Introduction
In today’s software development ecosystem, it’s easy to mistake motion for progress. Meetings fill calendars. Dashboards shine with updates. Yet, real outcomes often feel delayed, diluted, or disjointed. Why? But anyone who has written meaningful, sustainable, customer-focused software knows the truth:
Velocity without clarity leads to chaos.
Design without depth is mere decoration.
And action without purpose is simply noise.
This post is a reflection on the need to come back to principles, craftsmanship, and a deep sense of customer purpose.
The Silent Crisis in Product and Solution Design
Shortcuts in the Name of Speed
Many product managers and engineering leaders push the team for “quick MVPs” that are not even viable. “Hardcode it for now,” “Let’s skip validation,” “We can refactor later.” These may appear efficient, but in reality, they delay the debt.
What gets released quickly today often needs to be rebuilt thoroughly tomorrow.
Surface-Level Design
Solution designers or architects sometimes come with fixed ideas:
- Limited understanding of system intricacies
- Pre-decided solutions, instead of thoughtful diagnosis
- Same tools for every problem, without appreciating the context
This results in poor decisions, unnecessary complexity, and brittle systems.
Charlie Munger’s Hammer Analogy
“To the man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”
Designers often rely on what they already know instead of what the system truly needs. The cost? Engineering integrity.
Underestimating MVP Complexity
Often, UI changes are considered “simple” by those not dealing with the backend:
- A small dropdown may require changes to models and logic
- A toggle may need complete validation and access control
- A new screen may impact audit logs and data pipelines
Such a shallow view widens the gap between product and engineering.
Agile for Namesake
Agile was meant to make us adaptive. Instead, in many places it has become:
- Just story points without meaningful stories
- Velocity metrics without direction
- Daily stand-ups with no ownership
Today, Agile often looks like performance, but in reality, it accumulates silent debt.
Worse, companies later bring in new vendors to “clean up,” who then get the credit and opportunity.
Agile was not just about moving fast.
It was about responding with responsibility and resilience.
Too Many Roles, Too Little Accountability
Organizations today are cluttered with roles that monitor, document, and report—but rarely create. But before we critique these roles, it’s important to recognize something deeper:
Sometimes, Inefficiency Is a Symptom, Not the Cause
These layers don’t always emerge from a desire to bloat the system. Often, they are coping mechanisms born from structural gaps:
- A lack of well-integrated tools that give management a clear, real-time view of program and sub-program health
- No shared, agreed-upon KPIs between engineering, product, and business teams
- Fragmented visibility—especially across geographies or vendors—forcing organizations to insert intermediaries for communication and coordination
In such environments, roles get created to “fill the gaps” in transparency and alignment. These aren’t inherently bad intentions. But when roles replace tools, systems, and shared accountability, they slow things down.
- Instead of building better dashboards, we add more reporting layers.
- Instead of agreeing on outcomes, we measure attendance and updates.
And so, we get roles that often look like this:
- Program Managers shift deadlines, not roadblocks
- Onsite Coordinators act as relays, not value creators
- Offshore Delivery Managers navigate updates, not solutions
- Offshore Coordinators attend calls, but rarely code
- Scrum Masters own ceremonies, not outcomes
- Product Owners echo product managers, adding confusion
- Module Leads supervise modules but don’t steward them
This leads to:
- Diffused accountability
- Slower decision-making
- Disengaged engineers reduced to task-runners
We don’t need more people watching and tracking the work. We need more people doing the work—deeply and meaningfully.
Toyota’s JIT vs. Detroit’s Copy-Paste
I have a automotive background. I feel most of the best practices are already present. It is better to learn from other’s mistakes than learning from own. Toyota’s Just-in-Time (JIT) was not just about logistics. It was a philosophy:
- Empowered workers
- Deep discipline
- Ownership at every level
American automakers copied the method, but not the mindset:
- Reduced inventory, but ignored quality
- Cut costs, but increased chaos
In tech, we’re making the same mistake with Agile.
| Toyota JIT Philosophy | True Agile Practice |
|---|---|
| Systems thinking | Architecture that connects end-to-end |
| Empowered contributors | Engineers with ownership and autonomy |
| Quality by default | Tests, monitoring, infra hygiene |
| Stop-the-line integrity | Raising flags early, and saying “no” when needed |
Agile without mindset becomes chaos.
