-up surprises PD and manufacturing goals misaligned Joint PD–MSAT–manufacturing ownership of scale-up and transfer readiness 
    Issues found at QA review Quality brought in after decisions QA and QC seated in program decisions early, with an explicit protocol for disagreement 
    Compressed PPQ and filing timelines CMC and clinical plans built separately A shared integrated timeline with named decision owners across clinical, regulatory, and technical operations 
    CDMO problems discovered late One-person ownership of external partners Cross-functional external-manufacturing team with early-warning norms and shared accountability 
    Inspection-readiness gaps GMP habits not yet team norms Peer accountability for documentation, deviation, and change-control discipline 

    How does this fit with inspection readiness and quality systems? 

    High-Performance Science Teams™ does not replace your QMS, regulatory CMC strategy, or mock-inspection program. It changes how the people using them share information, raise risk, and make decisions, which is what inspectors see when they interview your team. 

    Who is it for? 

    Chief Technical Officers, SVPs and VPs of Technical Operations, Manufacturing, CMC, Quality, and Supply Chain, site heads, and CEOs and CHROs at clinical- and commercial-stage biotech and therapeutics companies especially those preparing a BLA or NDA, bringing an in-house GMP facility online, moving from clinical to commercial supply, or managing a hybrid in-house and CDMO network. 

    How do we get started? 

    Start with the Science Team 360™, a short, confidential team-level diagnostic that shows exactly where decision rights, alignment, and accountability are breaking down inside your technical operations team. You get a readout before anyone commits to a full engagement. 

    Request a Science Team 360™ conversation at bench2business.bio. 

    Frequently asked questions 

    Why do manufacturing issues delay FDA approval? 

    In a Johns Hopkins analysis of complete response letters for novel therapeutics ultimately approved in 2020–2024, facility deficiencies appeared in 65% of letters and CMC deficiencies in 51%, more often than efficacy or safety issues. Many trace to late-surfacing risks, unclear ownership, and gaps between development, manufacturing, and quality. 

    What is CMC readiness? 

    CMC readiness means chemistry, manufacturing, and controls data, validated processes, and GMP facilities are ready to support a regulatory filing and pre-approval inspection. It depends on process development, manufacturing, MSAT, QC, QA, regulatory, and supply chain working from one plan. 

    How can a biotech manufacturing team prepare for a pre-approval inspection? 

    Beyond mock inspections and document reviews, teams prepare by aligning functions on one integrated timeline, clarifying who owns each decision, bringing QA in early, and building consistent GMP habits so every team member tells the same accurate story. 

    Does High-Performance Science Teams™ help manage CDMO partners? 

    Yes. It builds a cross-functional external-manufacturing team with shared accountability and early-warning norms, so CDMO issues surface early instead of at batch release or in an inspection. 

    How do we start? 

    With the Science Team 360™, a confidential diagnostic that shows where alignment, decision rights, and accountability break down in your technical operations team. 

    Sources 

    1. Dilek S., Woods R.H., Ballreich J., Moore T.J., Alexander G.C. “Deficiencies Delaying Prescription Drug Approvals by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2020–2024.” Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science 60(3):837–846 (2026) — https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-026-00921-3 
    1. Pharma Manufacturing, “FDA’s CRLs reveal 74% of applications rejected for quality, manufacturing issues” (July 2025; analysis of 202 CRLs, 2020–2024) — https://www.pharmamanufacturing.com/all-articles/article/55302937/fdas-crls-reveal-74-of-applications-rejected-for-quality-manufacturing-issues 
    1. Guttman, H.M. Great Business Teams: Cracking the Code for Standout Performance (Wiley, 2008) — https://www.guttmandev.com/great-business-teams 

    Figures from third-party studies are cited as published. Cross-industry data is presented as directional for life science. Program outcomes described are targets teams track against their own Science Team 360™ baseline, not guaranteed results. 

  • Why Drug Discovery Teams Stall Between Target and Candidate, and How to Fix It 

    THE SHORT ANSWER 

    High-Performance Science Teams™ is a team-level behavioral program from Bench to Business™ and Guttman Development Strategies for therapeutic R&D teams. It addresses the non-scientific reasons discovery programs stall deferred go/no-go decisions, biology–chemistry–DMPK silos, and disagreement that surfaces after the project meeting instead of in it by installing explicit decision rights, conflict protocols, and peer accountability. 

