The entire discipline is premised on close contact and empathy with users. Yet, it is challenging to transform that knowledge into practical solutions and achieve prominence in companies. Why does this phenomenon occur?We can be part of the new role we have always wanted, but we must also improve some aspects of ourwork.It has been striking to observe how, over time, the relationship between companies and UX areas has not strengthened. Specific gaps remain that call into question the value and contribution that this discipline canprovide.This phenomenon can have its origin in many problems, such as the region of the world and its digital maturity, the intermittent hiring or redefinition of design profiles across companies, or the proliferation of professionals who appear to be more than they are and who also earn high salaries without experience in the field. All these factors contribute to the worn relationship between companies and UX areas; therefore, design results do not arrive in their best form, and dissatisfaction persists.All these problems may be evident in Latin America, where there is a boom of new companies born with a minimized conception of the relationship with users and superimpose monetary conversion before everything. Consequently, building a solid relationship with users is hard, and product results will never meet the users expectations.The other day, I talked with a remarkable design VP in Colombia, Carlos Pinilla, about several design challenges in companies today. After a long talk during which we expressed many current frustrations in the industry, I am left with some of the causes of this worn-out relationship between companies and UX teams, sadly some of those driven by us, the designers.Much has been said about this topic in articles that enunciate how external factors affect the current situation of the UX-companies relationship. Such is the case of Jared M. Spool, in his article Why is the UX job market such a mess right now? He walks us through all the market changes in the tech industry from the early 2000s and how we started to be highly desired by all companies to today when getting selected by a job application is almost impossible. In the same way, there are other more radical points of view, such as the one that Jon Upshaw shows in his article: Why I left UX behind (and you likely will,too).This lecture tries to cover another side of the conversation: how we, as designers, sometimes make things complicated within companies, adding more complexity to this problem for designers in the currentmarket.Analysis paralysisBeing unable to decide due to overthinking a problem. 4 tips for overcoming analysis paralysisAs UX designers, we have many perks we can use to build remarkable things. Sadly, misusing those abilities can block a process. UX analysis is the perfect example of creating disconnections from the business; YES, we have been told that to start building solutions, we must understand the market, develop scenarios, and translate what users want. This affirmation is 100% true, but sometimes, we, the designers, are so stubborn and unflexible with the design analysis that instead of solving challenges, we create adverse relationships with key stakeholders and teammates, leading us to unfavorable scenarios. We become dogmatic and cannot be flexible to advance in aprocess.Over-research / over-validationSometimes, the insights are there; you can deduce them by observing the problem, so concluding using your gut feeling is OK. The real challenge for us is to know when it is crucial to spend time on an investigation and when we can move forward without stopping the wheel. Over-research is expensive and can make us overthink what path to follow regarding a solution. Consequently, we can fall into the paradox of choice (a concept introduced by psychologist Barry Schwartz, which suggests that the more options we have, the less satisfied we feel with our decision.), leaving us with more uncertainty and doubts than practical and quick-to-apply solutions.Along with the over-research (thats on us) comes the over-validation, which comes from stakeholders and their excessive need to confirm a hypothesis or insight. Depending on the problems dimension, double-checking an idea can mean the difference between thriving in business and total failure. But what happens when this dynamic becomes an everyday routine? Inevitably, we will move slowly, looking for the perfect scenario, and sometimes there is no such thing, so building solutions with the available resources is also a positive and agile way to move forward and then learn about results and iterateagain.Lack of seniority andquality(When less is the standard measure for everything)Being agile is sometimes misunderstood; it is an excuse for allowing messy projects, processes, and even poor decisions. In scenarios where the quality of the final product may be compromised, it is essential to have the appropriate seniority to guide the projects direction. Not everything needs a minimum expression of quality, especially in environments where stabilizing products after a launch will always fall at the bottom of an outdatedbacklog.Every product team must fight for high standards and sound practices. A lack of people who raise the bar within the company will force us to always accept low-quality standards.We are agile is a phrase that