I'm a UX Engineer and although that means I deal with technical discovery, user testing and the effective implementation of design - It is true that the most ch

I'm a UX Engineer and although that means I deal with technical discovery, user testing and the effective implementation of design - It is true that the most challenging part of my day is facilitating communication and helping to resolve misunderstandings and challenge priorities between Design, Engineering, Research etc. I do this in-person, and also with tools, technology, and documentation. What I have observed.. Firstly There is an historical divide and a sense of importance on the part of both disciplines. Each thinks they should have priority. Secondly In a Start-up or any company that is working like a start-up to get a product off the ground, we build for MVP and we use Generalists/T-shaped people and we work expediently with a flexible process.. ever heard of a JFDI? When teams grow and products scale, we tend to hold onto this expedient way of working, because stakeholders do not want to give up the rush of getting what they want ASAP. Nobody really wants to slow down in order to perform user testing, or implement a healthy process between design and engineering - we have formed bad (although appropriate once upon a time) habits and it's not expected that you will say 'no' upwards. Thirdly Having worked expediently, there is likely design and technical debt, this cripples the ability to form processes / better habits because there are almost always things to fix, and changing to a more considered process starts to look expensive when there are alway live bugs to fix. Finally (Although probably not) When a way of working needs to change, it is very, very hard to not sound critical of the work that has gone before. No matter how I have approached it, whether I've met with groups or individuals, if I've been soft or stern.. People are sensitive and resistant to change, and if you are unlucky they will collude and actively work against the effort.