    Why do drug discovery programs stall when the science is sound? 

    Every head of research has lived some version of this. The target is validated, the assay cascade works, the chemistry is tractable and the program still drifts. Lead optimization runs two quarters past plan. Candidate nomination slips. The go/no-go meeting ends with the most expensive sentence in drug discovery: “Let’s generate one more dataset.” 

    In our experience, the root cause is rarely a failed experiment. It is how the project team makes and avoids making decisions. Scientific rigor is not the constraint. Team behavior is. 

    Broader R&D data points the same way. In TechLink’s 2024 R&D Innovation Performance Study of 152 U.S. executives at R&D-driven companies, 21% named lack of leadership commitment and 16% named poor collaboration across the company as barriers to innovation, and only 46% said they extensively use cross-functional work to develop new products. The study is cross-industry rather than life-science specific, but the pattern will look familiar to anyone who has sat in a program review. 

    What does team dysfunction look like inside a therapeutic research program? 

    • Go/no-go drift. Kill decisions get deferred because no one clearly owns the call. Marginal programs keep consuming FTEs, CRO budget, and animal studies that the next target needs. 
    • Functional silos across biology, medicinal chemistry, DMPK, and safety. Each function optimizes its own milestone. SAR decisions are made without ADME or tox input until the liabilities show up late. 
    • The PI model of leadership. Project leaders trained as principal investigators default to owning every decision. Team members defer instead of challenging the hypothesis. 
    • The meeting after the meeting. Real disagreement about target biology, biomarker strategy, or the target product profile happens in hallways and side channels not in the project team meeting where it could be resolved. 
    • Translational handoff friction. Discovery hands a development candidate to CMC, clinical, and regulatory without shared criteria, and IND-enabling work turns into rework. 

    Why don’t reorganizations, new software, or consultants fix it? 

    When R&D productivity stalls, life science companies reach for vertical fixes: redraw the org chart, add a portfolio management platform, bring in a strategy firm. Each can help. None changes how the people around the table decide, disagree, and hold each other accountable. 

    A reorganization moves the boxes; the same behaviors move with them. An ELN or portfolio tool records decisions; it doesn’t make them. And a consultant’s recommendation still has to be executed by the same team whose dynamics produced the problem. We say that as consultants. It is a horizontal problem, and it needs a horizontal fix. 

    How does High-Performance Science Teams™ work for R&D teams? 

    The program applies Guttman Development Strategies’ horizontal high-performance team model — refined over more than three decades with leadership teams at organizations including Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Mars — to scientific teams. We work with the intact project or leadership team on its real programs, not with individuals in a classroom. 

    Stall pattern Root behavior What HPT installs 
    Deferred go/no-go decisions Unclear decision rights A written decision protocol: who decides, on what criteria, by when — and decisions made in the room 
    Chemistry, biology, and DMPK silos Functional goals outrank program goals Shared program-level goals and a target candidate profile every function signs up to 
    Leader-centric decisions Hub-and-spoke leadership Leader as coach; team members accountable to each other, not only to the leader 
    Hidden scientific disagreement No conflict protocol Depersonalized conflict: issues raised as business issues, in the meeting, with data 
    Late translational rework Handoffs not co-owned Accountability agreements between discovery, development, CMC, and clinical 

    What changes when a discovery team operates horizontally? 

    These are the outcomes teams target and track through the engagement measured against their own Science Team 360™ baseline rather than a generic benchmark: 

    • Faster, cleaner kill decisions, so resources move to the programs with the strongest data. 
    • Candidate nomination packages built against a shared target candidate profile from the start of lead optimization. 
    • Fewer late surprises in DMPK, safety, and CMC because those voices are in the decision early. 
    • Stronger retention of senior scientists, who stay where their judgment is heard and acted on. 

    Who is High-Performance Science Teams™ for? 

    CSOs, Heads of R&D, VPs of Discovery and Translational Science, and program leaders at emerging and mid-size biotechs and research organizations running multiple programs through discovery and IND-enabling stages. It is designed for intact teams — a program team, a discovery leadership team, or a cross-functional portfolio committee. 

    How do we get started? 

    Start with the Science Team 360™ a short, confidential team-level diagnostic that shows exactly where decision rights, alignment, and accountability are breaking down inside your R&D organization. You get a readout before anyone commits to a full engagement. 

