Every engineer we hire has to pass two tests: technical competency and customer conversations. We only bring on engineers we'd trust to represent Clarion in front of clinical partners. This filters for people who can both build and communicate what they're building. One of our engineers was a founder who did his own sales. Another spent two years at McKinsey in customer-facing roles before switching to engineering full-time. The result is engineers who build with actual customer problems in mind, versus theoretical requirements. They hear feedback directly and iterate faster because they understand the context. When your engineers talk to customers regularly, the gap between what gets built and what actually solves problems shrinks dramatically. And, at our stage, we can't afford to have technical teams building in isolation - we believe customer proximity should be a core competency for every role. That's the bar we're hiring against right now. If you're an engineer who’s excited to build this way, let's talk!
Ryan Gallagher, MD Kudos to you and your team for this approach. So many times user and customer needs get lost in the knowledge transfer between teams. Having engineering involved is critical.
Really admire this mindset. Combining strong technical skills with the ability to communicate and understand customer needs is rare but it’s exactly what builds great products. Too often, engineering teams get disconnected from the “why” behind what they’re building. Clarion’s approach bridges that gap beautifully.
🙌
Customer conversations and engineers… you guys are diabolical. And I love it.
Co-Founder & COO @ Hazel | AI for public procurement
1wWe do the same at Hazel. Our engineers are expected to present at briefs to senior government leaders and interface directly with their user teams. Locking engineers away in the dungeon doesn't build good product. My sense is this shift is now foundational to how early engineering roles are hiring.