TurningScience helps you put every R&D dollar behind the research partnerships your product roadmap needs—so you can build future products, enter new markets, protect your competitive edge, and improve margins without building every R&D capability in-house.
Projects, proposals, technologies, and potential partners compete for the same budget. The most valuable opportunities do not always receive the most support.
A product, performance, or margin priority depends on specialist expertise, equipment, facilities, or capacity your current team cannot provide.
Your team stays focused on today’s customers while the research behind tomorrow’s products keeps getting delayed.
While you decide where to invest, another company may already be funding the research and partnerships your future products will require.
Cost, yield, reliability, performance, and manufacturing problems remain unresolved because the required expertise sits out of reach.
Projects stalled, lost focus, produced results your team could not use, or required more management than expected.
New customer requirements can appear before you have the people, expertise, or facilities required to respond.
A poor fit can consume your team’s time, energy, and budget without producing a better product or a useful next decision.
TurningScience gives you access to David’s global research network—built through work trusted by 80+ organizations across four continents and more than 200 workshops across 60+ institutions. That reach helps you look beyond familiar institutions and obvious names to find research partners with the expertise, facilities, capacity, and industry fit your product roadmap requires. The capability you need may already exist. The advantage goes to the company that can find it, engage it, and put it to work first.
Better research partnerships help you direct limited R&D resources toward the product opportunities with the strongest market demand and profit potential.
Give your most important roadmap priorities the external expertise, facilities, and research capacity they require.
Develop important capabilities before competitors make them standard—or customers begin expecting them.
Prepare for the performance, technology, and capabilities your next generation of products will need.
Test whether your technology can support new applications, customer groups, and product categories.
Give your business-development team stronger technology, evidence, and capabilities to take into new customer conversations.
Address the cost, yield, reliability, manufacturability, performance, and product-value problems affecting profitability.
Put more funding behind the projects most likely to improve products, protect margins, or open future revenue opportunities.
Access new capabilities and start new R&D work without waiting to hire a permanent team or build an expensive facility.
Define the product, market, customer, competitive, or margin priority the partnership must support.
Compare current projects, proposals, technical options, and capability gaps against their potential business value.
Determine which path deserves investment and what must be proved before you commit more time and budget.
Assess potential teams for expertise, facilities, capacity, timing, responsiveness, flexibility, and fit with your company.
Align the objectives, responsibilities, milestones, evidence requirements, knowledge transfer, and next investment decision.
Deepen the relationships that continue to advance valuable technology platforms. Redirect or stop work that no longer supports your roadmap.
Your strongest partnerships stay focused on your highest-value development priorities
Missing expertise and facilities can be tested before you commit to hiring or building them
New R&D work can begin faster when customers and markets change
Your future-development pipeline becomes less dependent on internal headcount
Leadership gains a clearer basis for deciding where the next R&D dollar should go
External research expands your capacity instead of becoming another burden for your team
You have current projects, new proposals, capability gaps, or future-product priorities competing for limited R&D resources. The Review identifies which opportunities deserve more support, which need a different direction, and which are consuming budget without enough product value.
Review of your highest-priority product and technology needs
Comparison of current projects, proposals, and capability gaps
Identification of work that is duplicated, premature, or disconnected from the roadmap
Prioritization based on product value, market opportunity, competitive advantage, and margin potential
Clear recommendations to expand, reshape, investigate, pause, or stop
Executive readout explaining each recommendation and the decision that should follow
You know which product, market, performance, or margin priority matters but the technical direction is unclear. The Sprint helps you choose the technical direction worth pursuing before committing to a research partner or major R&D investment.
The product or market result the technical direction must support
A focused shortlist of technical routes worth investigating
Comparison based on product value, maturity, timing, cost, risk, and resource needs—with weak routes removed early
Evaluation of which problems belong with an external research partner versus your internal team
Review of your organization’s readiness for a productive research partnership
The evidence and decision criteria required before making a larger investment
A recommended technical direction, partner criteria, and next investment decision
The technical direction is clear to you. Now you need the right research partner, the right working relationship, and a first project built around the result your company needs.
Partner requirements built around your product, market, performance, or margin priority
Identification of suitable teams across universities, institutes, laboratories, and specialist facilities
A documented shortlist and preferred-partner recommendation
Assessment of expertise, facilities, capacity, timing, responsiveness, and working fit
A first-project scope covering responsibilities, milestones, required evidence, and knowledge transfer
Partnership governance, working cadence, and launch plan
TurningScience’s participation in kickoff to align both teams on priorities, roles, and immediate next steps
Yes. Existing partnerships still need to earn their place on your product roadmap. TurningScience helps you decide which relationships deserve more support, which projects need a different direction, and which work should pause or stop.
The Review prevents your company from committing to the wrong technical path, partner search, or larger engagement. It determines whether you need to refocus existing work, investigate possible directions, launch a partnership, or avoid further investment.
No. Every engagement begins with the Opportunity Review. You then move into the Strategy Sprint, the Partnership Launch, or no further work based on what the Review finds.
Your team and AI tools can find papers, institutions, and researchers. TurningScience adds global reach, cross-institution comparison, and an assessment of facilities, capacity, timing, responsiveness, flexibility, and industry fit.
TurningScience has studied successful and failed research partnerships and identified the most common causes of failure. We examine where yours broke down—priority, partner selection, scope, ownership, communication, governance, or knowledge transfer—then apply those lessons to reduce the risk of repeating it.
TurningScience helps align the first project, working relationship, responsibilities, milestones, knowledge transfer, and decision points. David also participates in kickoff so both teams begin with the same priorities and expectations. Any continuing support beyond the Launch is scoped separately when the partnership requires it.
No project can be guaranteed. This is not “we’ll see” research. TurningScience only moves forward when we believe the project can deliver a valuable result. We screen partners for the commitment industry work requires and structure targeted feasibility studies around clear milestones, decision metrics, and progress tracking. Every engagement is built to produce useful evidence, clear learning, and a better next decision.