The FIFTH EPISODE of Dev Interrupted––the Hebrew Edition has DROPPED. In this episode, Yishai Beeri, CTO at LinearB, chats with Eti Dahan Noked, VP R&D at Wilco about skilling up your engineers...how this differs from regular training and onboarding, and who's responsible for the success - managers or the engineers themselves?  Eti shares some interesting insights both from her own career experience as an engineering leader, and her current role at Wilco, the platform built for skilling up engineers.

Eti Dahan Noked - Wilco

We can’t believe we’ve already reached the FIFTH excellent episode in the series, and we wanted to do a quick recap, ICYM our previous episodes on a diversity of topics that were really fun to record and full of excellent advice from seasoned engineering leaders in the industry.

 

Episode 1: Adi Shacham-Shavit

Dev Interrupted with Adi Shacham-Shavit. Co-founder Leap & SVP Engineering, Transmit Security

In our first episode,  “Is the VP of Engineering Just a Glorified Project Manager?”, one of the most seasoned engineering leaders in the Israel community––Adi Shacham-Shavit SVP R&D at Transmit Security, drops deep wisdom on the many different aspects of engineering that have changed and evolved over the past two decades ––everything from process and practice through culture, quality, and ownership.

She takes a deep dive on how the VP Engineering today needs to bring a lot more business value and perspective, than the common misconception of just being “a glorified project manager”.  Today this role has a much greater responsibility of translating and connecting engineering work to the company vision and purpose, she gives some tips on how to do this, and ultimately why this creates better engineers.

Episode 2: Linoy Shkuri

Dev-Experience-Growing-Startups-Linoy-Shkuri

In episode two, Linoy Shkuri, R&D Manager at up and coming finserv startup Justt, talks about the joy of working in a SaaS company, and the fun with tinkering with really exciting new dev tools built with developer experience in mind in the episode “Why should you care about Developer Experience in a young, fast-growing startup?” She shares why it’s important to take a meaningful part in your local developer communities––as developers and companies, and to never be afraid to fail at something new today.  Just be ready to pick yourself up, dust yourself off and fix it. 

An important takeaway that Linoy shares is that as engineering managers we need to think about what will make our developers’ time memorable and meaningful––how to make sure they understand that they have grown in their time at this company.

Episode 3: Nofar Ben Kereth

Nofar Ben Kereth - Dev Interrupted Hebrew

Our third episode with Nofar Ben Kereth from Cloudinary, “Deciphering the R&D Operations Manager Role” takes a look at an emerging role in growing engineering organizations––R&D Operations, similar to product operations in product management and marketing operations in marketing. The R&D ops role comes to fill a void of the many non-specific, and oftentimes organization-wide challenges that growing companies need to overcome.  

Nofar did an excellent job of demystifying what this role consists of, what’s in scope and out of scope, how this role interfaces with other similar ops roles in the company (have we mentioned product ops), and even how to motivate and drive folks to align with processes when they aren’t your direct reports.

Episode 4: Daniel Korn and Karni Wolf

Karni Wolf & Daniel Korn

In our previous episode of Dev Interrupted featuring Karni Wolf, Senior Engineering Manager at Snyk, and Daniel Korn, Director of Engineering at Lemonade––who together also lead the Engineering Managers IL community.  This episode, “Congrats! You’re a Unicorn! But wait till you hear about these engineering challenges” is chock full of wisdom from two seasoned engineering managers in unicorn companies, that takes a look at engineering leadership in a rapidly growing and hyper-scale startup.  Karni having grown with the company, and Daniel coming into a unicorn from a scale-up (later turned unicorn - BigPanda) provide different perspectives of evolving into a unicorn, and conversely landing in a unicorn.

They share some of the trials and tribulations, and things they’ve learned on the way, and provide some tips for aspiring engineering managers and engineering leaders in growing companies.

We have more great episodes coming that will focus on ICs and how they interface with engineering managers, Dev Advocacy from a senior perspective and interfacing with engineering managers and much more.  Make sure to stay tuned…and we’re always looking for more guests, so REACH OUT HERE if you like to nominate a guest for the show.

You're Invited to Interact on October 25th

Over $100 billion in engineering wisdom will be at your fingertips at Interact on October 25th.

Join engineering leaders from Shopify, Stripe, Slack and more at Interact, a free, virtual, community-driven engineering leadership conference.

1 day, 25 speakers, all selected by the thousands of engineering leaders in the Dev Interrupted community.

>Learn more here<

Interact, October 25th

 

As an engineer, you might have learned the basics from textbooks or watching a series of tutorials. 

Managing engineers is different and isn’t something that can be mastered from simply reading a book. 

In my experience, the only proven way to learn is by plugging into the collective wisdom of smart people who have done the hard work of actually managing engineering teams.

That’s why I was so happy to speak with Ian Nowland of Datadog.

With 20 years of engineering industry experience — 10 of which have been in management positions — Ian developed a unique approach toward engineering management, encapsulated in seven categories. 

These seven categories of engineering management are based on his own software-engineering experience, which includes 10 years at Amazon and are designed to help managers successfully direct, satisfy and retain employees, as well as maintain a healthy company culture. 

Some of the central components of Ian’s framework include taking the ego out of mistakes, developing a learning mindset towards management, and building social capital between teams.

We’ll dig into this more below. 

Using the 7 Categories of Engineering Management 

People often refer to the three P’s when it comes to management: 1) People; 2) Process; and 3) Product. 

But Ian believes that’s limiting when you’re thinking about management in engineering and doesn’t account for the full range of engineering activity.

Instead, Ian believes it’s more helpful to consider the following: 

    1. People: Are people happy and growing in what is being built? 
    2. Engineering: How are things being built? This is about focusing on how your engineers get stuff done and how well those processes work — like the efficacy of a team’s code-review process. 
    3. Product: Are customers satisfied by what’s being built? Ian also refers to this category as “portfolio management.” It’s about communicating with an engineering team about their roadmap, what milestones they plan to explore in that year or quarter, and what story they want to tell through their work. 
    4. Partners: Do your partners understand and agree with all of the above? It’s important to foster healthy relationships between teams and any affiliated groups across the company. 
    5. Execution: How are things getting built? Managers have to think about what has to be done and how they should organize teams to meet annual milestones. 
    6. Operations: Once your product/org is built, is it going to keep running? Operational processes, like scrums or sprints, are crucial to the success of a software engineering project, so it’s important that managers ensure these processes are effective and efficient. 
    7. Company: Does the company align with all these answers? It’s every engineering manager’s responsibility to reflect their company’s culture. A manager’s actions (or inactions) will set a precedent for their teams and direct reports. 

