Business vs. Science World – Breaking Internal Communication Barrier
Business and Science departments of the R&D companies are both necessary as they cannot exist without one another, however, this symbiosis is not always simple. Sometimes, the actual short-term goals can differ for both, the business and scientific side, but in the end, their ultimate long-term goal remains the same – a successful company with excellent products.
Priorities for Business and Science
While the business department is focusing on the demands of the market and future clients, scientists may often prioritise the more fundamental research and perform tests of their theories, and engineers tend to focus on the translation of the latest research into actual practical applications. Position of the Technology department is somewhat special. Some companies position them between R&D department and Sales department (to perform engineering tasks), in some cases Technology department covers also R&D, and there are also other versions in line with the company needs or industry vertica’s standard. Therefore, the tech department – can be prioritising the development, driving research or focus on engineering and industrialisation tasks. In any case – given the different preferences, paces, and even Definitions of Done (DoD) between the departments can lead to tension among them. However, setting the timeline with mutual agreement on both sides can always set things right, clarify misunderstandings, and smoothly lead the project to a successful ending.
A common example of this is Six Sigma's core data-driven improvement methodology called DMAIC – Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control, or a right-sized version of a Project Architecture method agreed between the Technology and Business development teams that can help in planning, execution and tracking of integral projects.
Language of Business and Science
Miscommunication between businessmen and scientists is often caused by their general vocabulary, as well as jargon and abbreviations, which are natural to use in their circles. However, their use in mutual communication brings more difficulties. Therefore, it is highly recommended to avoid its use or to set regular interdisciplinary meetings, where casual work-related discussions can help gain an understanding of the language used by both groups. Another notable difference is the style and purpose of communication. A seasoned businessman typically communicates diplomatically to foster relationships and persuade clients, whereas R&D teams often speak straightforwardly, focusing on conveying essential information. If these two groups are not accustomed to each other's communication style, only time and effort from both sides help them build the communication bridge.
Expectations settings
The punctuality is an essential aspect of any communication. It is even more crucial considering project timeline, deadline or client's specific requirements. All of the (sometimes) boring details must be precisely discussed. Only after that, both teams will know what to do from the very beginning of the project and there will be no last-minute complex changes caused by forgotten requirements or unspoken “obvious” facts. Therefore, a mutual understanding of current tasks, between scientific and business departments must be set.
Expectations vs Finalisation
While setting the initial timeline for the project, the circumstances can differ from the expectations proposed by clients/business side, which could be unreal/difficult to execute from the technical point of view. Many technical tasks may seem similar, but often complexity of the addressed problem requires more time to develop the final solution, which can in the end collide with the proposed timeline. Therefore, when difficulties occur, the modification of the schedule must always be proposed in advance to prevent future misunderstandings and re-adjust or re-schedule the plan together with the client.
One of the best practices to deal with these fluctuations is to set up an agile system, for both internal and external communication – to update the customer on progress, receive confirmation on the original planning, or, if necessary, receive feedback on expected alignment – deliver the message to the team internally, and align for the next steps from there on. This way the team doesn't potentially waste their resources on process or work that will not satisfy the final success.
Despite the best efforts, customers may understand the R&D solution during the planning phase differently than during the regular progress reporting. To ensure Return on Investment, adjustments have to be made to keep converging to the project’s target, but also making sure that the relationship of both sides of the project is balanced. That’s why we spoke about the DMAIC approach in Six Sigma. Also Agile offers a solution in the from of ever-repeating PDCA cycle. Plan, do, check and action. The better each phase gets, the better the results.
Listen to Yourself
Additionally, mutual understanding of each group’s responsibilities can greatly assist during the initial stages of a project, as each group tends to perceive the other’s challenges in a simpler way. This fresh perspective can lead to more effective solutions, avoiding the potential over-complication that can arise from being highly specialized in their own fields. While this isn’t always the case, internal discussions with proper moderation are essential to ensure balanced input from all parties.
Conclusion
To sum up, healthy communication between the business department and the scientific staff is key to a thriving deep-tech company. The synergy of these involved groups may be achieved by a mutual understanding of used language and internal processes. Regular meetings and discussions of the current projects build communication bridges and support collaborative problem-solving. It is a journey that takes time and effort to build the skill – it is a marathon, not a sprint.
