Working together

Cross-functional collaboration in an engineering organisation is rarely a “nice to have” it’s the operating model. Engineering doesn’t deliver value in isolation, and neither do Product, Design, Marketing and Commercial. The best outcomes happen when these functions move together, but the reality is that each has its own incentives, constraints, and definitions of success. Without deliberate effort, this can quickly transfer into prioritisation battles, unclear accountability, and mounting friction that undermines delivery.

In my experience, successful cross-functional collaboration starts with creating shared product context. Everyone needs to be looking at the same problem statement, customer insights, and success metrics. It’s not enough for Product to write a PRD or for Engineering to translate it into a backlog. The whole team should align on why this is the right problem to solve now, what constraints we’re working within, and how we’ll know if we’ve succeeded. Workshops, product reviews, and working sessions beat slide decks every time.

Clear decision-making ownership is next. One of the most common traps in product organisations is the blurred line between Product and Engineering calls, especially when timelines are tight. At scale, I’ve found that defining a Decision Responsible Individual (DRI) for each major decision is essential. It doesn’t remove debate; it makes debate productive. If Product owns the “what” and “why” while Engineering owns the “how” and the “when” then you need to be explicit about when those boundaries meet and when they flex. Disagreement is fine, but once a decision is made, commitment from all sides is essential.

Relationships across disciplines can’t be left to chance. At the leadership level, I’ve learned to invest in trust before I need it. This means regular, intentional check-ins with peers in Product, Design, Marketing and Commercial leadership to understand their pressures and priorities, not just to push my own. When they see Engineering advocating for their goals, it builds goodwill that pays off when we need to make tough trade-offs.

Conflict will still surface, especially when speed meets ambiguity. In high-functioning organisations, you don’t just react to conflict, you prepare for it. This means:

• Agreeing on escalation paths upfront so teams know how to resolve deadlocks without eroding relationships
• Separating facts from opinions quickly by grounding debates in data, user impact, and business objectives rather than personal preferences
• Creating psychological safety so people can challenge decisions early without fear of repercussions
• Framing disagreements as joint problem-solving: “What’s the best way to serve our users under these constraints?” rather than “who is right”
• Committing once decisions are made and holding peers accountable for the same, even when you disagree privately

These practices don’t eliminate disagreement, but they make it productive. When disagreements surface, I anchor the conversation in user impact and business objectives: “What are we optimising for right now?” That reframing shifts the discussion from defending positions to solving problems together. If resolution still isn’t possible at the working group level, escalating quickly to the right leaders is important not to win the argument, but to unlock the decision and maintain momentum.

Collaboration also doesn’t end once the roadmap is agreed. Execution is where cross-functional teams often drift. I’ve seen the best results when progress, blockers, and changes are surfaced early and transparently. A PM hearing about an engineering delay from a status page is a failure of relationship, not just process. Over-communicating during delivery builds trust and prevents last-minute surprises.

When cross-functional collaboration works well in product organisations, it creates a multiplier effect: product strategy is sharper, technical solutions are more robust, and delivery is faster. It’s not about eliminating tension since healthy tension is what drives better decisions. The leaders who thrive here aren’t the ones who avoid conflict, but those who build the trust, structures, and decision-making discipline that allow disagreement to lead to progress rather than paralysis.