Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the implications of AI for technology professionals and the way we organize our work. I appreciated your reflections and decided to unpack some of your ideas — and gently challenge a few assumptions and suggested recipes for success.
To start, I’ll assume your team will be using one or more AI engines, and that they’ll take the time to scrutinize them — understanding what’s “under the hood” and the implications of their calls and outputs.
I agree with your point that simply assembling a multidisciplinary team doesn’t, by itself, change how people think or work. Since discovering Agile in 2007, I’ve introduced it (mostly via Scrum) to six teams. Some of them achieved strong results; others required multiple attempts. As you imply in your article, the real revolution in technology is about people. Tools and technologies are just the starting point.
The most successful transformations I’ve seen were within teams of experienced developers who trusted each other, had worked together for a long time, were strong collaborators and critical thinkers, and were committed to making change happen. They didn’t just accept the need for change — they embraced it.
You describe a team where collective responsibility drives delivery, and where everyone does what it takes to make it happen. In practice, however, I’ve seen “everyone is responsible” devolve into “no one is accountable.” It’s something we must keep a close eye on.
Given that AI encompasses a broad spectrum of technologies, disciplines, and methodologies, we’ll need to determine which of these are most essential for any given application.
Personally, I gravitate toward the machine learning aspect — mainly because it’s the part I can best understand. There’s something fascinating about application code that evolves in real time in response to observed behaviour.
That said, I don’t believe engineers — in the traditional sense — are the core of tomorrow’s teams. What we need is a new kind of “full-stack engineer”: someone who is a product builder, capable of experimenting, defining initial behaviors and workflows, and testing to a level that delivers acceptable value and quality.
The truth is, we’re still figuring out how to harness these emerging technologies — and how to reorganize our work accordingly. Owning the underlying tech is just the starting point. I look forward to watching this transition unfold and hope to contribute in some small way.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Israel. They go way beyond my attempt at making a simple point: that today it's even more important to not separate the thinking from the doing.
One quick comment:
> You describe a team where collective responsibility drives delivery, and where everyone does what it takes to make it happen. In practice, however, I’ve seen “everyone is responsible” devolve into “no one is accountable.”
I see responsibility and accountability as different yet related things. I don't abdicate my accountability as a leader, but I strive to craft teams and systems where everyone not only is but *feels* responsible. Otherwise, as is often the case, it's just an excuse to exert control and tell everybody else what to do. Authority-based leadership is the weakest type of leadership.
Dear Paulo,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the implications of AI for technology professionals and the way we organize our work. I appreciated your reflections and decided to unpack some of your ideas — and gently challenge a few assumptions and suggested recipes for success.
To start, I’ll assume your team will be using one or more AI engines, and that they’ll take the time to scrutinize them — understanding what’s “under the hood” and the implications of their calls and outputs.
I agree with your point that simply assembling a multidisciplinary team doesn’t, by itself, change how people think or work. Since discovering Agile in 2007, I’ve introduced it (mostly via Scrum) to six teams. Some of them achieved strong results; others required multiple attempts. As you imply in your article, the real revolution in technology is about people. Tools and technologies are just the starting point.
The most successful transformations I’ve seen were within teams of experienced developers who trusted each other, had worked together for a long time, were strong collaborators and critical thinkers, and were committed to making change happen. They didn’t just accept the need for change — they embraced it.
You describe a team where collective responsibility drives delivery, and where everyone does what it takes to make it happen. In practice, however, I’ve seen “everyone is responsible” devolve into “no one is accountable.” It’s something we must keep a close eye on.
Given that AI encompasses a broad spectrum of technologies, disciplines, and methodologies, we’ll need to determine which of these are most essential for any given application.
Personally, I gravitate toward the machine learning aspect — mainly because it’s the part I can best understand. There’s something fascinating about application code that evolves in real time in response to observed behaviour.
That said, I don’t believe engineers — in the traditional sense — are the core of tomorrow’s teams. What we need is a new kind of “full-stack engineer”: someone who is a product builder, capable of experimenting, defining initial behaviors and workflows, and testing to a level that delivers acceptable value and quality.
The truth is, we’re still figuring out how to harness these emerging technologies — and how to reorganize our work accordingly. Owning the underlying tech is just the starting point. I look forward to watching this transition unfold and hope to contribute in some small way.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Israel. They go way beyond my attempt at making a simple point: that today it's even more important to not separate the thinking from the doing.
One quick comment:
> You describe a team where collective responsibility drives delivery, and where everyone does what it takes to make it happen. In practice, however, I’ve seen “everyone is responsible” devolve into “no one is accountable.”
I see responsibility and accountability as different yet related things. I don't abdicate my accountability as a leader, but I strive to craft teams and systems where everyone not only is but *feels* responsible. Otherwise, as is often the case, it's just an excuse to exert control and tell everybody else what to do. Authority-based leadership is the weakest type of leadership.