How TPM Bridge Communication Gaps Between Tech and Non-Tech Teams
2025.06 - What does it take to make technical and non-technical teams collaborate better and reduce the amount of misalignment, confusion and back-forth on simple requests - A Common Lexicon.
Summary: Misalignment between technical and non-technical teams often stems from a lack of shared language, not process failures.
This post introduces the Triangle of Translation—a simple framework using Time, Money, and Impact to bridge communication gaps.
By framing discussions in these terms, teams foster alignment, make better decisions, and drive stronger collaboration.
Ever walked out of a meeting feeling like you and your colleagues were speaking different languages? You’re not alone. This is one of the most common challenges in tech-driven organizations—the ongoing misalignment between technical and non-technical teams.
It’s not because people don’t want to work together. It’s not even because they don’t respect each other’s expertise. More often than not, it comes down to a simple but fundamental issue: communication breakdown.
Business teams talk about revenue growth, market positioning, and customer needs. Engineers talk about architectures, sprint velocity, and system scalability. Both sides care deeply about the work and what to make the product or service a huge success, but without a shared language, they struggle to collaborate effectively. And when that happens, frustration mounts, projects stall, and companies miss out on opportunities.
But there’s a way forward.
Let’s talk about how we can bridge this gap by using a simple but powerful framework.
The Real Problem Isn’t Process—It’s Language
If you’ve worked in product development long enough, you’ve heard this before:
"We need to be more agile."
"Maybe SAFe will help us scale."
"Let’s align our KPIs with OKRs."
“We need a better intake process.”
“Business teams need to write better documents”
“Engineering is always saying no to everything”
These are very real problems that often come with well intentioned solutions. However, the real roadblock isn’t the lack of a specific process—it’s the lack of a common lexicon.
When engineers explain a challenge, they default to their natural vocabulary: technical complexities, system dependencies, and architectural trade-offs. But if you’re in sales, product, or business development, that explanation might not give you what you need to make a decision.
On the flip side, when business leaders push for a feature or a deadline, engineers often feel like the nuance of implementation is being ignored.
What’s needed isn’t more process. It’s better translation.
A Common Language: The Triangle of Translation
Over the years, I’ve found that the best way to bridge this communication gap is by using three simple pillars: Time, Money, and Impact.
When technical and non-technical teams learn to frame their discussions in these terms, they start speaking a language that everyone understands.
1. Time: How long will it take?
This is the most obvious, yet most misunderstood factor.
For engineers, time estimates depend on complexity, dependencies, and testing. But executives and business teams need clear, actionable timelines to plan roadmaps and communicate with customers.
💡 Instead of saying: "This will take three sprints."
✅ Say: "This will take six weeks, including development, testing, and deployment."
This small shift eliminates confusion and provides a realistic expectation of effort.
2. Money: What are the trade-offs?
At the end of the day, every decision in a business has financial implications.
How much will this cost in engineering resources?
Will it impact other priorities?
Can we fund this by hiring a contractor instead of shifting existing teams?
💡 Instead of saying: "We’ll need to refactor the API before we can add that feature."
✅ Say: "We can add this feature, but it’ll require six weeks of work, or we can onboard a contractor for $20,000 to speed it up."
Now, decision-makers have clear options with trade-offs they can weigh.
3. Impact: What does success look like?
The best way to align teams is to clearly define why something matters.
When engineers are told, “this is a big deal for the business,” that’s vague. But if they’re told, “this feature will help us land a contract worth 15% of our annual revenue,” that gives real context.
💡 Instead of saying: "We don’t have bandwidth to add this right now."
✅ Say: "If we prioritize this, it could increase customer retention by 20%, but it might delay another high-priority initiative."
This kind of framing fosters collaborative decision-making rather than pushing teams into defensive positions.
Why This Matters
At its core, this framework is about creating clarity and empathy in cross-functional conversations.
Engineers feel valued when their concerns are framed in terms of impact, not just technical complexity.
Business teams feel empowered when they get the right information to make strategic decisions.
Collaboration improves when everyone speaks the same language.
It’s not about dumbing things down. It’s about translating complexity into actionable insights.
Final Words
Bridging the gap between technical and non-technical teams isn’t about enforcing rigid processes or creating more documentation. It’s about aligning on what truly matters.
When you speak the same language, you build trust. When you build trust, you ship better products. And when you ship better products, you create real impact.
I’d love to hear from you—what strategies have helped you bridge communication gaps in your teams? Let’s keep the conversation going.
Until next time.
-Aadil
This post is a written version of a talk I gave at the CPTOFracs.com Community gathering. You can watch the recording from that session below. There were some amazing questions from the attendees that are worth a listen.
How do you think this changes with AI? can it help fill the gap? or will we in the future technical will fuse into business and AI will do the work !