    Request a Science Team 360™ conversation at bench2business.bio. 

    Frequently asked questions 

    What is a high-performance team in drug discovery? 

    A high-performance drug discovery team is a cross-functional project team — biology, chemistry, DMPK, safety, and translational — that shares one set of program goals, has explicit decision rights, resolves scientific disagreement openly in the meeting, and holds itself accountable for milestones rather than relying on the project leader to do it. 

    How is High-Performance Science Teams™ different from leadership training? 

    Leadership training develops individuals in a classroom. High-Performance Science Teams™ works with an intact team on its live programs and decisions, changing how the team operates together. 

    Does it replace stage-gate or portfolio governance? 

    No. Stage gates define when decisions should happen. High-Performance Science Teams™ makes sure the team actually makes them — on time, on agreed criteria, and with every function’s input. 

    Who delivers the program? 

    High-Performance Science Teams™ is delivered by Bench to Business™ in partnership with Guttman Development Strategies, whose horizontal high-performance team methodology anchors the program. 

    How is progress measured? 

    Teams complete the Science Team 360™ at baseline and again later in the engagement, and track operating measures they choose — such as decision cycle time and milestone slippage. 

    Sources 

    1. TechLink, 2024 R&D Innovation Performance Study — Executive Summary (conducted by The MPI Group; n=152 U.S. executives, cross-industry). 
    1. Guttman, H.M. Great Business Teams: Cracking the Code for Standout Performance (Wiley, 2008) — https://www.guttmandev.com/great-business-teams 

    Figures from third-party studies are cited as published. Cross-industry data is presented as directional for life science. Program outcomes described are targets teams track against their own Science Team 360™ baseline, not guaranteed results. 

  • Clinical Trial Delays Your Study Team Can Control, and How High-Performance Teams Prevent Them 

    THE SHORT ANSWER 

    High-Performance Science Teams™ helps sponsor-side clinical study teams clinical operations, medical, data management, biostatistics, regulatory, and CRO partners make faster, cleaner decisions. It targets the team behaviors behind avoidable protocol amendments, slow escalations, and sponsor CRO friction, the delays a study team can actually control. 

    What does a day of clinical trial delay really cost? 

    Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development estimates the mean direct cost of running a Phase II or Phase III trial at roughly $40,000 per day, about $23,700 per day for Phase II and $55,700 for Phase III (Tufts CSDD, 2024). That is before counting the commercial value of a later approval. 

    Protocol amendments are one of the most visible sources of that delay. In Tufts CSDD’s 2016 benchmark, 57% of protocols had at least one substantial amendment, nearly half of those amendments were judged avoidable, and the median direct cost to implement one was $141,000 in Phase II and $535,000 in Phase III. Tufts’ more recent benchmarking found that most amendments are now judged unavoidable driven by regulatory requests and changes in study strategy, but that still leaves a costly avoidable share, and strategy changes are often a symptom of misalignment upstream. 

    Which clinical trial delays are team problems, not science problems? 

    Enrollment curves and regulatory feedback get the blame. But inside most study execution teams, a set of controllable behaviors quietly adds weeks: 

    • Protocols designed without operational voice. Clinical science finalizes the protocol before clinical operations, data management, and sites weigh in on feasibility, then amends it after first patient in. 
    • Decisions escalated instead of made. The study team treats governance committees as the default decision-maker, so routine calls on eligibility clarifications or vendor issues wait for the next meeting cycle. 
    • Medical vs. operations tension. Medical monitors and clinical operations optimize for different risks and rarely resolve the trade-off explicitly. 
    • The sponsor–CRO blame loop. Vendor oversight becomes policing. The CRO learns to report green until it’s red, and the sponsor learns to distrust the dashboard. 
    • Status meetings instead of decision meetings. Study team meetings recite enrollment numbers and open queries without assigning owners to the enrollment rescue plan or the database-lock critical path. 

    Why don’t better CTMS dashboards or another CRO fix it? 

    Life science companies reach for vertical fixes when a trial slips: a new CTMS or RBQM platform, a reorganized clinical operations function, a CRO switch. The dashboard shows the delay more clearly. It does not change how the study team decides what to do about it. 

    Switching CROs is the most expensive version of the same mistake. If the sponsor-side team’s decision rights, escalation norms, and accountability are unclear, the new partner inherits the same dynamics — along with a transition that costs months. 

    How does High-Performance Science Teams™ work for clinical study teams? 

    The program applies Guttman Development Strategies’ horizontal high-performance team model to the study execution team, working on live studies rather than simulations. Where it helps, the engagement can be designed to include CRO counterparts so the partnership operates as one team. 

    Delay pattern Root behavior What HPT installs 
    Avoidable protocol amendments Feasibility input arrives after protocol finalization Cross-functional protocol-design protocol: clinical ops, data management, biostatistics, and site input before sign-off 
    Slow escalations Unclear decision rights at study-team level A decision charter defining what the study team decides, what it escalates, and within what time frame 
    Medical vs. operations standoffs Trade-offs left implicit Explicit conflict protocol that frames disagreements as study-risk decisions 
    Sponsor–CRO mistrust Oversight as policing Joint team agreements on early bad-news reporting and shared accountability for milestones 
    Missed database lock No single owner of the critical path Peer accountability for FPI, LPI, and database-lock milestones across functions 

    What is outside the scope of the program? 

    High-Performance Science Teams™ does not replace patient-recruitment strategy, site-selection analytics, or protocol-design expertise. It makes the team that uses those inputs faster and more aligned, and it works alongside the specialist partners you already rely on. 

    Who is it for? 

    VPs of Clinical Operations, Heads of Clinical Development, CMOs, study and program leads, and alliance managers at biotech and pharma sponsors running Phase I–III programs, especially teams managing one or more CRO partnerships. 

    How do we get started? 

    Start with the Science Team 360™, a short, confidential team-level diagnostic that shows exactly where decision rights, alignment, and accountability are breaking down inside your clinical study team. You get a readout before anyone commits to a full engagement. 

    Request a Science Team 360™ conversation at bench2business.bio. 

    Frequently asked questions 

    What causes clinical trial delays that a study team can control? 

    Controllable delays usually come from team behavior: protocols finalized without operational and site input, decisions escalated instead of made at study-team level, unresolved medical-versus-operations trade-offs, and sponsor CRO relationships where bad news travels late. 

    How much does a day of clinical trial delay cost? 

    Tufts CSDD estimates the mean direct cost at roughly $40,000 per day for Phase II and III trials — about $23,700 for Phase II and $55,700 for Phase III — excluding lost commercial value. 

    How does High-Performance Science Teams™ improve sponsor–CRO collaboration? 

    It creates joint agreements on decision rights, early reporting of risk, and shared milestone accountability, so the sponsor and CRO operate as one study team instead of a buyer and a vendor. 

    Does this replace risk-based quality management or CTMS tools? 

    No. RBQM and CTMS surface risks and status. High-Performance Science Teams™ improves how the study team acts on that information. 

    How do we start? 

    With the Science Team 360™, a confidential team diagnostic that pinpoints where decision rights, alignment, and accountability break down before any larger engagement. 

    Sources 

    1. Tufts CSDD, “How Much Does a Day of Delay in a Clinical Trial Really Cost?” White paper, August 2024 — https://csdd.tufts.edu/publications/articles 
    1. Getz K.A. et al. “The Impact of Protocol Amendments on Clinical Trial Performance and Cost.” Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 2016 — https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30227022/ 
    1. Tufts CSDD, “New Benchmarks on Protocol Amendment Practices, Trends and their Impact on Clinical Trial Performance” (preprint) — https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-3168679/v1 
    1. Guttman, H.M. Great Business Teams: Cracking the Code for Standout Performance (Wiley, 2008) — https://www.guttmandev.com/great-business-teams 

    Figures from third-party studies are cited as published. Cross-industry data is presented as directional for life science. Program outcomes described are targets teams track against their own Science Team 360™ baseline, not guaranteed results. 

  • 83% Say Go-to-Market Strategy Matters. Only 38% Say It Works. What Life Science Companies Should Do About the Gap.

    By Stephen Manobianco, Managing Director, PSG Life Sciences  |  Last updated: September 25, 2026

    QUICK ANSWER New Harvard Business Review Analytic Services research shows most B2B companies have a go-to-market execution problem, not a strategy problem -and in life sciences, that gap usually lives with the PhD scientists and technical specialists who carry the customer conversation and with sales, marketing, and technical teams that aren’t operating as one unit. Closing it takes structured commercial coaching for scientists, a high-performance team alignment process, and a CRM that gives everyone the same view of the buyer.

