Industry Spotlight

Can you describe what the company does and what your role/position is in the company?

​

I’m currently working as a Service and Training Engineer at Elvesys. The company designs and sells scientific instrumentation systems for microfluidics research, which is quite a niche field.

My background is in fluid mechanics — I completed a PhD in the field and then did a first postdoc at PSL Research University Paris. After that, I wanted to gain some international experience, so I moved to Vancouver, Canada, for a second postdoc, during which I decided to transition out of academia and joined Elvesys.

The company has been around for about 15 years. It’s technically no longer a startup, but the culture still very much feels like one — it’s small, dynamic, and fast-moving.

During my postdoc years, I knew a few PhD graduates who had joined startups. After talking with them about their experiences, I realized I was really drawn to smaller companies with that startup-like environment. Elvesys felt like a perfect fit for what I was looking for.

​

​

What was a particular challenge you had to overcome to be where you are now in the company?

​

One of the biggest challenges I had to overcome was actually getting good at job interviews. It sounds simple, but coming from academia, I’d never really gone through a proper company HR recruitment process before. I remember this being addressed during the p2i programme and I think we also covered this at another programme at PSL Research University, but I had no actual experience of this before applying for jobs.

The role I applied for didn’t require a PhD, and the advertised salary reflected that. But I was genuinely interested in the position, so I had to think carefully about how to approach it. I needed to convince them that, even though the role didn’t formally require a PhD, I could bring additional value that would justify both hiring me and offering a higher salary.

That was challenging because negotiating your value isn’t something you really learn at school or university. In academia, you’re evaluated on publications and research output — not on how well you can articulate your transferable skills in a hiring process. So I had to prepare thoroughly and really reflect on what I could contribute.

During the interviews, I focused on the added value I could bring through my PhD and postdoctoral experience. I highlighted my in-depth expertise in microfluidics and fluid mechanics, but also my ability to learn new systems quickly — for example, the company’s microfluidics instruments — and then transfer that knowledge to clients. Teaching and supervising at university had given me experience explaining complex concepts clearly, which was a key part of the role since training customers is central to the job.

I also emphasized my autonomy — my ability to proactively initiate and carry out projects — and my adaptability built up during my PhD and postdoc positions.

Another important adjustment, once I joined, was adapting to the company’s way of working. In industry, there’s much more of an 80/20 mindset — focusing on the 20% of actions that generate 80% of the impact. In academia, you’re trained to aim for perfection because publications demand a very high level of detail and completeness. In a company, things move much faster. You can’t always go deep into a topic just out of curiosity — you have to prioritize, iterate quickly, and accept that learning from errors is part of the process in order to reach milestones and decision points.

Finally, I also highlighted the value of the professional network I had built in the microfluidics community during my PhD and postdoc positions. Many of the researchers I knew were already clients of the company — or they reached out to me once they heard I had joined Elvesys because they were looking for microfluidics systems. That network became an immediate asset for the company, and I made sure to communicate that during the hiring process.
 

​

​

In your experience, what are the similarities and differences between academia and industry, in respect to mindset and skills?

​

I’d say the biggest differences between academia and industry are really about mindset and teamwork.

In a company, collaboration is absolutely central. You’re constantly working with other people who bring different, complementary skills — whether that’s engineering, sales, marketing, or customer support. Progress really depends on good communication and coordination. You develop solutions together, and you deliver as a team. Very often, your work is interconnected with others’, so you rely on each other to move projects forward.

In academia, even though you’re technically part of a research group and may share an office or work under the same Principal Investigator, your day-to-day work is much more individual. You usually have your own project, your own research question, and a high degree of autonomy. You manage your own time and priorities, and you’re often able to move forward independently without needing constant input from others.

Teamwork certainly exists in academia, but the level of interdependence feels quite different. In industry, collaboration is built into the structure of the work itself. In academia, you’re more like the “owner” of your project — you’re the one driving it forward, largely on your own schedule.

​

​

What were the skills you already had as a researcher that helped you with your current career and what skills did you need to learn? 

​

So I came with my toolbox all the technical expertise, analytical thinking, problem-solving and teaching skills I had developed during my PhD and postdocs and I had to assimilate their toolbox, but that transition happened quite quickly.

One thing I really had to learn, though, was how to receive formal feedback and get used to being evaluated regularly. In academia, at least in my experience, we didn’t have annual performance reviews. In industry, that’s a structured and recurring process. I had to learn to document what I had accomplished, what new skills I had developed, and what proactive initiatives I had taken that created value for the company.

That meant learning how to advocate for myself and negotiate — which isn’t necessarily the most comfortable part of the job, but it’s essential. You have to clearly show your impact and explain why you’re ready for more responsibility. Because it’s an annual process, there’s real opportunity to grow each year — to take on new responsibilities, progress within the company, and, alongside that, increase your salary and bonuses. But that growth doesn’t just happen automatically — you have to actively demonstrate your value.

​

​

What/who gave you the confidence to transition from academia to industry and how did you get to your current position?

​

It took some time but there was no big revelation. I started to think about it after my PhD. I was lucky enough to have an opportunity to continue as a postdoc with my PhD advisor, but on a project that was way more application-driven than fundamental research. During that time, I participated in the p2i online course and that helped to open my mind to opportunities. But then I wanted to gain experience abroad – so I accepted a postdoctoral research position in Canada. 

