Contact Us

Category: training

  • 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. 

  • 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.