What is a Product Development Team Anyway?
Why are we lumping everything together into a single group?
I think it lacks identity. It lacks purpose. It’s a sure fire way to get nothing done.
Why are we lumping everything together into a single group? I think it lacks identity. It lacks purpose. It’s a sure fire way to get nothing done. Maybe it works for different industries, but I think it’s a terrible way to organize the research and development arm of a biological company especially one in agriculture. There is way too much to be done to lump it all in one group.
There is a flow that occurs when you must rely on long-term experiments like animal trials and field trials. You can’t stop all work and wait for your results, but you must be able to eventually build upon the results you get back. You must be able to tell the whole story and not just efficacy results. This is why I think by splitting up the roles and responsibilities of developing a product, you’re more likely to get the full picture at the time of launch.
Now, I understand that not every company can afford 3+ separate groups for product development, but there are ways to organize tasks within different roles. When you start thinking of product development within the context of the 3 pillar framework (registrations, efficacy and MOA, and sales and marketing), you can organize the work with intention and purpose.
When you start thinking of product development within the context of the 3 pillar framework (registrations, efficacy and MOA, and sales and marketing), you can organize the work with intention and purpose.
Organizing Your Research and Development Team
Early Innovation
They should be focused on developing new assays and screening systems that test the boundaries of science. They should find new and novel ways of screening microbes, testing for ideal candidates, isolating derivatives, or whatever the core science is of your business. This group’s aim should be bigger, faster, stronger than your competitor. I also love this group for skunk work. Go tinker. It’s your job. This is where your science strategy is anchored and executed. They hand off potential solutions to the applied research group and development group for pressure testing.
Applied Research
This group is responsible for developing the science-package of real-world applications. This group sits more closely to the end user and must understand the day-to-day of the farmer. This is where your field team is housed whether it’s agronomy, greenhouse, or animal scientists. Applied research is the closest to a product development team and in most cases it’s synonymous. But whereas product development teams usually lump in formulation and scale-up activities, I think those activities deserve a separate group with dedicated resources. This team will be creating the build of your registration dossier, marketing material, and real-world efficacy. This is where the 3-pillars is anchored and executed mostly.
Development and Pilot
This group is dedicated to innovating around stability, delivery, and manufacturability. They answer the questions what will the final product format look like? This group usually incorporates an engineer that can think about scale-up feasibility. The things that are easy to do at lab-scale may or may not be feasible at production scale. This group is in charge of understanding the cost of goods sold (COGS) and raises concerns about using a process or ingredient that will ultimately cause the product to operate at a lost. They should regularly articulate bottlenecks in technology to the early innovation team.
But Whitney, what about regulatory and quality control (QC)?
Other functions like regulatory and quality are important to build into the whole organization. These functions SHOULD NOT BE siloed, but instead should be integrated as a way of doing things. Not just, hey now it’s regulatory’s job or quality steps in last. All groups should have a fundamental understanding of both product registration requirements and quality goals. Isolating these two functions is another sure fire way to create products that never reaches the market.
Isolating Regulatory and Quality Control is another sure fire way to create products that never reaches the market.
But Whitney, I’m a start-up, it seems like you’re talking about 15+ people. I can’t afford that.
Of course I’m biased because I believe you should to hire fractional leadership in the early stages and invest heavily in hands and people that are key to your fundamental science (your competitive advantage). What is it that you need to realize your product that other companies don’t have. You might need to hire a world-class microbiologist if you’re working with more tricky organisms. Or if you’re trying to tackle some application challenges, you might need to hire a world-class formulation scientists. And then you need 1-5 technicians to execute the work so that your scientists can innovate. The technicians are where you leverage their skills across the different groups listed above. The day-to-day in each of the group mentioned above may not vary much which is why you can leverage the technician pool across functions. But please, this takes strategy and patience. Don’t hire willy nilly depending on your needs RIGHT NOW. Don’t be reactionary. Be proactive in your hiring approach.
And remember, please:
Don’t hire a generalist leader; this is fractional work that can be contracted out.
Don’t hire for RIGHT NOW. Don’t be reactive. Please strategize for a cohesive hiring process.
Don’t lump everything into a single group. You will launch a product without the full story.
DO determine if you need builders or does. Contract out builders. Hire in doers.