The “Miss” Approach For Managing Engineers 

Ian believes that when you’re managing engineers, there’s a lot to oversee. There are tons of opportunities for mistakes along the way — they can and will happen. But Ian’s found that it’s through making mistakes — or “misses” — that everyone gets to improve. 

A “miss” occurs whenever something goes wrong that could’ve been prevented. But here’s the key: Don’t think of a miss as a mistake — it’s a teaching moment. 

It’s a subtle mindset shift. Instead of focusing on the mistake (which can be damaging to a person’s ego), view it as an opportunity for growth.

Managing by Missing from Ian Nowland

When you start thinking in terms of misses, it becomes easier to digest. It’s like: That’s okay, I’ll get it next time. Ian found this especially effective for people with perfectionist tendencies (and I’m the first to admit I definitely fall into that category). 

Using a Miss To Build Social Capital (aka Get What You Want)

Ian provided a beautiful example to illustrate what he was talking about.

Let’s get specific. Looking at the categories, here’s a miss I experienced in a previous job when dealing with partners at the company. 

At the time, I was managing a software team that was in charge of a network device. A previous manager had made the decision to use a different vendor, and the network team basically said: we’re out. As you can probably tell, there was some friction between the two teams. By the time I started working with this group of software engineers, it was clear they were in over their heads. 

I went to the woman who was the head of the network device team to ask if we could turn this over to her team — after all, software engineers have no business running networking devices. Since we were using our own vendor and her team was busy, she didn’t agree. 

At an earlier point in my career, I would have felt frustrated and left it at that. But past misses (and the seven categories!) have taught me to look at the bigger picture. In this case, she’s well-intentioned and doing the best she can. 

Considering the importance of building good relationships between teams, I focused on that. At one point, I even volunteered one of my engineers to help her with a software project to build goodwill. 

About a year later, I approached her again to ask about taking over this particular network device. This time the answer was yes. 

What changed? We’d built up some trust. We’d taken opportunities to show her that we were trying to do the right thing for the company (by helping her out), and so we’d established the social capital to get a positive response when we made an ask. 

Want to hear what Ian learned from other misses? Listen in at 11:50 to hear about a miss in execution and how he came back from a project that went off the rails. 

Does It Work? Measuring Success 

When it comes to measuring impact, Ian doesn’t believe there’s a universal measure of success — it’ll change according to the situation. 

Engineering leader Michael Lopp has written about management in terms of “organics and mechanics.” Ian tends to sway toward being an “organic,” which is essentially intuition-driven. 

In his current role, Ian oversees a lot of managers. One of the main things he looks at is whether the managers are surfacing misses early — before they feel like a surprise. 

When you manage a lot of different people, your job is to delegate well. The number of surprises is a good indicator of whether everyone is on top of what they’re responsible for — if there are few surprises, you don’t need to get too involved and that things are going well. 

When measuring operations and delivery goals, these are areas where it makes sense to apply different standards. For example, objectives and key results (OKRs) are helpful the higher up you go on the organizational chart. When evaluating managers, Ian wants to know: Did they accomplish what they set out to do? If not, why didn’t it work out as expected? 

Ian says you wouldn’t expect a team lead to care about OKRs; a team lead should be more concerned with measuring scrum.

Engagement surveys can be helpful for surfacing sentiment. But Ian doesn’t find them helpful for differentiating between a teams’ level of happiness versus its level of impact.

One-On-One Meetings Should Be Fluid and Unique

There’s much written about one-on-one meetings between managers and their employees, and rightfully so. It’s an important interaction for any coaching relationship. But a by-the-book approach to one-on-one meetings isn’t always a recipe for success. 

The thing to keep in mind is that there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to these meetings. One-on-ones should be about helping engineers find unique solutions to their unique problems, rather than trying to present a milquetoast solution. At times, you might need to play the role of advisor, listener or coach. A fluid approach that is authentically yours is best. 

Ian also recommends managers use open-ended questions to guide these conversations. For example, he’ll start a one-on-one meeting with something like, “Hey, someone else has this opinion about something that you are or aren’t doing, what do you think?” 

This opens up the conversation so that they don’t think that you’re attacking or trapping them. Instead, it helps them gain different perspectives on their career path or a work-related problem. 

How To Avoid Burnout Among Engineers and Managers

Lots of engineers tend to burn out in their twenties. But for Ian, it took a lot longer. It wasn’t until Ian was mid-career when he realized that his workload was no longer sustainable. 

He was taking on too much work, and was such a perfectionist that he couldn’t and wouldn’t delegate that work to other people. He had been working way too hard for too long. He felt a sense of powerlessness: Ian went from eager and motivated to unmotivated and uninspired.  

Eventually Ian realized that he had to slow down and find a solution to being overworked because he was, in fact, burned out. 

For managers, the best advice for avoiding burnout is to first focus on delegating as much as you can. This will free up more time for you to focus on avoiding misses. 

People grow through delegation — so you want to enable your direct reports to make the mistakes for themselves so that they can anticipate and avoid them next time (and hopefully not burn out in the process of learning this all). This article is based on an episode of Dev Interrupted, featuring expert guests from around the world to explore strategy and day-to-day topics ranging from dev team metrics to accelerating delivery.

Hear the full talk

This advice only scratches the surface of how organizations can make their business more efficient and productive. You can find out much more about the team-of-teams model and how it applies to business by listening to our podcast.

The Weekly Interruption is a newsletter designed for engineering leaders, by engineering leaders. We get it. You're busy. So are we. That's why our newsletter is light, informative and oftentimes irreverent. No BS or fluff. Each week we deliver actionable advice to help make you - whether you're a CTO, VP of Engineering, team lead or IC  - a better leader.

It's also the best way to stay up-to-date on all things Dev Interrupted - from our podcast, to trending articles, Interact & our community Discord

Get interrupted.

The typical model of business needs rethinking. Traditionally, businesses run in a rather industrial structure, almost militaristic. There are layers upon layers of management, with large gaps between the people who do the work and those who control the strategy. While this can work well in certain sectors, like manufacturing, it’s not ideal for a more innovative company.

So we talked to Bob Ritchie, VP of Software at SAIC, about an alternative way to structure business: the team-of-teams model. In this model, the leadership of the company creates smaller teams that manage themselves. And instead of presenting specific targets, the leadership gives each team a problem to solve. That can range from managing our customer service to making a new product.

“A top heavy and top-down micro-management ecosystem is just not what resonates today with knowledge work and thought work that an art form like software development is,” Bob says. “So the team of teams model presents a different concept. Instead of having this hierarchical command and control, the leadership strategy pivots to creating an environment where there’s a shared vision and a shared mission.” -On the Dev Interrupted Podcast at 5:10

With more autonomy, teams are happier, more productive and work much more efficiently. But what do companies need to do to switch to this model?

Give autonomy through a shared vision

The first step is to make sure that the leadership team has a clear vision. What are you trying to achieve? This needs to be simple and summarize the ultimate aim of the company. Once you have that vision, everything else can begin to fall into place. You can allow teams to find their own way to an answer, which might be a solution you never would’ve dreamt of. Just make sure to give each team a set budget.

“Teams are granted a level of autonomy that then lets them define and discover their own purpose in where they fit in that vision,” Bob says. “Oftentimes it then provides invaluable feedback on how that vision needs to be altered based on what they’re seeing as opposed to that historical: I’m-just-being-told model.” -On the Dev Interrupted Podcast at 5:47

This autonomy is key to the team-of-teams model. When you give creative and innovative people freedom to explore a problem, they’re much more likely to find a novel approach.

Give problems, not tasks

When you’ve brought together bright minds and talent, there’s no need to set specific tasks. You simply give the team a goal: a problem to solve. With small teams, they can easily organize themselves and make sure that they’re working productively. They might not solve it how you originally intended, but it’ll get solved.

“The Team of Teams model gives you that flexibility and I’m not telling you what to do, I’m giving you a problem to solve,” Bob says. “When it comes to execution in a dynamic landscape, Team of Teams is almost always better.”

Sure, in some situations like the medical world, there’s a definite correct answer. Things must happen in a set way. But Bob adds: 

“In the software world, I can’t think of a case where anyone knows the right answer … To say definitively: Build me exactly this in exactly this time and this will be your guaranteed result.” -On the Dev Interrupted Podcast at 19:18

Keep only four levels of hierarchy

But if you’re only going to give people objectives, and not set tasks, you need to make sure that individual employees are never more than four steps away from the CEO. Too many layers in between the worker and the CEO causes problems. So if you start to get too many levels, it’s time to start breaking your teams down into smaller groups.

“There has to be that cohesion of vision and purpose, and as you add layers between the individual contributors on the team to that CEO’s vision, you start to dilute the messaging,” Bob says. “So when I say: ‘there’s a problem, go solve it.’ They have a frame of mind and you know what our organization is striving towards … It really prevents that communication breakdown.” -On the Dev Interrupted Podcast at 15:39

Invest in your teams

Once you have your teams set up and can trust them to get on with a task, it’s time to start investing in them. Train them up. Help them grow as individuals and workers. Do that, and the whole team will improve.

“The foundational responsibility of leaders is to create an environment where your teams can thrive,” Bob says. “So I think continual learning is such an important dimension … If I don’t have the opportunity at work to find some level of mastery in a craft, I’m going to seek an opportunity where I can go get that.”

This is another reason why the old model doesn’t work. It makes people cogs in the machine, who don’t get those opportunities to master their craft and feel fulfilled.

“If you’re not, as a leader, investing in those teams to stay as sharp as possible, you’re doing a disservice to your teams. Eventually, your team skill sets are going to erode,” Bob says. “Carve out time for your folks to not only have access to content, but actually immerse in it.” -On the Dev Interrupted Podcast at 20:50

Let teams self-police

When teams are set up correctly, and have a good mix of skills, they’ll choose their own leaders. Perhaps through a vote. They’ll also often decide among themselves whether someone needs more training or needs to leave the team for good.

“The team self-polices to some degree. So if something gets escalated, it’s only in the cases where the team hasn’t been able to self-adjudicate,” Bob explains on the Dev Interrupted Podcast at 8:44.

They’ll often elect their team leader, too. Which is good if someone wants to step back from that leadership role for a time or give someone else a chance to prove themselves. All these things are easier in the team-of-teams model. 

Stop looking for the perfect person

Another advantage of this model is that you don’t need to be looking for someone with all the skills. It’s often much easier to find an individual that slots neatly into a team, or five people that form a new team, than to find that one perfect person.

“Maybe it’s not the perfect person, but it’s a perfect fit on this team because of personalities and principles and values,” Bob says. “Even if they don’t become that perfect person that I was looking for, they’re still going to be a valuable contributor to that team.” -On the Dev Interrupted Podcast at 32:31

It also makes it much easier to look for people who might need a little training, but you can always develop into a much stronger candidate. This opens up the pool of talent you have available to you.

Hear the full talk

This advice only scratches the surface of how organizations can make their business more efficient and productive. You can find out much more about the team-of-teams model and how it applies to business by listening to our podcast.

The Weekly Interruption is a newsletter designed for engineering leaders, by engineering leaders. We get it. You're busy. So are we. That's why our newsletter is light, informative and oftentimes irreverent. No BS or fluff. Each week we deliver actionable advice to help make you - whether you're a CTO, VP of Engineering, team lead or IC  - a better leader.

It's also the best way to stay up-to-date on all things Dev Interrupted - from our podcast, to trending articles, Interact & our community Discord

Get interrupted.

It’s important to remember that investment isn’t a completely altruistic act. While investors clearly want to encourage innovation, a primary motivation is to see a return on that investment. At the end of the day, they’re gambling that your idea will make them money.

This can make investing in true innovation tricky. True innovations are those rare game-changing technologies that revolutionize an industry. They’re notoriously difficult to spot. How often have you heard that people thought Apple would fail when they released the first iPhone or didn’t believe in Facebook when it first went public? True innovation rarely looks revolutionary to begin with. So how do investors spot which ideas are worth the effort?

We spoke with Jason Warner, managing director at Redpoint Ventures, to understand the reasoning behind investments and why investors are so picky.

1. Typical SaaS companies are easy to invest in, but true innovation doesn’t follow the same model

When developers start searching for investment, it can often be discouraging. While investors might not understand the intricacies of every technology company they invest in, they can at least spot the trends. They know and understand how a Software-as-a-service (SaaS) company grows.

If a company is growing, it has a very familiar pattern. And so investors can be quite confident that they’ll see a return. They’re much more willing to take a risk and ‘YOLO’ an investment.

“SaaS companies are really well understood in terms of how they grow,” explained Jason. “There is no real investor challenge to understand that if a company is growing 2x and its enterprise sales look good then … [investors] can just “yolo” invest into them. Because they understand what these companies look like … It’s all just Excel spreadsheets.” -On the Dev Interrupted Podcast at 40:29

2. Investors often wait until the first round of funding, but developers need seed funding

If you’re developing a revolutionary piece of technology, then it’s likely that you need investment to get you off the ground. However, it’s difficult for investors to sort the good from the bad. How do they know you’ll be successful, without a few years of revenue behind you? It’s a catch 22 situation. You need the investment to get those first few years, but the investors need to see a few years before they’re willing to invest.

Look at how Netflix completely surprised the world. Nobody predicted that it would change how we watch video (most of all Blockbuster, who fatefully ignored the potential). This is a trend that harks back decades. Online shopping, personal computers, the television, even electric light bulbs were all disregarded when they were first conceived.

These industry-changing innovations need investment much earlier than typical SaaS companies. And spotting what works is more of an art than a science.

“[Investors] miss the fundamentals. They can see the ones that are the trends,” Jason said. “It should [then] become obvious in the next round or the round after that from other investors … oh yeah, that is a great company.” -On the Dev Interrupted Podcast at 41:18

3. Developers need to seek out companies like Redpoint for seed investment

If you have a truly new idea, you’ll need to find an alternative to the usual investors. A company like Redpoint, which focuses on giving seed funding, is much more likely to take the time and actually investigate whether your technology will be a success.

It will take longer, of course. And it might not be the full amount you need to get your business started. But it’ll be what you need to begin building a proof of concept, get those first few years under your belt and start pitching to other investors.

“[If you’re] talking to a Redpoint investor, you should be flattered,” Jason explained. “What we’re thinking is that you are a majorly important company in the future. You have the potential to land … If Redpoint invests in you, we want it to basically mean that we think of you as a new primitive on the Internet or in whatever sector that you are in. And other people are going to build upon you.” -On the Dev Interrupted Podcast at 41:35

Listen to the full conversation

If you’d like to learn more about what Jason thinks and how to secure yourself an investment, catch the podcast on our website.

Starved for top-level software engineering content? Need some good tips on how to manage your team? This article is inspired by Dev Interrupted - the go-to podcast for engineering leaders.

Dev Interrupted features expert guests from around the world to explore strategy and day-to-day topics ranging from dev team metrics to accelerating delivery. With new guests every week from Google to small startups, the Dev Interrupted Podcast is a fresh look at the world of software engineering and engineering management.

Listen and subscribe on your streaming service of choice today.

Discover Our Most Popular Podcasts
Join the Dev Interrupted discord

In a typical manufacturing company, a supply chain is the chain of companies that you rely on to make your product. For example, a mobile phone manufacturer buys processor chips from a supplier. That supplier needs to buy a part from another manufacturer. And that manufacturer relies on yet another company for the raw metal.

But what is the software supply chain? And how do you keep it secure? We spoke with Kim Lewandowski, co-founder and head of product at Chainguard, to explain the details.

Your software supply chain is more complex than you think

The software supply chain can be complicated. Mainly because it’s difficult to know how far it reaches. Take a simple example: If you use Salesforce to keep track of your customers, you store your customers’ data on Salesforce’s servers. Not a problem, surely? But Salesforce could have a breach. And what about the servers themselves? Those servers might run on Windows. If that has a security bug, hackers have another way in. How about the software that Salesforce uses to host its website? If that is hacked, you have yet another breach.

 

“When I think of the software supply chain, it’s all the code and all the mechanics and the processes that went into delivering that core piece of software at the end,” Kim explained. “It’s all the bits and pieces that go into making these things.” -On the Dev Interrupted Podcast at 11:28

Keeping the software supply chain secure involves checking who has keys

The important part of keeping your supply chain secure is making sure that you track down what you’re using. And checking that they’re secure and reliable. Every new third party can be a potential problem. If you don’t do your due diligence, you won’t know what risks you’re taking.

As Kim explained, a favorite analogy of hers is thinking about doing construction work on your own home.

“You have a contractor. Well, they need keys. They have subcontractors. You give the keys out to all their subcontractors. Who are they? Where are they from? What materials are they bringing into your house?” -On the Dev Interrupted Podcast at 12:09

The more third party tools you use, the more out of control it can become

It all comes down to accountability. It can easily start spreading rapidly. One third-party tool that you use to create your software might rely on five separate third parties. And you don’t know what code they’ve got hidden under the hood. Your keys are suddenly all over the place.

The only way to keep it under control is to remind yourself to check and to do regular audits of the services you use. Kim believes it’s helpful to think of every new tool as a package coming to your home.

“How is your package getting to your house?” Kim said. “What truck is it riding on and who is driving those trucks?” -On the Dev Interrupted Podcast at 12:44

Get the full conversation

If you’d like to learn more about the software supply chain, and how to make sure that yours is secure, you can listen to the full conversation with Kim over on our podcast.

Starved for top-level software engineering content? Need some good tips on how to manage your team? This article is inspired by Dev Interrupted - the go-to podcast for engineering leaders.

Dev Interrupted features expert guests from around the world to explore strategy and day-to-day topics ranging from dev team metrics to accelerating delivery. With new guests every week from Google to small startups, the Dev Interrupted Podcast is a fresh look at the world of software engineering and engineering management.

Listen and subscribe on your streaming service of choice today.

Discover Our Most Popular Podcasts
Join the Dev Interrupted discord

Hiring neurodiverse developers can be challenging, particularly for smaller companies that are less experienced at hiring. This isn’t because you need an entirely new process or that neurodiverse people are inherently trickier to interview. It’s that small flaws in your hiring process get exacerbated. Obstacles that cause neurotypical people to stumble, become outright blockers to a neurodiverse person.

So we asked Matt Nigh, data engineering manager at UW Medicine, to give his tips on how to make sure your hiring process suits everybody.

“I think there are companies that other organizations could mimic,” Matt explained. “I would look at Google as one of probably the best that I’ve experienced.”-On the Dev Interrupted Podcast at 25:50

1. Interview processes should be conversational

If you use a lot of formal language, jargon and needlessly complicated words, you’ll make it much harder for your interviewee to understand what you want them to do. It also makes the interview artificial and cold, which can lead to unnecessary stress and anxiety in your interviewee. This is true for everybody, but for a neurodiverse developer, it can be much more potent.

