🛰️ Signal Boost

Output ≠ Outcome

In engineering, we worship at the altar of output. More commits, more stories closed, more releases shipped—these metrics feel productive because they're concrete. But here's the brutal truth: output is just expensive motion. Outcome is actual progress.

Early in your career, finishing what's on the ticket is enough. You're learning the craft, building skills, proving you can deliver. But as you scale—leading teams, influencing strategy—the game changes completely. It stops being about shipping fast and starts being about shipping smart. Are users actually getting more value? Is the business measurably healthier? Did this work unlock something that matters?

Output metrics are seductive because they're easy to measure and satisfy our need to feel productive. But they're also dangerous. Teams can sprint through backlogs, crush velocity targets, and hit every deadline while the company slowly dies. This is how brilliant, hardworking engineers end up as expensive hamsters on a wheel—running faster and faster while going nowhere.

The shift from output to outcome thinking transforms everything. Teams stop being feature factories and start being growth engines. They stop asking "What's next on the backlog?" and start asking "What would success look like?" That's when engineering becomes a strategic advantage, not just a cost center.

🔗 Lead Link

One standout article from the web that delivers signal, not noise.

Recommended Read:

Rands in Repose – “The So-What Test”

Why This Matters:

In this short but sharp post, Rands outlines a simple mental model to cut through the noise: if the thing you’re building doesn’t pass the So What? test, you might be solving the wrong problem. It’s a powerful framing that helps engineering leaders and teams refocus from velocity to value. If the answer to “so what?” is unclear, there’s a good chance your outcome won’t matter — no matter how much output you generate.

🛠️ Tactical Byte

A quick tip or tactic you can try this week.

💥 From Shipping to Impact

Many teams define success as “getting things done.” But what happens after you ship is more important than the shipping itself. Your process should include checkpoints to validate outcomes — not just outputs.

Try This:

• Add a “So What?” check to your planning: Before starting a feature, ask what meaningful change it’s meant to create. If it’s unclear, reconsider or refine it.

• Measure post-ship impact: Don’t stop at release notes. Use product analytics, support feedback, or business metrics to close the loop.

• Rethink “done”: Expand your team’s definition to include results. “Done” isn’t when the PR merges — it’s when the change delivers value.

🎙️ From the Field

An insight, quote, or story from an experienced tech leader.

An engineering leader I worked with once inherited a team praised for their speed. They consistently shipped features, closed tickets, and maintained impressive sprint velocity. But over time, customer satisfaction was flatlining, and stakeholder confidence was eroding.

This leader made a subtle but powerful shift: instead of measuring team success by how much they delivered, they began tracking the actual business impact of each initiative. Features that improved user retention were celebrated more than features that were just fast to build.

The team didn’t slow down — they just started aiming their efforts more intentionally. The result? Trust from the business grew, the roadmap got clearer, and the team’s work started mattering more than ever.

💬 Open Threads

Something to chew on, debate, or share back—open questions for curious minds.

• How does your team define “success” today — and does it include impact?

• What’s an example of something your team built that had a surprising (positive or negative) outcome?

• If output is easy to measure and outcome is hard, how do you make outcome a first-class citizen in your engineering process?