Contact Us

Category: marketing

  • 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. 

  • CDMO Performance Lives in the Handoffs: How High-Performance Teams Improve Tech Transfer and Right-First-Time Execution 

    THE SHORT ANSWER 

    High-Performance Science Teams™ helps CDMO site and program teams, process development, MSAT, manufacturing, QA, QC, and client program management, work as one team across the handoffs where biomanufacturing programs slip. It targets the behaviors behind rocky tech transfers, repeat deviations closed as “human error,” and clients who hear different answers from different functions. 

    Why do CDMO programs slip when the process is sound? 

    Ask a CDMO site head where a program went sideways, and the answer is rarely the bioreactor. It’s the handoff: process development transferring a package MSAT didn’t help write, manufacturing receiving a batch record that doesn’t match, QA discovering a gap during review instead of during design, and the client program manager relaying a schedule change no one agreed on internally. 

    Each function is usually competent in isolation. The failure happens between them, and in a contract manufacturing business, the client experiences every internal seam. 

    What does team dysfunction look like on a CDMO site? 

    • Tech transfer over the wall. Process development hands over a package; MSAT inherits unanswered scale-up questions; the engineering run becomes the discovery phase. 
    • QA versus operations. Quality is experienced as the department that says no, so operations routes around it until review — and batch disposition slows down. 
    • Deviations closed as “human error.” “Human error” remains one of the most commonly cited deviation root causes, and quality leaders increasingly argue it often masks deeper system and communication problems. Retraining is assigned; the underlying handoff stays broken. 
    • Change control bottlenecks. Every function has a veto and no one owns the decision timeline. 
    • Shift and handover gaps. Critical context lives in individuals, not in team agreements. 
    • Many voices to the client. The program manager, site head, and QA lead give the client different versions of the same schedule or investigation status. 

    Why don’t MES, reorganizations, or more training fix it? 

    CDMOs reach for vertical fixes: a new MES or electronic batch record system, a reorganized MSAT function, another round of GMP retraining. These are often necessary. But an electronic batch record digitizes the handoff; it doesn’t make process development and manufacturing agree on it. Retraining addresses the individual; the deviation came from the system between individuals. 

    It is a horizontal problem, performance across functions, and it needs a horizontal fix. 

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

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

    Site pattern Root behavior What HPT installs 
    Rocky tech transfer and engineering runs Handoffs owned by the sender, not both sides Joint PD–MSAT–manufacturing accountability for transfer readiness 
    QA–operations friction Quality seen as a gate, not a teammate QA seated in program decisions early, with an explicit protocol for disagreement 
    Repeat “human error” deviations Investigations stop at the individual Team norms for surfacing system and handoff causes during CAPA 
    Change control delays Vetoes without decision ownership A decision charter with named owners and timelines 
    Inconsistent client messages No single internal position Align-before-you-speak protocol so the client hears one answer 

    How does this fit a CDMO’s commercial motion? 

    CDMOs win repeat business on reliability, and reliability is a team behavior. Many CDMOs pair two motions: High-Performance Science Teams™ for site, technical, and quality teams, and Bench to Business™ for the BD leads, program managers, and technical account managers who carry the client relationship. 

    Who is it for? 

    Site heads, VPs of Operations, Heads of Quality, MSAT and process development leaders, program management leaders, and CHROs at biologics, cell and gene therapy, viral vector, and small-molecule CDMOs — especially sites scaling headcount quickly or onboarding new client programs. 

    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 site or program 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 delays in CDMO tech transfer? 

    Beyond technical scale-up issues, tech transfer delays usually come from handoffs owned by one side: process development packages written without MSAT and manufacturing input, late QA involvement, and unclear decision ownership for changes. 

    How can a CDMO improve right-first-time performance? 

    By treating right-first-time as a cross-functional outcome: aligning PD, MSAT, manufacturing, and QA on shared goals, clarifying decision rights, and investigating deviations for system and handoff causes rather than stopping at individual error. 

    Does High-Performance Science Teams™ replace quality systems or GMP training? 

    No. It works alongside your QMS and training programs, improving how teams collaborate, escalate, and investigate within them. 

    How does team performance affect the CDMO client experience? 

    Clients experience every internal seam. Teams that align before communicating give the client one consistent answer on schedules, investigations, and risks — which builds the trust behind repeat business. 

    How do we start? 

    With the Science Team 360™, a confidential diagnostic of your site or program team that pinpoints where alignment and accountability break down. 

    Sources 

    1. GEN — Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, “Blaming Just Human Error Can Mask Deeper Bioprocess Problems” — https://www.genengnews.com/topics/bioprocessing/biopharma-must-do-more-to-understand-deviations/ 
    1. BioProcess Online, “‘Human Error’ Deviations: Why You Should Stop Creating (Most Of) Them” — https://www.bioprocessonline.com/doc/human-error-deviations-why-you-should-stop-creating-most-of-them-0001 
    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).