 

“The most inclusive interview process I ever experienced was at Google,” Matt said. “And the reason I felt they had such an inclusive process is that it was wildly conversational. They were incredibly good at explaining what they were asking and what they were looking for. And to me, it was an incredibly friendly process.” -On the Dev Interrupted Podcast at 24:10

2. Neurodiverse developers prefer straightforward and clear instructions 

When giving instructions, particularly in practical tests, it’s important to make sure that you’re being clear and straightforward. Leaving ambiguity can cause problems, especially for neurodiverse developers. That ambiguity can distract away from the actual task at hand. The clearer your instructions, the better you’ll test a developer’s actual skills.

 

“I would say the reason I failed the system design interview was (and this is an example of what autism will do during an interview) it was the first system design interview I ever had. And I spent half the time trying to understand the language that the individual was using, rather than solving the problem, trying to make sure we’re just on the same page with what we were saying,” Matt said. -On the Dev Interrupted Podcast at 24:40

3. Neurodiverse developers need diverse recruiters, and stick around for longer once hired

Everyone has their own biases. While we should all strive to overcome those, it’s not always possible. The best way to avoid those problems is to make sure your interview team is diverse. Some coping mechanisms and strategies can seem strange to a neurotypical recruiter at first.

For example, someone with ADHD might ask you to repeat points or be typing as you speak. While it could initially look like they’re answering emails or not paying attention to you, it’s more likely that they’re taking notes to make sure they follow your instructions properly. The more diverse your recruiters, the fewer false assumptions you’ll make.

“Most recruiters are used to looking at neurotypical applicants, and they essentially have mental flags that come up with certain things, certain questions or anything like that,” Matt said. “Companies should ask: Do I have inclusive recruiters? So say, for example, at Google, they had incredibly inclusive recruiters. I was recruited by a deaf individual, for example. So this person very clearly understands me and anything that was going on.”-On the Dev Interrupted Podcast at 25:13

4. Neurodiverse developers could be more productive, and worth changing your processes

A program at Hewlett Packard Enterprise hired over 30 neurodiverse people in software testing roles at Australia’s Department of Human Services. The initial results from the program seem to suggest that those testing teams are 30% more productive than others, according to an article in the Harvard Business Review, called neurodiversity as a competitive advantage.

 

It would seem that, while a neurodiverse person might struggle in some areas—like the social anxiety brought on by an interview—they could exceed in others, such as pattern recognition.

Watch the full interview

If you’d like to hear more from Matt on neurodiversity in software development, you can watch the full podcast on our channel.

Starved for top-level software engineering content? Need some good tips on how to manage your team? This article is inspired by Dev Interrupted - the go-to podcast for engineering leaders.

Dev Interrupted features expert guests from around the world to explore strategy and day-to-day topics ranging from dev team metrics to accelerating delivery. With new guests every week from Google to small startups, the Dev Interrupted Podcast is a fresh look at the world of software engineering and engineering management.

Listen and subscribe on your streaming service of choice today.

Discover Our Most Popular Podcasts
Join the Dev Interrupted discord

At Netflix, we don’t just think about productivity - we engineer it. There’s an entire team within Netflix dedicated to productivity. I lead the Develop Domain along with my Delivery and Observability Domain peers, and together, we make up Productivity Engineering.

I recently sat down with the Dev Interrupted podcast to discuss all things productivity, how I run my team, and how other managers should view employee success. Here’s how we think about it at Netflix:

Can productivity be engineered?

In short, yes! Productivity is not a generic term for team performance or a perfunctory buzzword used during team meetings. The productivity team is an actual organization. The work we do is foundational to Netflix’s development teams. Productivity Engineering lives within the broader, central Platform organization.

The role of the Productivity Engineering team is simple: we exist to make the lives of Netflix developers easier. Abstracting away the various “Netflix-isms” around development, delivery, and observability, productivity allows devs more time to focus on their domain of expertise. 

“We are sort of like the nerds’ nerds, if you will, enabling them to use our platforms and tools so that the work that they're doing is focused on studio and streaming, without thinking about everything that's under the hood.” - On the Dev Interrupted Podcast at 2:31

With the recent addition of Gaming to the list of Netflix’s pursuits, the resulting focus becomes even more important.

Practically speaking, it’s the role of Productivity Engineering to help with things like coding, testing, debugging, dependency management, deployment, alerting, monitoring, performance, incident response, to name a bunch. Netflix utilizes the concept of a “paved road,” the frameworks, platforms, apps, and tools we build and support to keep our devs rolling. The idea is to keep workflows streamlined and enable developers to operate as efficiently and effectively as possible. If the road ahead is cleared of obstacles, you’re going to get to where you need to go faster and with support along the way. 

It’s also about helping developers enjoy the ride. To abuse another metaphor, a sound engineering experience should be like dining at a fine restaurant. If done right, you rarely remember the waitstaff, have a hard time finding something you like, or worry about how they prepared the food; you simply enjoy the experience. If Productivity Engineering is doing their job, they act as the restaurant and waitstaff with developers as the customer, providing nothing short of a beautiful end-to-end experience. 

Measuring Outcomes vs. Output

Measuring all of that productivity can be hard, and there’s no one unicorn measurement to rule them all. Hence, developer productivity teams should focus on impact and outcomes. Above all, Netflix focuses on customer satisfaction. Our philosophy is that while how something is delivered is important, the impact of what’s delivered is ultimately of greater importance. 

"If you're running around a track super-fast, but you're on the wrong track, does it matter? So really, what are you delivering? How you're delivering is important. But if that thing that you're delivering is ultimately doing what you want it to do, that's the most important thing." - On the Dev Interrupted Podcast at 5:05

In this model, the outcome always wins over output or activity. For instance, standard productivity deployment metrics (DORA) as applied to our customers become an important proxy for measuring our success. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for productivity are viewed as a reflection of a team’s performance as it relates to customer satisfaction.

I’m a big fan of the SPACE framework, developed by Nicole Forsgren, for precisely this reason. How are our customers doing in terms of Satisfaction, Performance, Activity, Communication, and Efficiency? The answer to those questions reflects how we’re doing as a Productivity organization.

"This is our strategy, these are our hypotheses around, how we're going to improve our customers' productivity. Are those things paying off? And if you can't measure them in some way, who knows? Right? So yeah, we're getting a little more hardcore about this." - On the Dev Interrupted Podcast at 24:17

Key metrics provide productivity teams with a holistic view of performance by establishing benchmarks. Understanding that everything needs to be viewed within the proper context, it’s difficult to improve as an organization if nothing is measured or tracked. 

Comparing Productivity 

Comparing developers’ productivity across teams is a thorny subject at best and downright dangerous for team morale at worst. As the old saying goes, “Comparison is the thief of joy” or what I typically say, “comparisons lead to unhappiness”, or with my kids “eyes on your own paper!”. 

The productivity teams at Netflix take a contextualized view of dev teams rather than relying solely on raw data. Every project is different, the customer base is different, the use case is different, personas are different, and where a team is within the software development life cycle is different.

It’s a basic understanding that comparing apples to oranges is not good math. A team that is just starting out and building something new, is going to look very different than a team with a mature product. By recognizing this, it becomes almost impossible to rank teams against each other because very rarely, if ever, will teams be doing the same thing, in the same space, the same way, with the same people. 

Even a measurement of an outcome pertaining to customer satisfaction (CSAT) is not straightforward. At Netflix and across the industry, we’ve found that satisfaction for internal teams skews lower than satisfaction for customer-facing teams.

The reason? Teams within Netflix are their own harshest critics. When attempting to gauge the performance of an internal team vs a customer-facing team, it’s understood that the internal team is almost always going to score lower on satisfaction, even if both teams are equally effective. 

Context is everything. Measuring productivity means being mindful of context. 

Pushing Productivity 

Any company that wants to be successful must understand how to measure its success. Productivity doesn’t count for much if an organization is not moving towards desired outcomes. 

By viewing productivity as more than just a concept or a raw set of data, the hard-working teams at Netflix have turned productivity into an actual apparatus. It is a living, breathing team of human beings whose devotion to empathetic efficiency improves customer satisfaction and dev team quality of life. I am incredibly proud to lead these teams, and I sincerely hope the work we do inspires other organizations to improve their developers’ experience.

And if you want to be as productive as Netflix, remember that metrics are only as good as their context! 


If you enjoyed this article and you would like to learn more about the work that I do at Netflix, I invite you to come join me at INTERACT on April 7th

This will be the second time that I have sat down for a panel discussion hosted by Dev Interrupted. I love being a member of the Dev Interrupted community because they are such an amazing resource. If you are a team lead, engineering manager, VP or CTO looking to improve your team, come to INTERACT and check out the community - I promise you will learn something.

Pretend you are watching your favorite show on Netflix: Sit back, relax & watch as I share the stage with other amazing engineering leaders from places like Slack, Stack Overflow, American Express, Outsystems, Drata & many more.

>Register Here<

Chaos Engineering might sound like a buzzword - but take it from someone who used to joke his job title was Chief Chaos Engineer (more on that later) it is much more than buzz or a passing fad - it’s a practice. 

The world can be a scary place and more and more companies are beginning to turn to Chaos Engineering to proactively poke and prod their systems and in doing so are improving their reliability and guarding against unexpected failures in production and unplanned downtime. 

During my career I dealt with my fair share of outages, including one that caught me mid-song during a bout of karaoke and far too many that woke me up at 02:00. As the co-founder and CTO at Gremlin, I do my best to make sure no other engineers have to suffer sleepless nights worrying about their product. 

But the question remains, what is Chaos Engineering and where did it come from?

A Short History

The spiritual predecessor to Chaos Engineering is often called by a much more widely recognized name - disaster recovery. The focus when this practice was introduced is much the same as today: proactively suss out production problems by injecting failure. 

Netflix’s Chaos Monkey is probably the most well publicized Chaos Engineering tool as it arguably kickstarted the adoption of Chaos Engineering outside of large companies, but this has led to the erroneous belief that Netflix invented the practice. In fact, the practice was already widely in use amongst the titans of technology. 

Over a decade ago during my time as a Lead Software Engineer at Amazon, we implemented several crude practices designed to inject failure into our systems. The most rudimentary of which was employed by a man called Jesse Robbins, who earned the nickname “Master of Disaster” by running through data centers pulling out cables. 

Let’s just say the practice has evolved a lot since those early days and your data center cables are much safer these days.

What is Chaos Engineering?

“What Chaos Engineering really is, is the art, if you want to call it that, of introducing controlled chaos.” - 2:16 on the Dev Interrupted podcast

At its core, Chaos Engineering is a disciplined approach of identifying potential failures before they have an opportunity to become customer facing outages. 

It is a practice that lets you safely test your assumption about how your systems will behave under duress by actually exercising resilient mechanisms in a controlled fashion. You literally "break things on purpose" to validate and build resiliency. The end goal of Chaos Engineering is not to inject arbitrary failure into a system, but rather to strategically inject turbulence to enhance the stability and resiliency of your systems.

How Chaotic is Chaos Engineering?

I always tell people that Chaos Engineering is a bit of a misnomer because it’s actually as far from chaotic as you can get. When performed correctly everything is in control of the operator. That mentality is the reason our core product principles at Gremlin are: safety, simplicity and security. True chaos can be daunting and can cause harm. But controlled chaos fosters confidence in the resilience of systems and allows for operators to sleep a little easier knowing they’ve tested their assumptions. After all, the laws of entropy guarantee the world will consistently keep throwing randomness at you and your systems. You shouldn’t have to help with that.

How do I Start?

One of the most common questions I receive is: “I want to get started with Chaos Engineering, where do I begin?” There is no one size fits all answer unfortunately. You could start by validating your observability tooling, ensuring auto-scaling works, testing failover conditions, or one of a myriad of other use cases. The one thing that does apply across all of these use cases is start slow, but do not be slow to start.

What I mean by this is to start testing across just a few nodes versus impacting your entire fleet. We refer to the impacted area as the “blast radius” and we highly recommend starting with a small blast radius (the number of systems impacted) and increasing it over time.

By starting small you allow yourself to gain confidence in both the experiments you are running and your systems. Of course your risk tolerance is also a factor of how large a blast radius your organization will use. 

For instance, a large banking institution with millions of customers has a much lower risk tolerance than a tech startup with a couple hundred customers. In that case, they would want to run experiments in a programmatic way and would need to be very explicit about communicating to the rest of the organization what tests are going to be run and when to avoid any unplanned 2am or 3am disasters. 

Eventually you want to get to the point where all of this is automated, a process we refer to as “continuous chaos.” Starting small with automation could be something as simple as taking out a single node; then taking out five nodes; then ten; and so on. Eventually you automate the process at a level you are comfortable with.  

