If you have ever stood in the shoes of a Release Train Engineer or a Project Director at scale, you know the specific flavor of anxiety I am talking about. It isn’t just stress. It is the feeling of standing in the crossfire.
On one side, you have the Strategic Commitment. The CEO, the Board, the Market. They are breathing down your neck. They say the deadline is non-negotiable. They say if we miss this, we lose the quarter. And here is the annoying part: They are absolutely right.
On the other side, you have the Operational Reality. The Tech Leads, the delivery teams. They are shouting back. The teams are red-lining. The tech debt is massive. If we stuff one more feature into this sprint, the platform crashes. The part that gives you a migraine? They are also absolutely right.
Early in my career, I made a classic mistake. I tried to play referee.
I wasted months trying to figure out who was “more right.” I tried to explain burnout to the Business, and I tried to explain P&L pressure to the developers. The result was predictable. I got exhausted, and the two sides still hated each other.
Later, looking at this through the lens of a Workflow Architect, I realized the truth. The problem wasn’t that people were difficult or lazy. The problem was a system design flaw.
Strategic Push and Operational Pull are not enemies. They are just parallel realities. The job of a leader isn’t to pick a side. It is to architect an “Interface”—a mechanism that allows these two worlds to connect without destroying each other.
The Flaw in the Wallet (Fixing the Strategy)
Let’s look at the root cause first. Why is the pressure from Business often so chaotic?
Usually, it comes down to “Project-Based Funding.” This is a legacy mindset that I have zero tolerance for.
The model works like this: Approve a budget for Project X -> Scramble to hire or steal people to form a team -> Work frantically -> Disband the team.
This is literally designing chaos into your system on purpose.
Every time you form and disband a team, you destroy their velocity. You cannot measure the throughput of a factory if you tear down the assembly line every six months.
The architectural solution is to move to Stable Value Stream Funding.
Stop funding temporary projects. Fund a “Train”—a stable team of teams with a fixed annual budget. When you do this, the conversation changes instantly. It stops being “How much will this cost and when will it be done?” and starts being “We have a fixed capacity of 100 people; what is the most valuable work we can feed them this quarter?”
You turn chaotic “Push” into rational investment logic.
The Reality Check (Fixing the Execution)
Now, look at the execution layer. The friction point is usually PI Planning (or Big Room Planning).
In bad organizations, PI Planning is just a “Briefing Session.” Leadership stands on stage and reads a wish list. The teams sit there, terrified, nodding their heads while secretly updating their resumes. That is not planning; that is theater.
For me, planning must be a Negotiation. And the only currency accepted in this market is Capacity.
I tell my teams: Drop the feelings. Don’t tell me “We are busy.” Show me the math.
“Based on the last 3 quarters, we have a velocity of 40 points. You asked for 60. Which 20 are we dropping?”
This is where Operational Reality fights back. By using Capacity as a hard currency, we force the Business to make trade-offs before the work starts, rather than discovering the bottleneck three months later when we miss the date.
If the bucket is full, it’s full. You can scream at the bucket, you can threaten it, but it won’t hold more water. The system has to respect physics.
The “Valve”: Portfolio Kanban
So, we have stable funding (Input) and data-driven capacity (Execution). How do we connect them?
We need a valve. I use a strictly managed Portfolio Kanban.
Think of it as an airlock. On the left (the Funnel), leadership can dream up a thousand ideas. They can put whatever they want there. But—and this is the critical constraint—work cannot cross into “Implementation” until the Trains actually “Pull” it.
My job as the Architect is to guard that gate and watch the WIP (Work In Process) limits.
- Stakeholder: “We need to start this AI initiative right now!”
- Me: “Okay. Look at the board. The Trains are at 100% capacity. To pull the ‘AI’ card in, we have to move the ‘Mobile App’ card out. Are you willing to pause the Mobile App?”
This transparency kills “Shadow Work”—the secret DMs and “quick favors” that destroy productivity. It forces everything through the interface. We stop asking “Why is the team so slow?” and start asking “Why are we jamming the funnel?”
The Efficiency Paradox: Why 100% Utilization is Economic Suicide
Here is the uncomfortable conversation I force Directors to have. It usually happens when they stare at a resource plan and ask, “Why are these developers only allocated at 80%? We are paying them full salaries. Fill the gap.”
This is Intuitive Management, and it is mathematically wrong.
In manufacturing, if a machine sits idle, you are losing money. But product development is not manufacturing; it is stochastic traffic systems.
I use the “Highway at Rush Hour” analogy.
If a highway is at 50% capacity, cars move at 100 km/h (Flow). If you increase capacity to 95%, traffic doesn’t just slow down by 5%. It stops completely. You get gridlock.
In IT, “Gridlock” looks like this:
- A developer waits 4 days for a code review because the Senior Engineer is “fully utilized” in meetings.
- A Critical Bug sits in a queue for weeks because there is no slack in the sprint to absorb it.
- Market Value Delivery drops to zero.
This is governed by Kingman’s Formula (Cite: Leonard Kleinrock, Queueing Systems or simplified in Don Reinertsen, The Principles of Product Development Flow). The math is brutal: As utilization approaches 100%, wait time approaches infinity.
When you demand 100% utilization from your teams, you are explicitly choosing to maximize Lead Time. You are delaying revenue.
As an Architect, my prescription to the C-Suite is counter-intuitive: Plan for 80% capacity.
The remaining 20% is not “waste.” It is Strategic Shock Absorber. It is the capacity that allows us to swarm a production outage without derailing the roadmap. It is the space where innovation happens. If you want speed, you must purchase it with slack.
The “Sunk Cost” Kill Switch
The final piece of the architecture is the hardest for Executives to swallow because it attacks their ego. We need to talk about Stopping Work.
In the Project-based world, we track “Red/Amber/Green” status. This is a vanity metric. I have seen projects glowing “Green” on a dashboard while they burned $2M building a feature nobody wanted.
The project was “on time and on budget,” but the Economic Value was zero.
We need to treat initiatives like Poker Hands, not train schedules. (Cite: Annie Duke, Thinking in Bets).
In poker, a professional player folds a bad hand immediately. They do not care how much money is already in the pot. That money is gone. They only care about the probability of the next card.
In corporate strategy, we do the opposite. We fall for the Sunk Cost Fallacy. We say, “We have already spent six months on this; we have to finish it.”
No, you don’t.
A robust Value Stream Architecture includes a “Pivot/Persevere” gate. Every quarter, we don’t just ask “Are we on schedule?” We ask “Is the hypothesis still valid?”
If the market has shifted, or if the early data shows low adoption, we must have the discipline to kill the initiative and redeploy the capital (the team) to a higher-value bet.
This requires a culture shift from “Delivery Compliance” to “Value Discovery.”
As a leader, your job isn’t to ensure every project gets finished. Your job is to ensure capital is flowing toward the highest ROI activities right now. If you aren’t killing at least 20% of your initiatives early, you aren’t managing a portfolio; you’re just funding a wish list.
The Shift
It is time to stop treating human error or missed deadlines as a moral failing. If a team forgets a task or burns out, it is rarely because they are bad employees. It is because the system was designed to allow over-commitment.
Shift your mindset. Stop trying to be the hero who absorbs the stress. Stop trying to be the “nice guy” to the team or the “yes man” to the CEO.
Be the Architect. Your value is in building a system where funding is stable, planning is based on math, and a clear interface forces trade-offs upstream. When you do this, you don’t have to choose sides. You create a flow where Strategy and Execution actually feed each other rather than colliding.
Discover more from HogoFlow
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.