    In September 2025, Harvard Business Review Analytic Services surveyed 522 people involved in B2B sales decisions (the report, Aligning Go-to-Market Execution with Strategy to Better Address Complex Buyer Journeys, was sponsored by LeanData). The respondent pool is cross-industry -technology, manufacturing, consulting, financial services -not life sciences specifically. But I’ve spent 25+ years selling into research markets, and every pattern in this report shows up in life science commercial teams, usually in a more acute form.

    Here’s what the data says, and what it means if your customer-facing team is built on PhD scientists.

    What does the HBR research say about B2B go-to-market execution?

    DIRECT ANSWER: The HBR research finds that 83% of B2B organizations call their go-to-market strategy very important, but only 38% describe it as very effective and only 32% say their sales, marketing, and other teams are very aligned in executing it.

    The headline numbers from the survey:

    • 83% say their GTM strategy is very important for selling to B2B buyers; only 38% say it’s very effective.
    • 92% agree GTM strategy should align with the buyer journey -but only 29% say their organization understands today’s buyer journey very well.
    • 78% say they need better coordination across the GTM systems used by marketing and sales.
    • Only 32% say their sales, marketing, and other GTM teams are very aligned.

    A Bain & Co. partner interviewed for the report makes the point every CEO needs to hear: when execution isn’t set up properly, adding budget or headcount doesn’t move outcomes. In other words, hiring another rep into a broken system just gives you a more expensive broken system.

    Why does the strategy-to-execution gap hit life science companies harder?

    DIRECT ANSWER Life science companies feel the execution gap more because their customer-facing roles are usually filled by PhD scientists and technical specialists who were hired for scientific depth, not commercial skill, and because they sell to buying groups of PIs, lab managers, core directors, and procurement that each weigh different criteria.

    The HBR report calls out buying groups as a central complication: more stakeholders, each shaped by different touchpoints before a vendor ever gets a meeting. In the survey, 34% report difficulty engaging all members of a buying group, and 31% cite a lack of knowledge of the individual buyer roles involved in the decision.

    In life sciences, that buying group is the PI who cares about data, the postdoc who runs the protocol, the lab manager who owns the budget, and the procurement team that owns the vendor list. A scientist-turned-seller will instinctively talk to the person who shares their vocabulary. That’s the PI or the postdoc. The deal often stalls somewhere else.

    What separates go-to-market “leaders” from “laggards” in the HBR data?

    DIRECT ANSWER: GTM leaders in the HBR research are distinguished less by strategy than by execution discipline -they are far more aligned across teams, more likely to train their sales people, more likely to share common metrics, and far more likely to understand how their buyers actually buy.

    HBR segmented respondents into leaders (36%), followers (42%), and laggards (22%). The gaps are striking:

    Execution factorLeadersLaggards
    Sales/marketing/other teams very aligned63%11%
    Understand today’s buyer journey very well53%11%
    Prioritize improving collaboration across teams81%49%
    Training sales teams to improve effectiveness58%42%
    Aligning on a shared GTM strategy51%30%
    Cross-training sales and marketing on each other’s roles36%13%
    Revenue growth achieved from better buyer-journey understanding64%37%

    Source: Harvard Business Review Analytic Services survey, September 2025 (n=522).

    Read that table as a commercial leader and two things jump out. First, alignment is the single biggest separator -63% vs. 11%. Second, the leaders invest in people: training, cross-training, role clarity. That’s not a technology story. That’s a coaching and team-operating-model story.

    How do you prepare PhD scientists to execute a go-to-market strategy?

    DIRECT ANSWER Prepare PhD scientists for commercial roles with structured, life-science-specific coaching applied to their live accounts -covering discovery, buying-group mapping, account planning, and CRM discipline -with their manager involved so the new behaviors stick.

    The HBR survey’s top execution challenges read like a job description for a newly promoted Field Application Scientist:

    • A lack of feedback from buyers to improve approaches (39%)
    • Insufficient time to customize approaches for different customers (39%)
    • Reaction time too slow to act on customer and prospect signals (38%)

    None of these are knowledge problems. Your PhDs know the science cold. They’re skill and habit problems: asking discovery questions instead of presenting data, qualifying the buying group instead of the friendliest scientist, logging the signal in the CRM instead of in their head. At GENEWIZ, where we scaled revenue from $17M to over $100M, the scientists who became top performers weren’t the ones with the best publication record. They were the ones who learned to run a disciplined commercial conversation.