“Ultimately you want to be able to handle any of this random chaos being thrown at you, because that's what the world is, it's entropy, it's degradation” - 7:35 on the Dev Interrupted podcast

No Tolerance for Downtime

When I founded Gremlin, it was just myself and my co-founder developing the first iteration of the product. The business looked very different then and I jokingly referred to myself as the “Chief Chaos Engineer” responsible for implementing code that was mostly used by enterprise companies. Many of these companies came to us because they had reliance thrust upon them by the US government or they had top-down reliability standards and they wanted a tool to help them shore up their systems. 

As the company began to evolve, so did the customer base. These days it’s not just Fortune 500 companies that care about reliability, it’s everybody. Planned downtime is a relic of days gone by. It is no longer acceptable to espouse planned maintenance windows as part of development lifecycles and customers don’t have the patience for products they rely upon to spend any time unavailable. Companies recognize this dynamic - and it’s not a hard one to miss. 

Seemingly our appetite for technology has gone up exponentially while our ability to stomach downtime has drastically decreased. Customers expect that your product is always working, always running. If your product is down because of outages then there are ten other similar products waiting in the wings to take their money. 

Making Lives Better

Visibility is high these days and companies don’t need the publicity that comes with making any unforced errors, let alone to be subject to errors not of their making. No one wants to be blown up on Twitter because their product isn’t working or because one of their downstream dependencies or their cloud provider had an unexpected outage. 

By preparing for the worst, we can be at our best as an industry and can be prepared when disaster eventually comes knocking. That’s why when an unexpected outage occurs or there is a production failure customers will never even know it happened. 

I often joke that we are the engineers’ engineers because many of us know that feeling of being jolted from a dream at 03:00 by our pagers, groggily wiping our eyes and whipping out the laptop to go dig through a sea of monitoring dashboards and logs. It’s not fun and it’s exactly why I founded Gremlin. Because there is a better way to approach operations than merely sitting back on our haunches and waiting for the next outage. Chaos Engineering not only helps to protect against the randomness of the world, but also teaches people how to build more reliable software. And if enough people build more reliable software, we build a more reliable internet.

_____________________

Starved for top-level software engineering content? Need some good tips on how to manage your team? This article is inspired by Dev Interrupted - the go-to podcast for engineering leaders.

Dev Interrupted features expert guests from around the world to explore strategy and day-to-day topics ranging from dev team metrics to accelerating delivery. With new guests every week from Google to small startups, the Dev Interrupted Podcast is a fresh look at the world of software engineering and engineering management.

Listen and subscribe on your streaming service of choice today.

A good SRE engineer will tell you your service is never down. A great SRE engineer will tell you that’s not what you should be measuring. In fact, they’ll tell you their job is customer service. 

Site Reliability Engineering (SRE) has grown immensely popular with many of the world’s largest tech companies, like Netflix, LinkedIn and Airbnb employing SRE teams to keep their systems reliable and scalable.

Along the way, SRE engineers have become one of the most sought after engineering roles in tech. 

The role is traditionally understood as ensuring that services are reliable and unbroken, but reliability and uptime aren’t perfect metrics. Perhaps what organizations should be asking themselves is what their customers think of their service. 

Wandering down to your engineering department and asking your SRE team about customer satisfaction is a good place to start. 

Their answer just might surprise you. 

History of SRE

In practice, Site Reliability Engineering has been around for a while. In the past its functions were covered by roles that had names like production ops, disaster recovery, testing or monitoring. The rise of cloud computing facilitated a need for more engineers in production. The complexity only grew as more organizations transitioned from monolithic infrastructures to distributed microservices. 

Modern Site Reliability Engineering originated at Google in 2003 with the work of Benjamin Treynor, who is seen as the “father” of what we now simply call SRE. Treynor, who coined the term, was a software engineer placed in charge of running a production team. With the goal of making Google’s website as reliable and serviceable as possible, he asked that his team spend half their time on operations tasks so they could better understand software in production. This team would become the first-ever SRE team.

Ben Treynor said, I'm paraphrasing, ‘[SRE] is essentially like throwing a software engineer at an operations problem’, right? Because you come from that developer mindset, that design and, you know, you think about all of these things. So think about it as a developer but apply it to an operational type of problem.” - Brian Murphy on the Dev Interrupted podcast at 4:26

Why not uptime?

So why shouldn't you be too concerned about your uptime metrics? In reality SRE can mean different things to different teams but at its core, it’s about making sure your service is reliable. After all, it’s right there in the name. 

Because of this many people assume that uptime is the most valuable metric for SRE teams. That is flawed logic. 

For instance, an app can be “up” but if it’s incredibly slow or its users don’t find it to be practically useful, then the app might as well be down. Simply keeping the lights on isn’t good enough and uptime alone doesn’t take into account things like degradation or if your site’s pages aren’t loading. 

It may sound counterintuitive, but SRE teams are in the customer service business. Customer happiness is the most important metric to pay attention to. If your service is running well and your customers are happy, then your SRE team is doing a good job. If your service is up and your customers aren’t happy, then your SRE team needs to reevaluate.

A more holistic approach is to view your service in terms of health. 

The Four Golden Signals

As defined by Google, these are the four golden signals of SRE. If these can be managed effectively, then you probably have a healthy system. 

Establishing system health

“The best way to get started is just measuring stuff, you know, just getting the baseline of what's healthy, what's not healthy, what looks like health, and then you can start working from there.” - Brian Murphy on the Dev Interrupted podcast at 10:49

It can be difficult to know whether or not your organization should consider forming an SRE team, or what your next steps are if you’ve already made the decision. 

Again, think of your decision in terms of a holistic approach, not just your uptime. If you have high uptime, that’s fantastic, but what you should be establishing is a benchmark. 

Using the four golden signals to guide you, establish what you think a healthy system should look like and set your benchmark. Keep measuring over time and you will begin to see the areas that are good or require more work. 

These measures will help inform all of your future decisions. Perhaps your organization is ready to roll out new features or make choices around expanding your service. 

Critically, the health you establish provides insights into customer happiness. If things look good you probably have happy customers. 

Internal customers

When done right SREs aren’t just making customers happy, they’re making the lives of developers easier too. Nothing is worse than having to stop because there’s a problem in production. Good SRE teams can shield dev teams by focusing on major hotspots.

If the fires are being managed before they are out of control, it allows developers to keep pushing out features. It even gives them the freedom to keep breaking things, if necessary!

When things do break, or require a slowdown, a dialogue can occur. A good SRE understands that the developer who wrote a piece of code understands it better than anyone. The model for good internal customer service is an SRE who brings in a developer, gives them ownership of the code they created, and offers to help them fix it.

