In this opinion piece, co-founder and managing director of Thiga Alexandre Irrmann-Tézé analyzes the persistent tensions between Business and Tech — two worlds that coexist but often struggle to understand each other. He shares concrete solutions for establishing a solid Product culture and fostering effective collaboration, both key to the success of modern and sustainable companies.
Have you ever sat through one of those endless meetings where Business and Tech talk over each other without truly understanding the other side? I’ve been told by Business teams that “NASA sent men to the Moon with a solid V-model; why change a proven recipe?”. On the Product/Tech side, one often hears: “They don’t understand the technical constraints or the technical debt, which is often a direct consequence of their decisions.” The relationship between Business and Tech is like a love story that’s taking too long to unfold. The dialogue of the deaf is leading nowhere, leaving everyone with a sense that they’re just going in circles... I, too, share that palpable frustration.
Yes, I’m frustrated. I’m frustrated to see that, despite years of trying to bring Business and Tech closer together, a wide gap remains between the two. I’m frustrated that teams are unable to overcome deep-rooted misunderstandings. And, on top of that, I’m frustrated by the insidious return of project mode, which is presented by disillusioned executives as a solution to repeated failures of digital transformations.
I want to turn this frustration into positive energy to drive change. It was this very resolve that motivated Hugo Geissmann and me to found Thiga over ten years ago, to bridge the gap between Business and Tech. This approach is rooted in a Product mindset, allowing companies to fully harness technology in order to differentiate themselves and grow sustainably. However, there is still a long way to go.
Thiga: a purpose forged from common frustrations
When we launched our consulting firm, we came from two very different worlds: Hugo, a former developer and head of a digital product studio, had worked in Tech teams that were relegated to a mere executional role with little recognition. Meanwhile, with my background in strategy and marketing, I had seen Tech initiatives fail because of a lack of strong alignment with key business priorities.
Although our perspectives were different, a shared dissatisfaction united us: the lack of ROI in digital initiatives. So much energy and money were being spent, with so few results.
Today, after a decade of missions with major groups and European SMEs, there is no room for doubt. While Product Management has become institutionalized, it often remains a hollow practice, delivering little meaningful impact. The growing distrust between Business and Product/Tech teams has reached such a point that, in some companies, Business teams are turning to shadow IT, hoping to bypass collaboration challenges and speed up Time-To-Market.
Though longstanding frustrations remain, recent years have given rise to new and even deeper ones. Here’s a sample of the feedback I’ve heard over the past 10 years:
- From Business teams:
“Enough with the threats about scale-ups disrupting us. Just look around: right now, with funding drying up, most are fighting to survive or are already out of the picture.”
“Product isn’t central to our success. We were making profits long before Product Management was a buzzword. Digital products aren’t what keeps the company running.”
“IT implemented Agile transformations and frameworks like SAFe, but in reality, nothing has improved. Delays are still a constant issue.”
- From Product/Tech teams:
“Business sees us as mere service providers, showing up with lists of features to develop, with no clear prioritization or justification. They refuse to give us more autonomy to design solutions that address their opportunities.”
“They don’t work iteratively. They consider an initiative to be done once it’s launched, with no continuous improvement.”
“In the case of failure, the blame always falls on us. Business refuses to own up to its mistakes or misjudgments.”
The root causes of the problem
I don’t intend to point fingers at one side or the other—there’s shared responsibility, and the underlying causes are many. Here are a few of them:
- Superficial transformations
Too often, Product or Agile transformations boil down to Scrum training, the implementation of heavyweight frameworks like SAFe, or the hasty creation of new job titles (Product Owner, etc.). The problem is that companies treat these transformations as checklists to be ticked off, without addressing what truly matters: purpose and behaviors. And for what? More bureaucracy, but no increased performance.
How many times have I heard the so-called trump card: “We’re not Google”, used as a blanket refusal…
- A failure to understand Tech's strategic role
Business leadership and teams struggle to see the strategic value of differentiation through technology. How many times have I heard the so-called trump card: “We’re not Google”, used as a blanket refusal to engage in any real discussion? For me, this is a perfect example of that misunderstanding. Few members of Business teams have any real, hands-on experience in the field. At best, some have taken part in learning expeditions to Silicon Valley, but these initiatives
have generally had no tangible impact.
- Transformations led in isolation
Transformations are often led by Product/Tech teams without involving top leadership or Business teams in any meaningful way. What should be a collective effort is seen as an isolated initiative, where the message is “Transform yourselves” instead of “Let’s transform together.” Business teams feel left out of the change, which not only limits its impact on overall performance, but also reinforces mutual distrust when failure occurs.
- Product teams lacking credibility in business areas
French Product Managers, who often choose this role straight after university or via project management careers, lack varied experience and strong foundations in business and finance. This deficit often prevents them from clearly justifying the ROI of their actions, limiting their credibility with leadership. Due to this shortcoming, which is often exacerbated by impostor syndrome, Product Managers lack the boldness to challenge flawed assumptions. This pushes many companies to favor Chief Product Officers (CPOs) from strategy consulting firms — who are seen as more reliable on these topics — over talents from the Product ecosystem.
- A naive, ill-adapted vision of the Product operating model
Nurtured on Marty Cagan’s books, Product teams sometimes try to impose an idealized version of the Product operating model across all areas of the company. Yet this model— which is expensive (a squad can cost up to €1 million per year)—is only truly relevant for differentiating and complex areas.
Some companies stand out more effectively by relying on other strategic levers, such as distribution or pricing. I find this approach very naive as it serves to erode the credibility of Product profiles within organizations, reinforcing the idea that they don’t always understand the company’s strategic priorities.