    The report also notes that among companies using AI in GTM, 45% use it to coach sales reps. A B2B sales consultant quoted in the report puts it bluntly: “I don’t want my sales reps practicing on buyers.” Neither do we. Scientists should rehearse on real account scenarios with a coach, not burn a key lab relationship learning how to handle a pricing objection.

    That’s the design behind Bench to Business, PSG’s 12-week coaching program for PhD scientists, Field Application Specialists, technical sales teams, and business development professionals in customer-facing life science roles. It uses real accounts rather than generic role plays, brings managers in at kickoff, midpoint, and capstone, and ties coaching directly to discovery, stakeholder mapping, account planning, and CRM execution.

    Promoted a great scientist into a customer-facing role -and the pipeline hasn’t followed? Bench to Business is a 12-week, life-science-specific coaching program led by Steve Manobianco that turns scientific expertise into commercial execution, applied to your team’s live accounts. Explore Bench to Business Coaching →

    How do sales, marketing, and technical teams become a high-performance team?

    DIRECT ANSWER: Sales, marketing, and technical teams become a high-performance team by agreeing on shared goals and metrics, clarifying who owns each stage of the buyer journey, setting explicit decision-making and conflict-resolution protocols, and reviewing wins and losses together on a regular cadence.

    The HBR data on this is unambiguous. The most-cited challenges in designing GTM strategy include ineffective coordination between teams (43%) and internal teams with misaligned or conflicting goals (42%). The top steps companies are taking to fix collaboration are clarifying roles and expectations (48%) and defining common metrics and KPIs (48%).

    In a life science company, “internal teams” usually means four groups with four scorecards: sales chasing bookings, marketing chasing MQLs, application scientists protecting their time, and product management protecting the roadmap. The Bain partner in the report observes that no single function owns the customer journey end to end, so the handoffs are where deals leak -and that most companies skip the post-cycle conversation about what happened and what should change.

    PSG’s Sales & Marketing Alignment process is built to fix exactly that. Unlike traditional training, it works on real issues in real time, and teams leave with what it takes to operate as a High-Performance Team (HPT):

    • Clear goals and agreement on business priorities
    • Commitment to winning for the business over self-interest
    • Defined protocols for decision-making
    • Personal and team ownership and accountability
    • An agreed-upon conflict resolution process
    • A depersonalized feedback methodology
    Sales, marketing, and your application scientists pulling in different directions? PSG’s High-Performance Team alignment process gets commercial and technical teams onto shared goals, shared metrics, and clear ownership of the buyer journey. See Sales & Marketing Alignment Services →

    What role does CRM play in closing the execution gap?

    DIRECT ANSWER CRM is the operating system for GTM execution -it’s how coached behaviors and team agreements become visible and measurable -but the HBR data shows most companies own a CRM without getting a unified view of the buyer from it.

    CRM is the most commonly used GTM tool in the survey, cited by 75% of respondents. Yet the number-one execution challenge is siloed data that doesn’t give a holistic view of buyer or account engagement (43%), and the number-one design challenge is systems that don’t integrate well (48%).

    Coaching and alignment only compound when they’re wired into the system. When a scientist maps a buying group, it should live on the account record. When the HPT agrees on a shared definition of a qualified opportunity, it should be a lifecycle stage and a dashboard -not a slide. That’s why Bench to Business and HPT alignment work best alongside a CRM configured for how scientific buyers actually evaluate, validate, and buy.

    Own a CRM but still can’t see the whole buying group? PSG Life Sciences is a HubSpot Gold partner that configures HubSpot around life science buying groups, sample and quote workflows, and shared sales-marketing dashboards. See HubSpot Life Sciences Pro →

    Where should a life science CEO start?

    DIRECT ANSWER: Start with a narrow pilot -one product line, one customer segment, one team -that combines scientist coaching, team alignment, and CRM visibility, prove the revenue impact, then scale it.