Happy customers are the best customers

Whether you already have an SRE team or are thinking about forming one, remember to think beyond the engineering - think about the customer. 

Ask yourself if your customers are happy and if you would describe your service as healthy. Remember to think about your own teams as well, your developers will thank you for it. 

_____________________

Starved for top-level software engineering content? Need some good tips on how to manage your team? This article is based on an episode of Dev Interrupted - the go-to podcast for engineering leaders.

Dev Interrupted features expert guests from around the world to explore strategy and day-to-day topics ranging from dev team metrics to accelerating delivery. With new guests every week from Google to small startups, the Dev Interrupted Podcast is a fresh look at the world of software engineering and engineering management.

Listen and subscribe on your streaming service of choice today.

 

Following a recent interview on the Dev Interrupted Podcast, OutSystems CEO and founder Paulo Rosado joined us to chat about his path to founding the company, advice for successful leaders, and the growing threat of technical debt. The conversation below has been edited for length and clarity. 

_____________________

Tell us about OutSystems' founding story. What inspired you to start the company?

In February 2021, OutSystems was valued at $9.5 billion dollars - but it certainly didn’t start out that way. The idea behind OutSystems was decades in the making, and its mission stems from what I observed after moving to Silicon Valley back in the mid-nineties. 

My journey in technology began when I graduated with a degree in computer engineering from Universidade Nova de Lisboa in Lisbon, Portugal and moved to the US to get my Masters in Computer Science from Stanford. Afterward, while working in Silicon Valley, I began to understand just how much of a problem technical debt was. 

While working on a very large engineering team, we were faced with tackling a gigantic project in Java and I realized the issues of releasing and maintaining code sustainably. The lack of productivity in the software development process was appalling. Fixing this problem is ultimately what motivated me to found OutSystems. 

Before founding OutSystems, there was a small company I founded and later sold, which focused on internet and intranet projects. It wasn’t a bad company, but we kept failing. Projects were never delivered on time or on budget. 

We would think to ourselves, “We’re smart. How is this possible?” Our inclination was to blame the requirements of the project, labeling the scope as incorrect and adjust from there. However, we began to realize that the companies hiring us for these projects wanted us to make changes as we were developing in response to rapidly changing environments. 

The issue we began to face was the continual accumulation of technical debt. We would reach first production and realize we had built something users didn’t want, requiring us to go back and rework the stuff we had just built. 

“We came up with this realization that the problem was not that the requirements up front were wrong. The problem was that the cost of changing wrong requirements, which are a fact of life, is very high.” - on the Dev Interrupted podcast at 6:03

 

This phenomenon was occurring in 90% of projects at the time. Things were always over budget and always late. 

Today, it’s easy to take this for granted because concepts like Agile, DevOps, CI/CD are mainstream. But at the time, you had to build software the same way you build a bridge.  

Why is technical debt a challenge for companies now? How has this problem changed?

Technical debt has become a large problem for businesses, and one that only compounds with time. Tech debt doesn’t have a singular cause - it’s the accumulation of several factors. 

Over the course of my career, I’ve seen first-hand the complexity brought about by the evolution of software development. For instance, we’ve seen an explosion of languages, paradigms and frameworks that can all be used to achieve a solution. Often these languages are dispersed with no connections between them, so tracking these dependencies requires a great deal of sophistication. 

In addition to this, turnover within the development team is a critical problem that leads to technical debt. The moment a company loses a developer, the knowledge accrued by that developer also departs the company. The hole left behind is complex, including code,  frameworks and intent behind how their systems are structured. 

It’s been my experience that a lost team member can take as much as 20% to 30% of the fundamental knowledge of a system with them. Reverse engineering their work is both time-intensive and inefficient. 

Companies have tried to corral this problem by investing in coding standards. While these constraints can help mitigate the loss of a valued developer, our research indicates turnover remains a significant problem. 

OutSystems recently released a study on the effects of technical debt. What were its findings? 

Recently, OutSystems surveyed 500 large companies around the world to examine the cost of technical debt facing businesses and uncover the challenges companies face as they confront its causes. The results from the companies surveyed were many of the same things I’ve observed throughout my career. 

It’s important to note that while the causes of technical debt have largely remained the same, the pace at which technical debt occurs has grown substantially.

And so it's a hack, right? What we call a hack at OutSystems, they did a hack to just release the software quickly. And those hacks compound into technical debt.” - on the Dev Interrupted podcast at 27:11

The survey we conducted isolated three major causes of technical debt. They are as follows: 

  1. The amount of developer frameworks. An increase in frameworks leads to an increase in technical debt. 
  2. Developer erosion. Employees leaving an organization and taking legacy knowledge with them. 
  3. Compromises in quality of architecture and code. Often caused by a shortsighted view that what needs to be done now is more important than long-term stability of the codebase.

In the past, companies believed they could buy their way out of this problem, but that strategy has proven ineffective. The reality is, the most successful companies must build the software they require to meet their business needs. 

Simply purchasing what you need doesn’t solve your problems because even purchased systems must be cobbled together, requiring unique API’s, unique UI’s, unique portals, and unique mobile applications. 

Does OutSystems play a role in helping companies cut tech debt? 

The core of what we do at OutSystems is focused on tackling those three fundamental problems. We understand that technical debt amasses slowly over time, through a myriad of decisions that appear much smaller at their onset than their totality would suggest. Once these “tiny” decisions become a major problem, they inhibit investment in current operations and future innovations. 

The increasing pressures of today’s fast-paced business environment often push companies toward decisions that spiral into technical debt. The good news is that by creating a development process that marries short-term deadlines with long-term strategic goals, it’s possible to “pay down” that debt. 

I believe that any company is capable of whittling away technical debt with the correct tools and processes, and I founded OutSystems because companies shouldn’t have to choose between building fast and building right. 

To learn more about technical debt, how to combat it, and what to expect in the future, you can download the 2021 Technical Debt Report on our website.  

_____________________

Starved for top-level software engineering content? Need some good tips on how to manage your team? This article is based on an episode of Dev Interrupted - the go-to podcast for engineering leaders.

Dev Interrupted features expert guests from around the world to explore strategy and day-to-day topics ranging from dev team metrics to accelerating delivery. With new guests every week from Google to small startups, the Dev Interrupted Podcast is a fresh look at the world of software engineering and engineering management.

Listen and subscribe on your streaming service of choice today.