From the point of view of (global) pharmaceutical research, I was a humble witness of this precise issue being particularly badly managed. Within the research groups we understood these problems of technical communication and begged that projects be divided so that only geographically proximal sites held 'whole' projects. But, the executive world had been trained to some shiny new global view of spreading projects out 'evenly' over sites. Problems incurred were immediately declared to be a correctable flaw of middle level management communications. I tried to promote viewing the sites as one might view separate CPU cores, and to divide projects only when they were "Embarrassingly parallelizable" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embarrassingly_parallel ), this was instantly overruled for lack of formal management training, (and failure to use the 'correct' terminology).
This one I can understand from a teaching perspective. Often new concepts come along with new terminology, but the up-front cost of learning the new concepts can be reduced by expressing them in vocabulary the person already knows. For example, with non-programmers I find myself talking about text and letters rather than strings and characters because the differences can be glossed over.
