I've known Tony for a few years now, and I've always loved hearing his thoughts on tech and business topics (Tony will tell you he's not a techie, but years of covering them and running tech-adjacent firms have given him a unique trend-spotting instinct).
I'm a long-time enterprise IT exec, living in the world of SEC reporting and audit scrutiny. What Tony describes has many applications in my world, but — as he points out — only after proper review by skilled and experienced practitioners.
I've shared Tony's article with my CTO and senior development managers to get them thinking...thanks, Tony!
Wayne, this means a great deal coming from you — and I want to make sure readers here know the weight of that endorsement. A senior enterprise IT executive who lives in the world of SEC reporting and audit scrutiny giving this framework a read and sharing it with his CTO and development team is exactly the validation I was hoping for when I wrote it.
You've also put your finger on the most important line in the entire post, and the one I'd most want readers to take seriously. Engineer review isn't optional. It's the risk management layer that makes any of this deployable at scale, particularly in environments where the stakes of a poorly built or poorly sourced application are measured in regulatory and audit exposure, not just technical debt.
The fact that you're bringing your technical leadership into the conversation rather than treating this as a business-only discussion is precisely the right instinct. That's the model. Thank you for reading, for the kind words, and — most importantly — for taking it seriously enough to share
I've known Tony for a few years now, and I've always loved hearing his thoughts on tech and business topics (Tony will tell you he's not a techie, but years of covering them and running tech-adjacent firms have given him a unique trend-spotting instinct).
I'm a long-time enterprise IT exec, living in the world of SEC reporting and audit scrutiny. What Tony describes has many applications in my world, but — as he points out — only after proper review by skilled and experienced practitioners.
I've shared Tony's article with my CTO and senior development managers to get them thinking...thanks, Tony!
Wayne, this means a great deal coming from you — and I want to make sure readers here know the weight of that endorsement. A senior enterprise IT executive who lives in the world of SEC reporting and audit scrutiny giving this framework a read and sharing it with his CTO and development team is exactly the validation I was hoping for when I wrote it.
You've also put your finger on the most important line in the entire post, and the one I'd most want readers to take seriously. Engineer review isn't optional. It's the risk management layer that makes any of this deployable at scale, particularly in environments where the stakes of a poorly built or poorly sourced application are measured in regulatory and audit exposure, not just technical debt.
The fact that you're bringing your technical leadership into the conversation rather than treating this as a business-only discussion is precisely the right instinct. That's the model. Thank you for reading, for the kind words, and — most importantly — for taking it seriously enough to share