Every engineering leader I know fights the same internal battle. Part of you wants to build beautiful, scalable systems with comprehensive test coverage and zero technical debt. The other part recognizes deadlines, budgets, and stakeholders who care more about shipping features than architectural elegance.
I came across a LinkedIn post showing how badly this can go wrong. A coach advising a founder to fire his CTO. All over a drive to build infrastructure for 115 simultaneous users.
In a startup with exactly zero users. Not one.
Do the math: 115 simultaneous users means nearly 20 million monthly users. That’s huge scale and the very definition of a “champagne problem” any startup would love to handle.
A CTO demanding enterprise-grade systems that can grow to handle this scale on day one doesn’t get it. Sure, they can handle a Snapchat’s worth of users from the start … but who pays the bill to get there? If you’ve yet to land a single paying customer, this kind of optimization is laughably premature.
There’s a difference between engineering excellence and engineering ego. The path to sustainable systems usually requires tactical compromises that serve your bigger goals.
Sometimes you need to recognize when perfectionism becomes a business liability.
Learning and Pivoting
Most successful products evolve through iterative learning. The “perfect” system you envision today might be completely wrong for the business you become tomorrow. Instagram started as Burbn, a location-based check-in app. If they’d spent years perfecting Burbn’s architecture for check-ins, they might have missed the photo-sharing revolution entirely.
Likewise, Slack started as an internal tool at a game studio with a primary product that never took off. The team pivoted to chat and were later acquired by Salesforce for nearly $28 billion! If the team had instead focused on over-optimized infrastructure for gaming, this would never have been possible.
So how do you apply engineering principles strategically? You make them proportional to actual business needs.
The key is distinguishing between engineering that serves future business needs and engineering that serves egos. Here’s how I’ve seen successful technical leaders navigate this balance:
Right-size your architecture for right-now problems. Build for your current scale plus one order of magnitude, not three. If you have 100 users, architect for 1,000, not 100 million. This gives you room to grow without over-engineering for fantasy problems.
Pick your battles early. Every system has core architectural decisions that are expensive to change later. Database choice, core API design, security foundations. These deserve your perfectionist attention because changing them later will actually kill you.
Embrace technical debt tactically, but set expiration dates. Some temporary solutions enable rapid iteration and learning. Just be honest about their lifecycle. Build with an expiration date in mind and document your refactoring plan before you ship.
Measure what actually moves the needle. Deployment frequency and mean time to recovery often matter more than code coverage percentages. User adoption metrics trump architectural purity scores every time.
Build learning into your development process. The most successful engineering teams aren’t those who build perfect systems on the first try. They’re the ones who learn fastest and adapt most effectively. Ship early versions to real users and let their behavior guide your architectural decisions.
This is exactly why I’m building automated infrastructure orchestration at Displace Technologies. That CTO in the LinkedIn story wasn’t wrong to want reliable infrastructure. They were wrong to think they needed to build it from scratch.
What if you could get production-ready infrastructure that scales gracefully, but deployed in minutes instead of months? Your team defines what they need – databases, caching, monitoring – and the platform handles the how. Battle-tested architectural patterns without the engineering overhead.
Start with infrastructure that supports your actual users today and automatically adapts when you grow. The CTO gets reliable systems. The business gets speed to market. Meanwhile engineering focus on features that matter instead of reinventing deployment pipelines.
You’re not choosing between beautiful architecture and fast delivery anymore.
The practical stuff matters too. Establish clear coding standards and architectural guidelines, then be flexible about how strictly you enforce them in the short term. Document your technical debt and your plan for addressing it. Use automation to enforce quality without slowing down delivery. And when you’re advocating for engineering improvements, translate technical debt into business impact. Instead of “we need to refactor this module,” try “this system takes too long to add features, slowing our time-to-market.”
The most successful engineering leaders I know aren’t the ones who build perfect systems. They build systems that evolve gracefully. They understand that engineering excellence isn’t about avoiding all technical debt. It’s about incurring the right debt at the right time and paying it down strategically.
Don’t wholesale abandon engineering excellence. Align that excellence with business reality. Ship solutions that work for real users while maintaining the foundation you’ll need when those passionate customers demand more.
Learning beats scaling every single time. At least until you have something worth scaling.
Want to learn more about what I’m doing with Displace? Keep in touch:
