#project-accounting

#project-accounting

The CIOs I most want to work with are the ones who haven't abandoned either role. They're genuinely curious about how the infrastructure works, not just what it delivers.

I got a degree from Douglas College in programming and business management. I understood the business side more and was better at that than at being a coder.

Well, our guest today argues that the best way is by moving to a more project-driven model of work, up and down the organization from the corporate level to individual teams. He wants us to both ruthlessly prioritize as well as stay fluid so that we're identifying strategic goals, assembling teams to go after them, evaluating as we go, and then either continuing, shifting, or disbanding based on our outcomes.

Your AI pilot showed 94% accuracy improvements. The LLM is yielding solid results. You're getting defunded anyway. The reason? You solved a problem AI can solve. Your budget-holder needed you to solve theirs. Companies launch AI pilots that produce results, then stall at scale. The team's diagnosis: "They don't get it." What's really going on: These projects never earned budget-holder buy-in.

One of the challenges teams face when working with large boards or displaying multiple fields on work item cards is limited screen space. This became even more noticeable with the rollout of the New Boards hub, which introduced additional spacing and padding for improved readability. While this enhances clarity, it can also reduce the number of cards visible at once.

"I've never felt this much behind as a programmer. The profession is being dramatically refactored as the bits contributed by the programmer are increasingly sparse and between. I have a sense that I could be 10X more powerful if I just properly string together what has become available over the last ~year and a failure to claim the boost feels decidedly like skill issue."

During my eight years working in agile product development, I have watched sprints move quickly while real understanding of user problems lagged. Backlogs fill with paraphrased feedback. Interview notes sit in shared folders collecting dust. Teams make decisions based on partial memories of what users actually said. Even when the code is clean, those habits slow delivery and make it harder to build software that genuinely helps people.

The real cost of poor observability isn't just downtime; it's lost trust, wasted engineering hours, and the strain of constant firefighting. But most teams are still working across fragmented monitoring tools, juggling endless alerts, dashboards, and escalation systems that barely talk to one another, which acts like chaos disguised as control. The result is alert storms without context, slow incident response times, and engineers burned out from reacting instead of improving.

Much of the conversation about how to work effectively with generative AI has focused on prompt engineering or, more recently, context engineering: the semi-technical skill of crafting inputs so that large language models produce useful outputs. These skills are helpful, but they are only part of the story.

An AI agent is simply a model that receives input, follows defined goals and rules, makes step-by-step decisions, and uses tools to take actions. Instead of viewing AI agents as autonomous digital workers, break it down. First principles thinking says this definition captures the essence of how AI agents function and operate within business workflows.

To find the typical example, just observe an average stand-up meeting. The ones who talk more get all the attention. In her article, software engineer Priyanka Jain tells the story of two colleagues assigned the same task. One posted updates, asked questions, and collaborated loudly. The other stayed silent and shipped clean code. Both delivered. Yet only one was praised as a "great team player."