- September 12, 2025
- Post link
How Technological Innovators and Industrial Implementers Can Be Helped to Speak the Same Language
Executive Summary
Start-ups investing in disruptive technologies often hit a wall when transitioning from innovation to industrial implementation. Engineering firms, on the other hand, are designed for stability, standards, and process safety — not for experimental agility. The result? A fundamental communication breakdown. This article explores the root causes of that disconnect — and proposes a structured solution through experienced Project Management Consulting (PMC) practitioners as a bridging function.
1. Two Worlds, One Goal – But No Shared Language?
Start-ups in sectors like biotech, cleantech, or chemical engineering typically invest millions into developing innovative processes — moving from lab trials to pilot plants and sometimes even demonstration units. When they reach the industrialization phase, the energy dissipates.
What follows is a deafening silence between two key players: the innovative start-up and the engineering firm tasked with turning theory into industrial reality.
This disconnect is rarely due to bad intentions — but rather to a lack of shared understanding. Start-ups are innovation-driven. Engineering firms are risk-managed. And venture capital adds pressure in the middle. The question is: who translates between these worlds?
2. The Start-Up Perspective: Innovation Comes First
Start-ups are often founded by academic experts or researchers with a deep understanding of the science underpinning their process. Their focus lies on breakthroughs, lab results, and early-stage scalability. Venture capital firms, keen on protecting their investment, frequently demand that the key technical minds go “all-in” on the company — believing that internal expertise increases speed and quality.
While this commitment can be powerful, it may also result in blind spots during the transition to full-scale production. Especially when the founding team lacks practical experience in engineering execution, procurement, construction, or regulatory compliance.
3. The Engineering Firm’s Role: Process Know-How Meets Project Discipline
Engineering firms generally fall into two categories:
- Companies with proprietary processes:
These firms have deep roots in process engineering and build systems based on their own technologies. However, they may resist adapting third-party innovations that don’t fit their frameworks. - Contract engineering companies (Contractors):
These firms take the client’s process as a starting point and offer full-scope services — from basic and detailed engineering to procurement, construction supervision, and project execution.
Many contractors specialize by industry: pharma, food, biotech, or chemical — developing highly refined knowledge such as cleanroom design, hygienic standards, or cleanability. This specialized expertise is critical: designing a biotech facility without understanding contamination risks can lead to massive failures during operation.
4. The Contract Gap: Venture Capital Logic vs. Engineering Reality
Venture capital firms often push for Lump Sum Turnkey (LSTK) contracts. These agreements promise a fixed price for delivering a fully operational plant — seemingly ideal for controlling costs and limiting risk.
In reality, LSTK is the riskiest and most expensive model when applied to unproven technologies:
- The process is rarely validated at industrial scale.
- Reference data is missing or unreliable.
- Contractors build in significant risk premiums to protect themselves.
- A realistic cost estimate can only be made after completing Basic Engineering (~3% of total CAPEX).
More flexible contract models exist — such as:
- Cost plus fee
- LS EP (Lump Sum Engineering & Procurement)
- LS EPCm (Engineering, Procurement & Construction Management)
These models allow for risk-sharing and adaptive planning — but they demand close collaboration and trust between all parties. Despite best intentions, frustrations grow, momentum is lost and projects go undelivered
5. The Missing Link: PMC as the Interpreter Between Start-Ups and Engineering
What’s often overlooked is the need for a neutral, experienced guide who understands both the start-up mindset and the engineering world. This is where Project Management Consulting (PMC) can fill the void.
A PMC is a senior professional or team from the engineering industry, brought in early to:
- Evaluate scalability of the Start-Up’s process
- Identify critical design or integration issues
- Bridge communication between technical founders, VCs, and contractors
- Ensure the process is fit for industrial execution
- Translate innovation into a realistic engineering and contracting strategy
Importantly, PMCs are not “nice to have” — they are paid professionals whose cost is negligible compared to the financial damage of late-stage rework or failed scale-ups.
Conclusion: Don’t Eliminate the Middle – Empower It
The idea that start-ups and engineering firms should simply “work it out” ignores the reality of their structural and cultural differences.
What’s needed is not fewer intermediaries — but smarter ones.
Start-ups and VCs must embrace the role of a paid, expert interpreter — the PMC — from the earliest project stages. This enables clearer communication, earlier identification of risks, and better alignment with the capabilities of engineering contractors.
Only when all three parties — Start-Up, Engineering Firm, and PMC — collaborate intentionally and transparently, can innovative technologies truly scale and succeed in the industrial world. Ultimately, the PMC should help Start-Ups and Engineering Companies to communicate directly as projects evolve, while still being on hand should there be a particularly tricky situation that needs additional support.