JIT without culture becomes collapse.
Mistaking Activity for Progress
Sprints are completed. Boards look green. Slack is full of updates. But what changed for the user?
- Did we solve a real need?
- Did we avoid rework?
- Did we add value?
Velocity doesn’t mean going fast.
It means going in the right direction with focus.
But people often prefer not to admit when this isn’t happening. Most of the time it is not in their interest to stop the wheel. Warren buffett famously said in his annual letter : “Don’t ask the barber whether you need a haircut.” So they keep doing, just to stay “seen.”
War Room Fallacy: Mistaking Presence for Participation
In critical situations, teams form “war rooms”:
- Dozens join, many just sit idle
- A few people do the heavy lifting
- Leaders feel good because everyone is “involved”
But this becomes a show of support, not a solution space. The assumption is: being there equals contribution.
But the truth is: what gets measured gets managed.
And right now, we’re measuring presence, not problem-solving.
Design Reviews vs. War Rooms
Recently, I observed a senior leader remove all team members from design reviews and limit the discussions to a small inner circle. The justification? “Most people are sitting idle.” But I raised a simple question: Are we optimizing for efficiency or building for the future?
Design reviews are not just for immediate outcomes. They are coaching and learning moments—especially for junior engineers. Our job isn’t to create silos of decision-making but to grow people with us, not around us. Otherwise, we foster information asymmetry, not engineering strength.
Yes, not every person speaks in every meeting. But even passive participation can spark learning, improve judgement, and strengthen team alignment. The cost of a few additional man-hours is minimal—often just 5% of monthly effort—but the return on long-term team maturity is immense. Let’s clarify the difference:
Design Reviews: Spaces for Growth
- Junior and senior engineers collaborate and learn
- Better design decisions are made upfront
- Teams align on trade-offs and long-term thinking
- Builds transparency and engineering culture
War Rooms: The Performance Trap
- Crisis-mode firefighting
- Focus shifts to optics over ownership
- More energy on who’s attending than on what’s being fixed
- Encourages blame games, not system improvement
But let’s be clear: War rooms are not bad. They are necessary—when used correctly. Invite only the essential people—those who can act and decide. Avoid bloating the room with “nice to have” attendees. And once the crisis is resolved, end it with a proper Root Cause Analysis (RCA) so we learn from the issue and avoid repeating it. A war room should never be needed for the same reason again.
Let’s protect and promote meaningful design collaboration, even if it feels slow. And let’s not glorify presence without purpose.
What Do We Really Need?
Strip down the layers, and you’ll find that most high-performing teams have:
- One empowered product thinker who understands the user well
- One responsible tech lead who ensures scalable architecture
- A hands-on, accountable engineering team that owns delivery
- Shared clarity and collaboration, not layers of coordinators
What I Personally Believe
1. Customer Obsession
Every team member must know the end user’s need—not just the product manager. Why build anything if you don’t know who you are helping?
2. Long-Term Thinking
Shortcuts add up. Technical debt is just interest on poor decisions. What saves time today could cost much more tomorrow.
3. Operational Excellence
Engineers should take pride in what they build—even if no one sees it.
This is the Toyota mindset—where even the hidden parts are polished.
Don’t put lipstick on bad code.
Write code that even your future self respects.
Conclusion: Think Deep, Build Right
I’m a fan of efficiency. I strive for it every day. But real efficiency isn’t about cutting roles blindly, removing people from meetings, or compressing timelines. It’s about finding the right balance—between lean teams and collaborative inclusion, between speed and craftsmanship, between autonomy and shared learning.
Not every meeting is waste.
Not every role is value-add.
Efficiency without depth creates brittle systems.
Inclusion without purpose creates noise.
We must build engineering teams that are right-sized, deeply engaged, and proud of what they create—invisible or not. That’s the essence of operational excellence. That’s the spirit of Toyota’s JIT—not just fast delivery, but quality with purpose.
Let’s move beyond presence, titles, and optics. Let’s return to meaningful work, deep ownership, and engineered pride.
Note:
This article is written with original thoughts and experiences. The response is enhanced using AI to improve cohesiveness, structure, and grammar for better readability—without altering the core message or intent.