    The HBR report recommends piloting new execution models before rolling them out, and an Adobe executive in the report advises picking a very specific slice -a single product set, customer segment, and geography -getting it right, and then expanding. That matches what works in life sciences:

    1. Pick the slice. One product family and one buyer segment where your scientists are already in front of customers.
    2. Coach the people. Put the customer-facing scientists through Bench to Business on those live accounts.
    3. Align the team. Run the HPT process with sales, marketing, and technical support so everyone agrees on goals, stage ownership, and metrics.
    4. Instrument the CRM. Make buying groups, stage definitions, and follow-up speed visible in HubSpot.
    5. Review the cycle. Hold a joint win/loss review at 90 days -the conversation most companies skip -then scale what worked.

    The companies that win aren’t the ones with the best GTM slide. They’re the ones whose scientists, marketers, and sellers execute the same plan, on the same data, toward the same number.

    About the Author

    Stephen Manobianco is Founder and Managing Director of PSG Life Sciences, a Princeton, NJ–based fractional commercialization firm and HubSpot Gold partner serving biotech, CRO/CDMO, life science tools, reagent, and diagnostics companies. As VP of Global Sales and Business Development at GENEWIZ, he helped scale revenue from $17M to over $100M. Over 25+ years he has coached several hundred scientists into customer-facing roles, and he leads PSG’s Bench to Business coaching program.

    Is your scientific team ready for the commercial world? Talk to Steve about a commercial readiness assessment covering your customer-facing scientists, team alignment, and CRM execution. Contact PSG Life Sciences →

    Quick-Reference FAQ

    What does the HBR research say about B2B go-to-market execution?

    The HBR research finds that 83% of B2B organizations call their go-to-market strategy very important, but only 38% describe it as very effective and only 32% say their sales, marketing, and other teams are very aligned in executing it.

    Why does the strategy-to-execution gap hit life science companies harder?

    Life science companies feel the execution gap more because their customer-facing roles are usually filled by PhD scientists and technical specialists who were hired for scientific depth, not commercial skill, and because they sell to buying groups of PIs, lab managers, core directors, and procurement that each weigh different criteria.

    What separates go-to-market “leaders” from “laggards” in the HBR data?

    GTM leaders in the HBR research are distinguished less by strategy than by execution discipline -they are far more aligned across teams, more likely to train their sales people, more likely to share common metrics, and far more likely to understand how their buyers actually buy.

    How do you prepare PhD scientists to execute a go-to-market strategy?

    Prepare PhD scientists for commercial roles with structured, life-science-specific coaching applied to their live accounts -covering discovery, buying-group mapping, account planning, and CRM discipline -with their manager involved so the new behaviors stick.

    How do sales, marketing, and technical teams become a high-performance team?

    Sales, marketing, and technical teams become a high-performance team by agreeing on shared goals and metrics, clarifying who owns each stage of the buyer journey, setting explicit decision-making and conflict-resolution protocols, and reviewing wins and losses together on a regular cadence.

    What role does CRM play in closing the execution gap?

    CRM is the operating system for GTM execution -it’s how coached behaviors and team agreements become visible and measurable -but the HBR data shows most companies own a CRM without getting a unified view of the buyer from it.

    Where should a life science CEO start?

    Start with a narrow pilot -one product line, one customer segment, one team -that combines scientist coaching, team alignment, and CRM visibility, prove the revenue impact, then scale it.

    Source: Harvard Business Review Analytic Services, Aligning Go-to-Market Execution with Strategy to Better Address Complex Buyer Journeys (research report sponsored by LeanData; survey of 522 B2B decision-makers, September 2025).

  • Why Customers Leave Good CROs, and How High-Performance Teams Earn Repeat Business 

    THE SHORT ANSWER 

    High-Performance Science Teams™ helps service CROs , study directors, project managers, laboratory teams, QA, report writing, and business development, operate as one team from quote to final report. It targets the behaviors that cost repeat business: timelines sold before operations validates them, late bad news, unmanaged scope change, and sponsors hearing different answers from different people. 

    Why do sponsors leave CROs whose science is good? 

    Sponsors rarely switch CROs because the data was wrong. They switch because the experience was: a study start that slipped after the contract was signed, a report that arrived three weeks late with no warning, a scope change that became a billing dispute, a study director who was the only person who knew what was happening. 

    Every one of those is a team failure dressed up as an individual one. In a services business, the sponsor experiences the seams between your functions as your brand. 

    What does team dysfunction look like inside a service CRO? 

