Balancing Building Right with Shipping Fast

-

Several years back I was in a program role supporting high-visibility digital platform launches. As usual for such a role, I was responsible for driving an on-time release tied to contractual distribution milestones. Meanwhile, a senior engineer was focused on refactoring part of the integration layer to improve long-term maintainability. We were seemingly at cross-purposes, because my goal was to schedule adherence and certification readiness, and the senior engineer was technical sustainability and reducing future defects. These priorities seemed to be in tension, as deeper refactoring risked delaying launch. How could we move forward?

Thinking it through, I decided that instead of forcing a trade-off, I would facilitate a working session to break the work into phases. That is, we would identify what refactoring was critical for launch stability versus what could be sequenced into a fast-follow release. Through this process we aligned on a minimal, high impact improvement set that reduced risk without expanding scope beyond our timeline. 

By doing as I've described, we created a situation in which we could both succeed. To ensure that, I updated the roadmap to reflect the phased approach, secured stakeholder buy-in for a clearly defined post-launch enhancement sprint, and adjusted sprint planning to protect engineering capacity for the agreed improvements.

The launch met its external deadline, and the engineer achieved meaningful technical debt reduction that prevented downstream defects during hypercare. By reframing the situation from “timeline versus quality” to “shared success over two increments,” we protected both business objectives and engineering standards.

Looking back, the real win was not simply that we shipped on time or reduced technical debt. It was that we avoided the false binary that so often traps delivery teams. When program and engineering leaders treat their goals as mutually exclusive, someone inevitably loses. But when we slow down long enough to decompose the problem and sequence the work intelligently, we create space for both immediacy and sustainability. In this case, alignment was the key to momentum.

Popular posts from this blog

The Dual Faces of Technology: Enhancing and Replacing Jobs

-
Image
Automation has been on my mind a lot lately, more immediately due to a book I read , but also because of the looming reality of artificial intelligence. To understand what's involved, making the distinction between replacing technologies and enabling technologies is crucial. As we traverse the timeline of the 20th century, we observe how each type of technology has distinctly influenced employment. Automated technologies have transformed industries by replacing manual labor with machines. Consider the automated switchboards introduced in the early 20th century. Previously, telephone operators manually connected calls using physical connectors on a switchboard. With the advent of automated switchboards in the 1920s and 1930s, many of these jobs were eliminated as calls were routed through electromechanical systems. Similarly, in agriculture, the introduction of mechanical harvesters like the combine harvester in the 1930s drastically reduced the need for manual labor. These machine...
Read more

The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor and Power in the Age of Automation (Book Review)

-
Image
In his compelling book, " The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor, and Power in the Age of Automation ," Carl Benedikt Frey offers a sweeping examination of the historical and ongoing impact of mechanization and automation on society. Starting with the onset of the first Industrial Revolution, Frey deftly navigates through the evolution of technology up to the modern age of artificial intelligence, presenting a nuanced view of how technological innovations have reshaped labor markets and power dynamics. Frey categorizes technological innovations into two types: enabling technologies, like the typewriter, which enhance worker productivity without displacing the labor force, and replacing technologies, such as robotic machinery in factories, which eliminate certain job roles altogether. This distinction forms the backbone of Frey’s analysis, as he explores the varying implications of each type of technology on different segments of the workforce. The book traces a historical patter...
Read more

Deputy Product Owners

-
Image
"The Product Owner is one person, not a committee. The Product Owner may represent the desires of a committee in the Product Backlog, but those wanting to change a Product Backlog item’s priority must address the Product Owner." - The Scrum Guide There are a lot of ways in which my approach to Scrum differs from what's in the official guide, and since that document refers to Scrum as 'immutable,' let's just call what I do 'Notscrum™.' In Scrum, there is only one product owner per team. That person is the sole person responsible for the product backlog, and the person who advocates for the work to be done. In Notscrum there is one product owner, but there can be multiple deputy product owners. Here's how it works. When my program at Viacom was first forming I met with the then-director of the Library & Archive group and learned that while he set the priorities on work done, the archivists were organized in three distinct areas with a team lead ...
Read more