During that time, I went through a process of acceptance. I had always imagined a certain academic career path for myself, and I had to come to terms with the fact that it might not happen. There was definitely a sense of grief — letting go of a long-held plan and identity. But gradually, I made peace with the idea that I might not become a professor and that it could be the right moment to leave academia.

That reflection was actually very clarifying. I realized that what I really enjoyed was working on different projects that move relatively quickly, rather than spending many years focused on a single research question. I liked variety, momentum, and tangible progress. And that’s exactly what I have in my current role at the company — shorter, faster-moving projects with clear outcomes.

​​​

​

Can you list a few aspects (mindset, competencies) you have observed in yourself after participating in the p2i event/p2i online course, in terms of innovator/entrepreneurial mindset & skills?

​

I already had the mindset. So the p2i course in that sense didn't really transform the way I think. What it really gave me was structure — a toolbox, business vocabulary, and a much clearer understanding of how companies actually function.

Before that, I didn’t really have much exposure to the business side of things. Through p2i, I learned about the different stages of startups and what they imply in practice. For example, understanding whether a company is still fundraising, whether it already has a minimum viable product (MVP), or whether it’s scaling up makes a big difference in terms of risk level, stability, and the kind of work you’ll be doing.

That knowledge became very practical for me. It helped me be more strategic in my job search. Instead of just applying broadly, I could better assess what kind of company environment I wanted — how mature the company was, what challenges it might be facing, and whether that matched my own appetite for risk and type of work.

So even though the mindset was already there, the course gave me the language and analytical framework to navigate the innovation and startup ecosystem much more confidently.

​

​

Would you recommend engaging in entrepreneurial training activities to other early career researchers? Can you explain why?

 

Yes, definitely! I mean, you don't lose anything by learning more. Many researchers are afraid of the business world simply because they don't understand how companies operate and what working in a company actually looks like. Entrepreneurial training helps demystify that environment. 

And once things feel clearer, some researchers might even start considering opportunities they hadn’t previously thought about — whether that’s collaborating with companies, joining one, or even launching something themselves. At the very least, it broadens your perspective.

It’s also something concrete you can add to your CV. It shows initiative and openness beyond your core research activities.

But beyond that, you develop very transferable skills. For example, you learn how to articulate the value of your work — why it matters, who it benefits, and what problem it solves. That’s not just a business skill. It’s incredibly useful in academia as well, especially when writing grant proposals or pitching research projects. Being able to clearly communicate impact is a universal competence.

​

​

What are the top skills would you encourage a postdoc to develop, regardless of their career path?

 

I think soft skills are important and should not be neglected. Things like communication and diplomacy are incredibly important — especially in industry, where teamwork is central. A lot of problems in companies don’t come from technical gaps, but from miscommunication or misunderstandings. Being able to navigate conversations tactfully and clearly makes a huge difference.

Showing that you are adaptable is key. Plus, focus on developing yourself - be proactive about your own development. Ask for feedback regularly, and learn how to receive it constructively. That’s not always easy, but it’s essential for growth.

And perhaps most importantly: learn to get started without waiting for perfection. In academia, we’re often trained to polish everything before showing it. But in many professional environments, progress comes from acting on something that’s “good enough,” then iterating and improving along the way.

 

Influencing and negotiation skills are also crucial. You don’t just “sell yourself” during a job interview — in industry, you’re continuously demonstrating your value throughout the year. That’s something academics aren’t always trained to do. Being able to highlight your contributions and negotiate responsibilities or resources is a skill worth developing no matter where you end up.

​

​

How can a postdoc assure their PI that participating in networking and entrepreneurship programmes in a good spend of their time not only for their own professional development but also for the team?

 

Well, I would say, "Would you like money for your project? If you let me go to this networking event or participate in this entrepreneurship training event/course, I will learn transferrable skills such as pitching, articulating impact, and understanding stakeholders — which are directly applicable to writing stronger grant proposals. This can make the difference between getting funded or not."
 

These programmes can also open doors to industry contacts. Building relationships with companies may lead to collaborations, joint projects, or even additional funding streams.

So it’s not just the postdoc’s personal development — it can strengthen the team’s visibility, funding success, and external partnerships.

​

​

Is there any advice you would give to postdocs who are at this crossroad – whether to stay in academia or pursue a non-academic career?

​

I would say stop thinking that everything is definitive and forever. Careers aren’t as fixed as we sometimes imagine. I’ve seen people move from academia to industry and back again. It’s not always straightforward, but transitions are possible. The professional world is more flexible than it seems. The more I grow, the more I discover this.

So don’t be afraid to explore. You’re not making a life-defining decision just by attending an event, doing a training course, or talking to people outside academia. Think of it as taking small baby steps — learning, testing, gaining exposure.

Stay open to opportunities. Use your time to develop skills and knowledge that expand your options rather than narrow them. That way, whatever decision you eventually make, it will be an informed one — and you’ll be better prepared for it.

​

​​​​​

Read More p2i Researcher Spotlight Interviews

​

Keep Up To Date

 

Sign up to the postdocs 2 innovators (p2i) app here to keep up to date on content, participate in future p2i events and network with likeminded international postdocs.

​

And don't forget to follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn: