标签：#leadership

A technology problem rarely stays a technology problem for very long. A platform may need to scale. A product may need to move faster. An organisation may want to introduce AI, modernise an ageing estate, improve customer experience or launch something entirely new. The first instinct is usually to look at the technology itself. Which architecture should change? Which platform should we buy? Which team should build it? Which tools should we introduce? Those questions matter. But they are often not the questions that determine the outcome. At Cralgo, one pattern keeps appearing across technology work: the harder part is frequently the system around the technology. The problem behind the problem Consider a programme that appears to have an execution issue. Delivery is slow. Priorities keep changing. Teams disagree. Decisions are repeatedly reopened. The roadmap keeps moving. It is easy to conclude that the engineering team needs to become faster. But look closer and the constraint may be somewhere else: ownership is unclear; priorities are not genuinely ordered; product and technology are working from different assumptions; architecture decisions are being made without business context; teams are executing tasks without understanding the judgement behind them; governance exists, but only as reporting; critical decisions remain dependent on a small number of people. None of these are purely technical problems. They are questions of judgement, ownership, capability, sequencing and governance. Technology simply makes them visible. Better technology does not automatically create better execution Organisations understandably invest heavily in platforms, cloud, data, automation and AI. But technology increases capability only when the organisation around it can use that capability well. A new platform cannot decide what should be prioritised. A new operating model diagram cannot create ownership. A dashboard cannot replace judgement. AI cannot resolve ambiguity that an orga

Kasia Trapszo discusses how Netflix evolved its commerce platform from a U.S. DVD service into global infrastructure. She explains navigating international payment realities, adapting to strict regulatory mandates, decomposing monolithic architectures along domain boundaries, and re-architecting systems for massive live-event demand - proving great systems survive by continually evolving. By Kasia Trapszo

You have done everything right. You made the economic case for automation and got the investment approved. You distributed quality checks across the SDLC instead of piling them at the end. You replaced pyramid thinking with risk-weighted coverage. You stopped reporting a coverage percentage that was lying to you. Six months later, your engineers have started ignoring test failures. Not because they are careless. Because ignoring test failures became the rational choice. This article is about how that happens, why it happens to teams that know better, and why it is the final form of Test Debt. What is flakiness? A flaky test is a test that fails intermittently without any change to the code it covers. It sometimes passes and sometimes fails, with no consistent pattern. The most common root causes are timing issues in async operations, test-order dependencies, shared mutable state, and coupling to external services. All of these are fixable. The fixable nature of the problem is not what makes it interesting. What makes it interesting is that teams fix very little of it, and teams with strong engineers who care about quality fix very little of it. The reason is not the technical difficulty. The scale The numbers are worth stating clearly, because they establish what is actually at stake here: At Google , approximately 16% of tests show some form of flakiness, and 84% of transitions from passing to failing involve a flaky test rather than a genuine regression. At Microsoft , roughly 25% of test failures in large-scale CI systems are caused by flakiness, not actual code defects. The average time a developer spends per flaky test investigation: 30 minutes, before determining it was not a real failure. Atlassian estimated 150,000 developer hours per year consumed by flaky test investigation before they built automated detection tooling. Slack's mobile test failure rate reached 56.76% before they intervened. More than half of all test failures were noise. These are not team

If someone has ownership, when should you check on their work? Too little involvement can mean discovering problems too late. Too much involvement becomes micromanagement. I think the difference is what the checkpoint is trying to achieve . A useful checkpoint asks: “Are we still solving the right problem, and do you need anything from me?” Micromanagement asks: “Why did you do it this way? Change this. Then do this next.” The first keeps ownership with the person. The second gradually takes it away. A checkpoint can be as simple as: Agree on the approach before starting. Share an early draft. Discuss progress after a meaningful milestone. Review the result before it becomes difficult to change. The important part is that the checkpoint should happen early enough to change the outcome , without requiring the person to get approval for every decision. The amount of checking should also change with the situation. A new engineer working on an unfamiliar problem may need frequent checkpoints. Someone experienced and familiar with the problem may need very little intervention. So the goal isn’t: “Never check.” It’s: “Check enough to reduce risk without taking away ownership.” A checkpoint should help someone succeed without making them dependent on you.

In the professional world—especially in high-stakes tech environments—we are conditioned to believe that career advancement is a direct result of having the right answers. From the moment we step into our first junior role, we feel the pressure to be the "smartest person in the room." We equate confidence with certainty and value with the ability to provide instant solutions. But after years of working with founders, engineering leaders, and product builders, I have discovered a fundamental truth: The most valuable professionals are not the ones with all the answers. They are the ones asking the right questions. The Trap of the "Answer-First" Mindset When you focus solely on providing answers, you inadvertently limit your scope. You become a bottleneck. You are only as capable as your own knowledge base, and you discourage those around you from thinking critically. This "answer-first" culture often leads to: Superficial Solutions: You solve the symptoms, not the root cause, because you didn't take the time to explore the underlying complexity. Stifled Innovation: When leaders provide all the answers, team members stop proposing ideas. They wait for instructions rather than taking ownership. Fragile Trust: People trust those who are curious and transparent about what they don't know far more than those who bluff their way through uncertainty. Shifting to Inquiry-Led Growth Moving from an "answer-first" mindset to an "inquiry-led" mindset is not just a soft skill; it is a tactical advantage. When you shift your focus to understanding the problem, the entire dynamic of your work changes. 1. From Directive to Generative Instead of telling a developer how to implement a feature, ask, "What are the trade-offs of this approach compared to X?" This forces the engineer to think through the architecture, improving their skills while often revealing a better solution you hadn't considered. 2. Building Psychological Safety When you ask, "What am I missing here?" or "What does t

For the past two months or so, I've been working on a variety of AI development projects rather than writing -- writing skills, plugins, workflows, and applications; testing and refining harnesses; and performing diligence or working with clients (hands-on work as well as brains-on work) as they think through where they're going with AI and how they're getting there. I've been down a lot of rabbit holes and talked to a lot of forward-thinking practitioners, and I have explored a lot of what is actually possible now by building things...and I've spent my "think-time" on what that all might actually mean going forward. Here's what I've come up with: 59 predictions in 17 categories around how the world of AI -- and the broader world in light of AI -- are changing. I'll write more deeply about many of these over the weeks ahead. Predictions Here's what's coming, in my not-so-humble opinion, based on what I'm seeing in client projects & diligence, conversations, and research. Each prediction is grouped by category and by time horizon (within 12 months / 1-3 years / 2-4 years / 3-5 years), with a confidence level and a falsification criteria (i.e., what I'd expect to observe if I'm wrong). Confidence isn't a measure of how much I want something to be true; it's a measure of how much variance I think exists in the outcome. I'd love your feedback on what I'm missing or where I'm missing the forest for the trees (or the boat entirely :D)! Any surprises for you? Organizational Structure & Delivery Model #1. Small Cross-Functional Pods Become the Standard for Software Development (2-4 years) The leading-edge/aspirational development team model will have moved from agile teams of 6-8 to AI-powered Pods of 2-3 (often product/development/deployment, sometimes SrDev/JrDev/Product). This prediction underpins many of the other predictions in this entire group -- most of the rest of the Org Structure & Delivery Model cluster assumes it holds. It's plausible for greenfield and startup

Architecture is not a fixed choice made once; fitness is a moving target driven by changing regulations, tech, and markets. Even a sound design can silently stop fitting over time without bad calls. Spanning seven articles on context stores, gateways, and topologies, this collection treats architecture as an evolving sociotechnical craft where teams deliberately shape friction, fitness, and flow. By InfoQ

There is a moment in every high-stakes environment when something goes completely, objectively wrong, and the only viable response is to keep working. In my case, it was a pantry clerk who walked into the dry storage room carrying a stack of boxes, clipped a fire sprinkler head, and discharged what I can only describe as an impressive quantity of initially greasy water across an active commercial kitchen. We were told to continue service. It took four hours for the sprinkler system technicians to arrive and resolve the situation. We dried our shoes afterward. I have thought about that shift many times since leaving commercial kitchens for the technology industry. Not because it was the strangest thing I witnessed. It wasn't. Not by a significant margin. However, because the response to it was so instinctively correct. Nobody called an all-hands. Nobody convened a retrospective on the water. We just kept swimming. It turns out that lesson travels extremely well. A few weeks ago I wrote about how a non-linear career isn't actually non-linear, that the industries change but the underlying questions stay remarkably consistent. I want to make that argument concrete. Here's what commercial kitchens specifically taught me about performing under pressure, and why none of it required translation when I showed up in technology. The Kitchen Never Lies I spent years in commercial kitchens before I spent years in technology. Western Culinary Institute. Private golf clubs. A Lebanese restaurant. Bulk production facilities turning out ten thousand pounds of macaroni and cheese a day, five days a week. Country clubs. A casino. Catering. Culinary competitions. The environments were different. The underlying dynamics were identical. High pressure. Constrained timelines. Mismatched team experience levels. Leadership of wildly variable quality and sobriety. Outcomes that mattered regardless of what had happened behind the scenes to produce them. Customers who neither knew nor cared abo

There is a comedy sketch from Bob & Tom that starts with a hilariously impossible promise: overnight delivery by train, from New York to Los Angeles. At one point, someone asks if they can really get a 2,000-pound package across the country overnight by rail. The answer is delivered with absolute confidence: “Norfolk and Waypal, overnight. Absolutely. Positively.” The name is doing some careful work. It lets you hear the phrase that nobody has actually said out loud. No way, pal. When I end up leading a project with six weeks left and something that feels like four months of work to do, I start the internal kickoff by telling the team to go watch that sketch. No other explanation. Just go watch it, then come back. Then I tell them: “Absolutely, positively, we will get you through it. There's Norfolk and Waypal, we are gonna to do it.” That does not mean we are going to do the thing exactly as it was originally promised. It means we are going to get through it. Absolutely. Positively. There is a difference. Laugh at the impossible first I think newer developers especially need permission to laugh at impossible requirements. An 800-pound gorilla from New York to Los Angeles overnight by train is impossible in a way that is easy to laugh at. A project that needs a full cloud environment, API work, a mobile application in the app stores, production deployment, security approvals, and a dozen other things in six weeks? That can feel less funny when it is sitting in your sprint board. But it may be just as impossible if we take the requirements literally. The first danger on a crunch project is shame. A junior developer can look at an impossible deadline and wonder if they are missing something. Maybe everyone else understands how this gets done. Maybe it is a talent problem. Maybe if they just worked harder, they could turn six weeks into twelve. Nope. Sometimes the work is just Norfolk and Waypal . Humor does not solve the problem. It lowers the temperature enough that

In this podcast, Shane Hastie, Lead Editor for Culture & Methods, spoke to David Gudeman about the unique culture of early-stage startup engineering, how founder personality quirks and premature process impositions can derail teams, and how engineers can build influence and make deliberate career choices without formal power. By David Gudeman

The framing that causes the most damage is treating this as a financing decision. It is not. Taking venture money is choosing a category of business: one that must attempt to become very large very quickly, and produce an exit that returns a fund. Everything else follows from that. What venture capital actually requires A venture fund needs a small number of investments to return the entire fund. That structure means a company growing steadily and profitably at twenty percent a year is a failure in a venture portfolio, even though it is an excellent business by any other measure. Once you take the money, that expectation becomes your operating constraint. Decisions that would be obviously correct for a durable business, such as slowing hiring to protect margin, become hard to defend. Questions that actually decide it Can this business plausibly become very large? Not "could it grow", but could it realistically reach a scale where a meaningful ownership stake is worth a large multiple of the money invested. Most good businesses cannot, and that is not a criticism of them. Does speed determine who wins here? In some markets the first company to reach scale takes most of the value, usually where network effects or heavy switching costs exist. In those markets, refusing capital while a competitor takes it is a decision to lose. In most markets this dynamic does not apply, and speed bought with dilution buys nothing durable. Do you want to run this for a decade and then sell it? Venture capital has an implicit ending. The fund needs liquidity. If you want to own a profitable business indefinitely, you want a fundamentally different structure and should say so before, not after. Is capital genuinely your constraint? Founders often raise to solve problems money does not solve. If you have not found product market fit, capital lets you be wrong more expensively and for longer. If distribution is unproven, funding scales an unproven motion. The honest tradeoff Venture backed

Part of the "AI Leadership in the Real World" series: how leaders turn AI from scattered pilots and executive excitement into governed, adopted, measurable business capability. TLDR: 60 ideas on a board. 4 product teams to build them. $1.2M in annualized run cost for pilots that produced $340K in measurable value. The week we made tradeoffs visible was the week AI stopped being a budget line item and started being a product strategy. My AI backlog looked like a menu with 60 "top priorities" and no kitchen to cook them. Every function had a smart idea. Every idea came with urgency and a sponsor. Customer support wanted a deflection chatbot. Engineering wanted a code review assistant. Sales wanted lead scoring. Operations wanted anomaly detection. HR wanted resume screening. Finance wanted invoice reconciliation. Each one was a good idea. That was the problem. When every idea is good, prioritization becomes political. The loudest pitch keeps winning. People start optimizing for being seen, not for being useful. And the organization quietly trains everyone to be louder. I run a product P&L. I do not have the luxury of treating every good idea as a funded initiative. My job is not to maximize the number of AI pilots. My job is to maximize the return on the engineering capacity, infrastructure budget, and organizational trust I have been entrusted with. Those are finite. Every pilot I approve is a pilot I cannot fund somewhere else. Every dollar of inference cost is a dollar that did not go to a product feature, a reliability improvement, or a person. We were treating AI like a lottery ticket instead of a managed investment. The P&L was telling us that before I was willing to listen. What Changed: The Cost of the First Prototype Collapsed Two years ago, prototyping an AI use case took weeks — data pipeline, model, inference endpoint, UI, deployment path. The cost itself was a prioritization mechanism. Only ideas that survived a viability check got built. That barrier is

This is the Engineering Culture Trends Report for 2026. Featuring a panel of QCon speakers and InfoQ contributors, they discussed AI adoption maturity and risk, the transformation of engineering team structures and roles, and the human dimensions of software development that must not be lost in 2026. By Ben Linders, Rafiq Gemmail, Craig Smith, Vanessa Formicola, Shawna Martell, Phillip Mortimer, Yinka Omole

Having a platform is not enough; the real challenge is ensuring that it is understandable, usable, and actually adopted by its users. A capability is done when it can be reliably used by others. To evaluate progress, you can ask yourself “Is this being used?” and “Does it reduce friction for users?” This can help align development work with actual user value rather than delivery, By Ben Linders

8 min read · telecom provisioning platform, 30M+ subscribers Most companies avoid migrating their monolith for one reason: they imagine it as a single, terrifying event — months of a feature freeze, a weekend cutover, and a rollback plan that's really just hope. That fear is reasonable. A big-bang rewrite of a live system serving 30M+ subscribers really would be terrifying. So we didn't do that. We used a pattern that lets you migrate a monolith one slice at a time, while the system keeps running and the product team keeps shipping features — the same pattern Martin Fowler named Strangler Fig , after the vine that grows around a host tree, gradually taking over, until eventually the original tree is no longer needed. Why the "just rewrite it" instinct is usually wrong The instinct to rewrite a legacy monolith from scratch is understandable — the old code is scary, undocumented, and nobody wants to touch it. But a full rewrite has a well-known failure pattern: it takes far longer than estimated, the business can't freeze feature development for that long, and by the time the rewrite is "done," the old system has changed underneath it and the rewrite is already out of date. The alternative isn't "don't migrate." It's: migrate in slices small enough that each one is boring , and never require the business to stop shipping while you do it. The pattern: a facade, and one slice at a time Strangler Fig works by putting a routing layer — a facade or API gateway — in front of the monolith. At first, 100% of traffic passes through to the old system untouched. Then, one capability at a time: Build the new version of that one capability as an independent service. Update the facade to route just that capability's traffic to the new service. Run both in parallel long enough to trust the new one (see "shadow traffic" below). Retire that piece of the old monolith. Repeat for the next capability. At every point in this process, the system is fully functional. There's no "half-migrat

InfoQ has opened enrollment for three five-week online certification cohorts starting in August, each led by a senior practitioner applying QCon talk frameworks to participants' own work: architecture with Luca Mezzalira, engineering leadership with Michelle Brush, and AI security and privacy with Katharine Jarmul. By Artenisa Chatziou

Several posts ago, I wrote about setting up a multi-agent adversarial code review process as part of my development pipeline. The premise came from a podcast: if one frontier model is writing the code, you want a different lineage model doing the review. I'd already been running an informal version of this: just Claude Code reviewing Claude Code with an adversarial prompt. It had shockingly good luck catching real problems. Good enough that I stopped trusting the vibe and decided to go get actual data. So here's what I set up. Claude Code wrote the PRs. Every PR got reviewed automatically by 2 reviewers running in parallel through GitHub Actions: Claude Code with an adversarial prompt and Gemini with an adversarial prompt. I read everything myself. Then the same Claude Code agent that had written most of the PRs pulled both reviewers' feedback locally and distilled it into a scored ledger, PR by PR, for 6 weeks. Wiring Claude Code to review PRs through a GitHub Action was trivial. Wiring Gemini up the same way was not. Claude Code could not figure out how to get the Gemini CLI working inside a GitHub Action, and I ended up installing the Gemini CLI locally and having it perform the wiring. A couple of weeks into collecting data, I noticed Gemini's reviews were shallow. Not wrong, exactly. Thin. I started wondering whether Gemini actually had read access to the repository or whether it was only ever seeing the diff it was handed. I checked. It was the diff. Just the diff. Nothing but the diff. No file reads, no git history, nothing. And the thing that configured the GitHub Action in the first place was Gemini. It set up its own blindfold. I fixed it and Gemini's reviews got worse. Not louder or more frequent. Worse in a specific way: more confident. Before the fix, a blind Gemini would correctly tell you that it couldn't verify something and to check manually. That's an honest failure mode. After the fix, once it could actually read the code, it started fabricating.

Everyone recommends ByteByteGo and The Pragmatic Engineer. Don't get me wrong, they're great... but the best engineering writing of the last two years is coming from newer publications nobody's put on a list yet. Here's what survived my filter. I have a rule: if I haven't opened a newsletter in three weeks, I unsubscribe. No guilt, no "maybe later" folder. It's the only way to keep email useful when every engineering team, indie hacker, and AI startup on the planet is running a Substack. That rule has consequences. Over the past couple of years it has killed off almost every famous-name newsletter in my inbox — not because they got worse, but because they got comfortable. Meanwhile, a new generation of engineering publications launched around 2023–2024 started earning their slot every single week. They're smaller, sharper, and written by people still close to the work. The other thing my rule revealed: AI engineering quietly became its own discipline. Not "AI news" — there are a thousand newsletters rehashing model launches. I mean the craft of building production systems on top of LLMs: agents, evals, brownfield integration, governance, cost. That coverage barely existed two years ago. Now it's the most valuable section of my inbox, which is why it leads this list. So here's what survived. Twenty-six newsletters, organized by topic, heavy on publications you haven't seen on every listicle. Steal the whole list. 🤖 AI Engineering & Production AI Two years ago this category didn't exist. Today it's the most important one here, because building with LLMs in production is genuinely different work — different failure modes, different economics, different skills — and general engineering newsletters mostly aren't covering it. Latent Space — swyx & Alessio Fanelli. swyx literally coined "AI engineering" as a discipline, and this is its watering hole: podcast, essays, and the AINews digest covering frontier models, agents, and the career path itself. The anchor of the categ

Someone would ask a question in a public Slack channel. Every so often a couple of people would start to answer. Then the manager would step in, say what was going to happen, and the thread would go quiet. On its own, it looks like nothing. A decisive manager keeping things moving. But it was a team going quietly into debt, and the dead Slack thread was one of the interest payments. You already know tech debt. You cut a corner in the code to ship faster, and you pay interest on it later in bugs, slow changes, and the one file nobody wants to touch. Culture debt works the same way, except the corners you cut aren't in the code. They're in the norms, the expectations, and the relationships that decide how people actually work together. But tech debt is visible. You can see it, point at the file, write a ticket, argue about whether it's worth paying down. Culture debt is more dangerous because it gives you none of that. You don't watch it accruing. You see the symptoms, and by the time they show up, the debt has already compounded. Let me tell you how a team I joined got there. The reward was volume. The only thing that reliably got praised was pushing a lot of code. The manager was open about it...their whole framing of the job was being able to out ship anyone on the team. Everyone else stayed quiet. Nobody ever stood up and argued against quality. If you'd asked, the manager would have agreed that testing mattered and that quality mattered. Those things just never got prioritized. So over and over, what actually got rewarded (volume) quietly beat what everyone said they wanted. This didn't happen out loud. The reward silently won every time. You can guess what that bought. Planning went first, so features shipped in half finished states and got abandoned there. Testing basically didn't exist. We had a QA person, but things slipped through constantly. Bugs were everywhere. Plenty of features barely worked, and some just didn't. The human side hollowed out at the same

{ Abhilash Kumar Bhattaram : Follow on LinkedIn } The Post-Migration Mirage For many Chief Technology Officers (CTOs), the successful cutover of a core database to the cloud feels like the ultimate victory lap. The data has landed, the connection strings are updated, and initial performance metrics look stellar. But there is a dangerous mirage that follows a cloud database migration: Hidden Downtime. Unlike an abrupt database crash, hidden downtime is a slow-burn operational decay. It happens when day-to-day transactions process smoothly in production, but the underlying database ecosystem—specifically the disaster recovery (DR) standby instances, secondary cross-region sites, and replication pipelines—quietly falls out of sync. When a true disruption occurs and you try to failover or scale, the database tier collapses. To ensure true, 24/7 predictability, forward-thinking CTOs look beyond the immediate "Go-Live" date. The ultimate challenge is navigating the dense maze of cloud onboarding options to find the exact database migration method that fits your specific application topology. Ground Zero: The Database Configuration Drift The root cause of post-migration database downtime begins long before cutover day, it starts with how the database is moved and how its configuration is maintained. Going to the cloud offers various technical pathways, but the overarching challenge is finding what fits your unique architecture. The initial migration must establish perfect baseline parity, but standard database operations and hasty migration choices quickly introduce fatal configuration drift. To manage this drift effectively, organizations must introduce rigorous baseline metrics before, during, and after the migration process: - Benchmarking Versions: Ensuring that source and target database patch levels, Timezone (TZ) files, and Release Updates (RUs) match exactly. Mismatched database versions between primary cloud instances and standby homes create silent dictionary inc