- A poorly coordinated and insufficiently defined strategy
The links between a company’s strategic vision (“Who do we want to be in five years?”), strategic intentions (“What business challenges must we overcome to reach this vision?”) and operational priorities are frequently unclear. A lack of coherence among executive committee members, often driven by different incentives, further aggravates the situation. Without an explicit strategy, Product/Tech teams tend to improvise, prioritizing initiatives that are sometimes disconnected from real objectives. This leads to wasted efforts and resources, as I’ve seen repeatedly in Thiga missions aimed at implementing OKRs.
- Incompatible visions between Business and Tech
A major obstacle to collaboration between Business and Tech lies in their often incompatible perspectives. Business thinks in terms of value creation—creating more, faster—while Tech adopts a more pragmatic approach, centered on constraints such as legacy systems, budgets, and team capacity.
When Business pushes to add features, they often fail to account for the impact on technical debt. In response, Tech must sometimes say no, which can be perceived as obstruction. This misunderstanding creates a cultural divide, despite shared intentions. Bridging this gap requires integrating technical constraints into strategic decisions and raising Business teams’ awareness of the long-term impacts of their demands.
- Misaligned investment logic
The capacity-based model proposed by Product teams is often rejected by Business teams, who only want to fund projects with the most apparent value. This creates friction, despite the visible failures of traditional models, not to mention the rigidity of annual budgets and three-year plans in large companies. The agility needed to adapt effectively to market changes and emerging needs is hindered by these outdated budget approaches.
A shared home to build sustainable collaboration
To break this deadlock, I propose building a “shared home” where Business and Product/Tech teams work hand-in-hand. This home rests on three essential pillars, each helping to create a harmonious and effective collaborative environment.
1. The foundation: a shared culture
In order to build a solid and sustainable Product culture, it is essential to start by defining and promoting behaviors aligned with this culture across all organizational processes, particularly recruitment and individual performance evaluations. This work must primarily target leadership and Business teams; this is, in my opinion, the most effective lever for transforming an organization, though it is also the most difficult to implement.
Behaviors—not tools or processes—are what truly embody and spread a Product culture.
This isn’t about ticking boxes, but about a real shift in posture and mindset. Behaviors — not tools or processes — are what truly embody and spread a Product culture. Leadership’s involvement and exemplary behavior are therefore key to initiating this change.
As part of this effort, it’s critical to establish a shared vocabulary around fundamental concepts, such as solutions, products, and capabilities. This vocabulary must be built on the company’s big picture, starting with its value chains. In many organizations today, Business and Product/Tech teams talk about the same topics using different languages, creating a “Tower of Babel” effect where everyone interprets words in their own way. This confusion generates inefficiency and hampers collaboration and decision-making. Making these notions accessible to all paves the way for mutual understanding, elevating discussions to a strategic level and establishing the foundations for true symbiosis.
Finally, Product teams must be supported in developing their business skills so that they can adopt an investor mindset. By identifying and focusing on the most promising solutions to business opportunities, they can shed the feature factory perception and reposition themselves as a profit center at the heart of the company.
2. The walls: an adapted organization
In order to achieve lasting transformation, it is essential to approach Business, Product, and Tech as a single, global, and coherent system. Too often, I see organizations structured in silos, where each entity operates in isolation with its own priorities. This fragmentation hinders collective efficiency and limits the impact on strategic goals. Overcoming this problem requires structuring the organization to effectively support the areas that provide the most value to the company.
This structure must adapt to the complexity and strategic importance of each domain. For non-core, low-differentiation activities, companies can consider solutions such as on-the-shelf software, extensive use of external providers, or even full outsourcing of certain areas. These approaches optimize resources, allowing teams to focus efforts on high-value activities.
On the other hand, for strategic, highly differentiating domains, it is essential to adopt principles inspired by Marty Cagan. Although “Marty bashing” is fashionable, it would be a mistake to throw the baby out with the bathwater: his fundamentals remain extremely relevant. In my opinion, the best setup for these areas relies on teams accountable for achieving concrete results. Here, the project-based approach is doomed to fail! Product organization in these areas must also remain frugal—“Less is more,” as the saying goes. An excessive reliance on external providers would be counterproductive, as the company must maintain direct control over its central operations.
Finally, to streamline interactions and boost overall efficiency, roles such as Product Marketing and Product Ops can play a key role. These functions facilitate coordination between teams and better connect Product initiatives to business value creation.
3. The roof: a shared vision and aligned strategy
In order to build a high-performing, aligned organization, it is crucial to define a shared vision where Tech is recognized not as a mere operational support, but as a true lever for strategic differentiation. This vision must be validated by executives and, by extension, the shareholders. Without alignment at the top, any transformation attempt is doomed to fail. If the roof isn’t sturdy, it will collapse.
Once this vision is clearly defined, the strategy must be co-constructed to address the company’s specific needs while aligning the priorities of various stakeholders. Setting measurable goals and jointly defining priorities ensures collective commitment and provides clear direction for all teams. This may seem like common sense,but I’ve rarely seen it effectively implemented in practice.
To anchor this dynamic, it’s essential to establish a joint portfolio governance committee. I’ve seen this type of committee succeed, and its effectiveness is quite incredible. It allows prioritization of strategic initiatives and rationalization of investments, therefore maximizing ROI. Once in place, you’ll wonder how you ever functioned without it. This form of governance brings leadership, Business, and Tech together, ensuring optimized resource allocation, diligent results tracking, and improved collaboration through clearer, more transparent decision-making.
At Thiga, we believe that smooth collaboration between Business and Tech is not only possible but essential. It is the key to unlocking the full potential of Tech and enabling companies to stand out while ensuring sustainable growth.
