Re-Thinking Authentication: Research as a Catalyst for Cross-Functional Alignment

Focus

  • Usability testing

  • Design thinking

  • Workshop facilitation

Client: Fortune 100 telecommunications company

Role: Sole UX researcher

Impact: Unlocked regulatory and security alignment to improve account access for customers

Sometimes, UX research isn’t about the answers — it’s about getting the right people to ask the right questions, together. This project moved a feature forward by slowing the conversation down long enough to get aligned on what mattered most: the customer.

The Set-Up

The Challenge

My Role

During a standard intake between product and design, I noticed a pattern: the conversation was skipping past customers and straight into solution space.
Rather than stay in the passenger seat, I used this moment to expand the research scope — and bring more of the right voices to the table.

A third of customers were failing to pass a secondary authentication screen, creating frustration and flooding the call center.


The product manager wanted to design a fix — but the security and legal teams weren’t on board with relaxing any restrictions. Meanwhile, the “why” behind customer drop-off was fuzzy at best.

  • I saw an opportunity to:

    • Run comparative usability testing across existing solutions

    • Use a design thinking workshop to build empathy, unpack trade-offs, and get cross-functional alignment on a better path forward

Initiated expanded stakeholder involvement (including legal + security)

  1. Designed and launched comparative usability tests across 3 auth flows

  2. Facilitated a cross-functional workshop with research-backed insights

  3. Partnered with product before design was fully engaged, building a strong foundation for the work ahead

Phase 1:
Consultation

The initial intake exposed two key gaps:

  1. We had some success rate data, but no clarity on where or why customers were dropping off

  2. Design and product were aligned — but legal and security hadn’t been looped in, and weren’t aligned on relaxing authentication

To fix that, I:

  • Requested broader data inputs and flagged research gaps

  • Partnered with the PM to quickly involve legal and security

  • Set the stage for a collaborative vs. combative workshop later

Phase 2:
Comparative Testing

We had three authentication flows already live in different contexts — so I created three clickable prototypes and launched unmoderated tests.

We asked users:

  • How easy was this to complete?

  • Did you understand why this step was required?

  • How confident did you feel that your account was secure?

Testing surfaced clear preferences for:
✅ Transparency on why authentication was happening
✅ Simplicity and clarity of the verification steps

Phase 3:
The Workshop

Rather than lead with charts, I led with humans.

I created a short video reel of real customer feedback to kick off the session — putting everyone (legal, security, product, and design) in the shoes of someone locked out of their own account.

Workshop goals:

  • Identify the real customer problems we were solving for

  • Co-create hypotheses that balanced security, legality, and usability

  • Spark cross-functional trust among teams who rarely collaborated

Activities mixed participants by discipline and were structured to produce clear outputs — not just sticky notes.

The Outcome

The team prioritized a solution that required:

  • A reinterpretation of existing regulation, supported by legal

  • A tweak to internal security protocol, approved by InfoSec

  • A much smoother authentication experience for customers

This wasn’t just a UX win — it was a case study in how research can shift entrenched assumptions when paired with empathy and inclusive facilitation.