    • BD sells a timeline operations didn’t validate. The quote goes out on a study-start date the lab schedule can’t support, and the study director inherits the credibility problem. 
    • The study director as single point of failure. Scientific, client, and operational decisions all route through one person, who becomes the bottleneck. 
    • Blurred study director and project manager roles. Sponsors don’t know who owns the timeline versus the science, and neither do the teams. 
    • Scope creep absorbed instead of managed. Added endpoints, extra timepoints, and protocol changes get done without change orders, margin leaks and resentment builds. 
    • Late bad news. A failed run, a QA audit finding, or an animal-availability issue waits until it can’t be hidden. 
    • Report turnaround drift. The handoff from in-life or bench teams to report writing and QA review has no shared deadline owner. 

    What does team science say about fixing it? 

    Two of the most cited findings on team effectiveness apply directly. Gallup’s research on managers found they account for at least 70% of the variance in team engagement across business units. And Google’s Project Aristotle found psychological safety whether team members feel safe to take risks and raise problems to be the most important factor distinguishing effective teams. 

    Neither was studied in CROs specifically. But both describe exactly the conditions under which bad news travels early and scope changes get raised instead of absorbed. 

    How does High-Performance Science Teams™ work for CRO teams? 

    The program applies Guttman Development Strategies’ horizontal high-performance team model to CRO site leadership and study teams, working on live sponsor programs. 

    Client-risk pattern Root behavior What HPT installs 
    Timelines sold that ops can’t hit BD and operations goals misaligned A quote-to-study-start protocol with operations sign-off before commitment 
    Study director bottleneck Hub-and-spoke decision-making Explicit decision rights across study director, PM, and lab leads 
    Unmanaged scope change Avoidance of difficult sponsor conversations Shared norms and scripts for raising scope and change orders early 
    Late bad news Low psychological safety An early-warning protocol: raise risk within a set window, no blame 
    Report turnaround drift No shared owner across handoffs Peer accountability for report milestones across lab, writing, and QA 

    How does this connect to the customer-facing side of the CRO? 

    High-Performance Science Teams™ aligns the team behind the study. Bench to Business™, our companion program, builds the customer-facing skills of study directors, scientific project managers, and BD scientists,  discovery conversations, sponsor updates, and handling objections. CROs that run both close the gap between what is sold and what is delivered. 

    Who is it for? 

    Presidents and general managers, VPs of Operations, heads of study direction and project management, and BD leaders at discovery, safety assessment, DMPK, bioanalytical, and specialty service CROs — especially organizations growing site headcount or consolidating after acquisition. 

    How do we get started? 

    Start with the Science Team 360™, a short, confidential team-level diagnostic that shows exactly where decision rights, alignment, and accountability are breaking down inside your CRO site or study team. You get a readout before anyone commits to a full engagement. 

    Request a Science Team 360™ conversation at bench2business.bio. 

    Frequently asked questions 

    Why do sponsors switch CROs? 

    Sponsors commonly switch because of the service experience rather than the science: missed study-start dates, late or surprising updates, unmanaged scope changes, and inconsistent communication across the CRO team. 

    How can a CRO improve client retention? 

    By aligning BD, study direction, project management, lab operations, and QA on shared commitments to each sponsor, validating timelines before quoting, raising risks early, and managing scope changes openly. 

    What is the difference between a study director and a project manager in a CRO? 

    Roles vary, but typically the study director owns scientific conduct and GLP compliance of the study, while the project manager owns timeline, budget, and sponsor logistics. High-performing teams make these decision rights explicit. 

    Does High-Performance Science Teams™ replace project management tools or GLP processes? 

    No. It improves how the team works within them, how it decides, escalates, and holds itself accountable. 

    How do we start? 

    With the Science Team 360™, a confidential diagnostic that shows where your study teams’ alignment, decision rights, and accountability break down. 

    Sources 

    1. Gallup, State of the American Manager: Analytics and Advice for Leaders (2015) — https://www.gallup.com/services/182138/state-american-manager.aspx 
    1. Google re:Work, “Guide: Understand team effectiveness” (Project Aristotle) — https://rework.withgoogle.com/guides/understanding-team-effectiveness/ 
    1. Guttman, H.M. Great Business Teams: Cracking the Code for Standout Performance (Wiley, 2008) — https://www.guttmandev.com/great-business-teams 

    Figures from third-party studies are cited as published. Cross-industry data is presented as directional for life science. Program outcomes described are targets teams track against their own Science Team 360™ baseline, not guaranteed results.