Recently, I helped transition a feature that was already mid-development from one team to another. It was my first time in this kind of role, and while it was a valuable experience, it also surfaced several challenges I had not anticipated. The experience pushed me to reflect on how teams share knowledge, make decisions, and adapt when ownership changes.
Here are the most important lessons I took away from the process.
Initial Knowledge Share Meetings Are a Must.
In my experience working on a large-scale software development project, requirements are gathered by team leads and clients, then distilled into roadmaps, epics, and user stories. By the time the broader development team becomes involved, the scope is usually well defined. Then, refinement happens incrementally through the development lifecycle.
This transition was different. A large portion of the feature was already built before it was handed to the new team. To establish a shared understanding, I scheduled a knowledge share meeting, pulled up the feature as it existed, and walked through it together. The goal of this meeting was to create a baseline context and provide a single location for initial questions.
On that basis, I would say the meeting was successful. It allowed each developer to have an opportunity to ask questions and seek clarification on the feature. By providing the development team with a common context for the feature, we were able to mitigate misalignment on the feature and rally the team around what certainly was an intimidating prospect — jumping headfirst into a feature that was half-built.
The knowledge share created helpful alignment, but in hindsight, there was an opportunity to achieve a deeper understanding across the team.
It Can’t Be Developer-Centric.
My original approach: Pull up the code for the feature and walk through it in front of the developers, explaining each section and how it related to the feature as a whole. At the time, this felt like the best way to share knowledge quickly, since it was important to get back into feature development soon.
In retrospect, the existing implementation should support the conversation rather than drive it. A more effective approach would have been to begin with diagrams, architecture sketches, or existing Figma designs and prototypes. I could then connect those ideas back to the implementation. This would have let the team understand what the feature was meant to do and why, before focusing on how it was built.
Using multiple formats to explain a feature creates more opportunities for people to engage with it. Everyone processes information differently, so when the explanation is limited to one medium, it restricts how people can connect with work goals. Providing several ways to understand the feature increases clarity, improves buy-in, and leads to stronger questions.
This approach also broadens participation beyond developers. When visuals, workflows, and product goals are part of the conversation, roles such as delivery, QA, and design can contribute earlier and more meaningfully.
Later in the project, a requirement surfaced that had been mentioned early but then overlooked during the development of our MVP. If the original knowledge share had catered to all disciplines, we might have identified that gap sooner. Creating space for multiple perspectives early helps surface risks before they become costly.
Involving more team members across disciplines is never a bad thing. During knowledge transfer, it can only lead to a stronger shared understanding of the domain and questions that can save you a lot of time in the long run.
“What Got You Here Won’t Get You There.”
When asked about the feature, I often defaulted to the existing code as the correct solution. In hindsight, this was a strong bias that limited how I thought about the future of the feature.
Just because something works in its current form does not mean it should remain that way. Many developers have this bias, especially when it comes to their own code. Sitting with questions, really thinking about them, and even sometimes offering an “I don’t actually know,” led to more fruitful discussions than simply regurgitating what the code currently did.
By the end of the transition, the feature had been reimplemented in a completely different repository and structure. That change created an opportunity to re-examine unquestioned assumptions and explore alternatives that better fit the new environment.
The feature, as it existed when it was introduced to the new team, was not its final form. A more Agile development process and sitting with the discomfort of “not knowing” allows the team to be more flexible and, ultimately, develop a stronger solution.
Expect Questions. A Lot of Them.
This was my first time acting as a subject matter expert and liaison between teams, which meant I had a healthy amount of anxiety about my new role. At first, every question about design or implementation felt like a test that I had to pass.
Over time, I came to understand that questions were not a sign of doubt or resistance, but a necessary part of learning and building confidence and understanding of the feature.
After receiving clear answers, people became more invested in the feature and the path forward. Questions also created opportunities to challenge assumptions and confirm the team’s alignment.
My mindset shifted from believing that a perfect explanation would eliminate questions to understanding that questions are evidence of engagement. They help strengthen the shared understanding and lead to better decisions.
Final Thoughts
Stepping outside my typical role to act as a bridge between teams was both challenging and rewarding. It sharpened my communication skills and reinforced the value of collaboration, adaptability, and shared ownership.
This experience also deepened my appreciation for Agile development practices and the importance of creating space for learning and change. I hope these lessons help guide others who find themselves navigating a similar transition.