can penetrate a companys culture and create a low notion of quality if it is not well-guided. In the never-ending fight to be first in the market and develop high-quality products, seniority is worth and having proper companionship from leaders can make a difference in the long term. Sometimes, a proper check from a superior can save the companymoney.Carlos explains that a junior designers hasty conclusions may not reveal the truth behind an event: In the company I work for, we needed to understand whether users liked to sign contracts digitally or personally, so I ran research to understand the users hesitation behind this phenomenon. Stakeholders had a particular hypothesis: the website was unclear in pulling more clients through an online experience, and a junior designer could fix the issue rapidly, but results revealed trust issues from clients instead of the website malfunctioning.In such situations, a senior designers conclusions are different and more profound than those a junior designer can independently draw.An extra complexity to simplethingsAs designers, we deeply love concepts, trends, or fancy frameworks from other companies, but thinking beyond that can be challenging for some. It seems like from college, we should suppose solutions systematically with a name on them. Real-life challenges do not consist only of static concepts; we should understand our context and users to develop unique solutions. Im not saying we should be blind to a global concept conversation, but taking this as the unique source of truth is a mistake, Carlossays.When searching for a solution, we add an unnecessary layer of complexity because this is how it is written in the manual, or this is how X company does it. We cut ourselves off and dont let creativity flow to find new, unique points of view that can lead us down more interesting paths.So far, all points make sense and reflect a vast company and talent problem nowadays, at least in Latin America. I share the same concerns that Carlos does, and from my standpoint, Id like to address some issues that increase this extra complexity in the UXscene:If you wonder why you are not more protagonist in your squad, it can be because your level of conversation is lower than expected.Lousy commutation skillsUnable to explain or sell an idea reinforces the stereotype of only making things pretty on interfaces; this perception may be strong among some stakeholders. As creators (designers) of every solution, we should OWN or at least be the protagonists in the narrative around whatever we build. Some common mistakes around this issueare:Not showing interest in understanding the business as an overallpicture.Not speaking the people language means we can be too technical when prompting users without a digital background.Not elevating conversations beyond a visual standpoint.We are not referring to metrics every time we show a solution.Due to this circumstance, some companies only hire designers with the premise of decorating things, which prevents us from achieving a broader strategic level and the relevance wewant.Not understanding the economy ofdesign.Sometimes, we can affect a process by designing more of what is needed. Over-design can be problematic because it blocks the entire product dynamic until we finish a solution. When we finally needed to deliver, much of the deliverables would not be executed because the initial scope was different, so we spent time unnecessarily.The economy of design includes, beyond designing short experiences, the economy of thinking and solving; this means being creative in finding solutions with the available resources without constantly thinking about all possible scenarios if we know that a couple of actions delimit the primary product value forusers.Tasks over the bigpicture.If you wonder why you are not more protagonist in your squad, it can be because your level of conversation is lower than expected. Conversation level refers to the range of decisions or ideas you can provide to your group, becoming a key player in the production dynamic. Ive seen how designers only focus on delivering things without a complete understanding of the problem or impact in numbers, which shortens their level of conversation to a specific part of the problem. Is this all bad? Im sure it is not, but to be a key player, you must transcend the design conversation into new territories and challenges.Are we victims or perpetrators of thiscrisis?I believe that we can do better. However, the market is affected by investment movements and hiring, which impacts the dynamics of demand and supply in companies. In my years of experience, I have also seen how this discipline has disfigured a little of its primary essence, which is contact with the user. Because of this phenomenon, it isnt easy to establish our knowledge and show a fundamental value in the growth of technology.We can be part of the new role we have always wanted, but we must also improve some aspects of our work. Sometimes, it is more important to be at the forefront of concepts, methodologies, and new fashion words to turn our profession into something systematic, sterile, and distanced from users. I think that is where the biggest challenge of UX design is and the importance it must build fromwithin.UX is easy, but we made it complicated was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.