You’ve seen the scene a hundred times on HGTV. A couple of house flippers stand in a dusty living room, picturing a bright, open-concept layout. They hand the contractor a rough sketch and say: "Build this."
The demo crew starts swinging hammers—and suddenly, everything screeches to a halt.
Hidden behind one of the walls? A surprise structural beam. Or outdated wiring. Or mold. Cue the dramatic music and the inevitable conversation about going over budget.
Why? Because no one took the time to fully understand the structure before making big design decisions. Now they’re faced with a tough call: compromise on the vision, blow the budget, or delay the timeline.
This is exactly how most companies build software.
Developers are handed specs without context—no insight into business goals, customer needs, or technical constraints. They’re expected to deliver, but not to question. So they guess. And just like those house flippers, teams are surprised when those guesses cost them.
The result? Wasted time. Needless complexity. A product that doesn’t actually solve the problem it was meant to fix.
At Test Double, our product teams help avoid these surprises by giving engineers the proper context they need to make smarter decisions from day one.
Here’s why building software without context derails your plans—and how to fix it.
The hidden costs of not giving developers context
1. Misalignment creates expensive rework and slows delivery
If you give engineers unclear direction, you’ll get unpredictable results.
Senior software consultant Kai Holnes has seen it happen again and again: Developers make technical decisions based on their best interpretation of the goal—only to find out later a key piece of information was missing or misinterpreted.
That’s how you end up with over-engineered complexity where simplicity was needed or a brittle solution that doesn’t scale. And it’s not because engineers aren’t skilled—it’s because they weren’t given the right information upfront.
Kai recalled an instance where she was asked to add a feature. After analyzing the request, she realized it would introduce significant complexity. Instead of just executing, she pushed back: What's the difference in actual value to the user if we add or leave this out? Is that difference big enough to warrant the additional technical complexity? After discussing the trade-offs, the team found a better way to achieve the same outcome—without unnecessary complexity or wasted engineering effort.
The best developers don’t just write code; they solve problems. But they can’t do that if they don’t understand the problem in the first place.
2. Feature factory churn burns money on low-impact work
Senior product manager Michael Toland put it best: “You’re already doing great work—but are you doing the right work?”
Many engineering teams fall into the trap of shipping feature after feature without stepping back to ask:
- Does this matter?
- Is this solving the right problem?
Here’s the real issue: Businesses must identify the right problems to solve—but they can’t dictate the solutions in a vacuum. The best product teams don’t just hand engineers a list of features; they co-create solutions with them.
When engineers are excluded from this process, the business risks investing in features no one needs, solutions that don’t scale, and rework that could have been avoided.
Toland also warns about the dangers of overloading engineering teams with conflicting priorities: “If everything is a priority, nothing is.”
Without clear guidance and collaboration, developers are left guessing what’s most important—leading to wasted effort, misalignment, and a backlog full of half-baked features no one actually needs.
3. Keeping engineers in the dark leads to bad product decisions
Staff software consultant Jason Allen has seen what happens when developers get their information secondhand: "If devs aren’t part of the conversation, it’s a telephone game. You’re getting the information second-hand from abridged or less-technical-than-necessary notes that are often poorly captured.”
Without direct exposure to customers, developers miss key nuances. They’re forced to make assumptions about user needs, often leading to solutions that don’t fully address the problem.
Senior product manager Bob Conrad echoed this concern, stressing that everyone benefits when the whole team—engineering, UX, and design—has access to user insights. Yet in many organizations, developers don’t even get access to user interviews, let alone participate in them.
This lack of visibility results in products that miss the mark, causing rework, frustration, and lost time.
How to fix it: Treat engineering and product as partners, not silos
If you want to build better products (and reduce wasted engineering effort), developers need to be part of the conversation—not just passive executors of a backlog or work order. Here’s how:
1. Involve developers early in product conversations
Stop handing down specs—bring engineers in when problems are first being discussed. This allows them to:
- Offer alternative solutions that might be simpler, cheaper, or more scalable.
- Identify technical constraints before they become blockers.
- Push back on unnecessary complexity, like Kai did in her example.
2. Give developers direct access to customer insights
Conrad recommends getting engineering involved in user research:
- Join user interviews. If that’s not possible, recordings should be readily available.
- Read customer feedback. Developers should hear firsthand how people use (or struggle with) the product.
- Understand the “why.” The more context engineers have, the smarter their decisions will be.
3. Make asking “why?” a core part of engineering culture
Allen believes developers should always be asking:
- Who’s my fixer for understanding customer use cases?
- Who can explain how this product is sold and what differentiates it from competitors?
- Who knows where the technical debt is buried?
His advice? “It’s people. It’s never the technology. Just integrate with the people.”
The best teams don’t just collaborate—they actively seek out information and integrate across functions.
4. Prioritize impact, not just output
Toland’s advice is clear: Engineers shouldn’t just be told what to build; they should be solving meaningful problems. That means:
- Clarifying priorities—not treating every request as equally urgent.
- Weighing trade-offs—just because something can be built doesn’t mean it should be.
- Encouraging product-engineering collaboration—because the best solutions come from diverse perspectives.
From feature factory to impact-driven product development
If your team is just shipping features without understanding the bigger picture, you’re not just wasting engineering time—you’re missing opportunities to build a better product.
Success isn’t about shipping the most code—it’s about driving the most value.
Developers and product managers should be aligned around the business problems they solve. A great product team doesn’t just execute—it understands why these problems yield real business value.
Is your team struggling with this? Our product management and engineering consultants specialize in breaking down silos and helping teams build the right things, faster. Let’s talk.
