Why I still write code to review my team's work

Great engineers don’t just deliver features — they deliver speed. ⚡ Every request your system handles carries a hidden cost in milliseconds. Individually, it feels invisible. At scale, it’s the difference between delight and frustration, between needing 10 servers or 3. Bad engineering repeats work. Good engineering reuses, caches, and simplifies — often cutting execution time by 10× without adding complexity. This is what sets senior engineers apart: they see performance not as an afterthought, but as a core part of design. Because in the end, efficiency isn’t optional — it’s the multiplier that makes everything else possible. 👉 “Every millisecond is either your advantage… or your bottleneck.”

Good engineers write code. Great engineers design trade-offs. Anyone can stack features. Few can balance impact vs. cost. Because every decision in engineering is a trade-off: → Speed vs. stability → Flexibility vs. simplicity → Short-term delivery vs. long-term health Bad teams pretend they can have it all. Great teams make the hard calls early, and live with them intentionally. That’s why the best engineers don’t ask: “How do we build this fastest?” They ask: “What are we willing to sacrifice, and is it worth it?” Code is easy. Deciding what not to optimize is the real skill. The truth? Every architecture is just a collection of trade-offs. The question is whether yours were designed or stumbled into.

What do I actually mean when I talk about technical excellence? For me, it is not about over-engineering. It is about detail done right. It is automated testing across the stack. It is applying the best engineering methodologies and principles, but at the right stage of a project, not just for the sake of it. It means solid architectural foundations where every third-party tool is measured not only on capability but also on long-term operational cost. It means choosing a stack that can scale, but only in a way that fits the project. It is containers, clusters, and audit logs set up to match the actual needs of the product, not to tick a box. That is how I think about technical excellence. What would you add?

Have you ever sat in a meeting where engineers are debating architecture, throwing around acronyms and you’re just nodding along, hoping no one asks you a question? I’ve been there. And here’s what I learned: reading more docs won’t fix it. The fastest way to build technical confidence as a PM is Access. Ask for a sandbox. Ask for a test account. Ask for tool logins. When you click through flows yourself, see where data breaks, and actually use the system end-to-end, the product makes sense in a way that documents never could. Pro tip: Don’t wait for someone to offer. Ask for it. This is part 1 of the 3 steps that I have designed for myself to ramp up as a technical PM from a non tech PM role. Stay tuned for Step 2 and 3.

In construction, design is a separate contract. Drawings, engineering, approvals then you build. In software, we often skip straight to coding and try to “figure it out on the way”. Both extremes are risky. Big-upfront specs create the illusion of certainty. Pure “build first” burns time on rework and misalignment. Strong teams make Design a visible, time-boxed phase not bureaucracy, but a decision engine: - Clarify outcomes and constraints (what must be true to win) - Map the system (domains, flows, interfaces, dependencies) - Test assumptions with PoC/Spikes - Align budget ranges, milestones, and ownership Deliverables aren’t a 200-page requirements. They’re lightweight, decisive artifacts: architecture diagram, scope & risks, flows, integrations , RACI, success metrics. Separate the thinking from the building just enough to de-risk velocity. That’s how you stay fast and right.

“So… what does a Solution Architect actually do?” It’s a question I get almost every time I meet someone new — and to be fair, it’s not easy to answer in one line. In my latest video, I explore how architecture in the digital world parallels the kind we see in the physical world. Both rely on structure, intent, and design that stands the test of time — just with different materials. I talk about the three key things architects make: 🔹 Principles – the guardrails for how we design 🔹 Decisions – the trade-offs and reasoning captured in ADRs 🔹 Diagrams – the models that help everyone make sense of it all (I use the C4 model for this) The goal? To show that architecture isn’t about documentation for its own sake — it’s about making sense and making decisions so teams can move faster with clarity. 🎥 Watch here → https://lnkd.in/gy7KEnYQ I’d love to know: how do you define good architecture in your world?

🚀 Ever seen software that works flawlessly but nobody wants to use? 𝗢𝗿 a product that looks stunning but crashes under pressure? 📖 I came across this gem in 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀, 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝗿𝗱 𝗘𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘆 𝗛. 𝗠. 𝗗𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗹, 𝗣. 𝗝. 𝗗𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗹, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗗. 𝗥. 𝗖𝗵𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗻𝗲𝘀: 👉 “𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘴 𝘢 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘪𝘵'𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵'𝘴 𝘴𝘰 𝘶𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯; 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘴 𝘢 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘪𝘵'𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘶𝘭, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯!” It's funny, but it perfectly captures the balance between a System Engineer and a System Architect: 👷 Engineers → reliability, efficiency, performance 🎨 Architects → vision, scalability, usability Too much of one, and you end up with either: A fortress nobody enjoys 🚪 Or a palace that collapses 🏰 The sweet spot? When design meets discipline. That's when we build systems that people love and that last. #SystemsDesign #Engineering #Architecture #TechLeadership #OperatingSystems

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦-𝐒𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐧𝐲 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 As architects, engineers, or developers, we often deal with tough problems. The goal isn’t just to fix them. It is to solve them in a careful way, so the solution is strong and easy to maintain. Here it is a clear approach you can follow, whether you’re coding, designing a system, or tackling a technical project.

P3# System Engineering 101 for Design for Reliability Every reliable product starts with clarity of purpose. System engineering artifacts - customer needs, requirements, functional architecture, and physical architecture - are not paperwork; they are the backbone of design. They tell us why we are designing, for whom, and under what conditions the product must work in the real world. - Customer Needs anchor us in the user’s world - the real scenarios, environments, and expectations. - Requirements / Specifications give those needs enforceable shape. The language - shall, will, must, may; defines obligation versus flexibility, helping us prioritize, negotiate trade-offs, and focus our risk analysis. - Functional Architecture describes how the design must work at a logical level; the operations, transformations, and flows of energy, material, and information that will satisfy requirements. - Physical Architecture shows how the design is realized; the actual parts, subsystems, and interfaces that deliver those functions. Together, these artifacts move us from why → what → how. If we skip or dilute them, we risk missing critical realities: where the product will be used, who will operate it, and how it must perform over time. There are more than these 4 artifacts as system engineering artifacts, I have limited to the most foundational ones. For reliability engineers, this foundation is non-negotiable. Before we apply Design for Reliability (DfR), we must first think like system engineers; ensuring that needs flow into requirements, requirements into functions, and functions into physical design. Only then can we build products that not only function, but endure. Credit - boundary diagram - https://lnkd.in/dUzdNqXc