This is the second part of a comprehensive guide to improving software engineering efficiency. Begin with Part 1: A Comprehensive Plan for the complete framework, then continue with Part 3: Technical Foundations & Code Quality for implementation details. This article focuses on the organizational and people aspects that make technical changes sustainable.
Company Context
Translate how the business creates value into engineering terms. Make explicit the customers served, reliability windows and seasonality, and any audit or compliance constraints that shape release strategy. Observe how decisions are made—who proposes, who decides, and how dissent is resolved—because delivery speed follows decision clarity.
Align on a local definition of "quality" and "success"(e.g., uptime, latency, accuracy, UX polish). This stops well-meant process changes from fighting the business model.
Seniority and Role Mix
Challenging refactors and architecture shifts demand enough senior anchors to lead safely. Each domain or critical path needs an engineer who can shape design, coach others, and make trade-offs without constant escalation.
Distribute experience so every squad can deliver independently. If gaps exist, plan targeted hiring or upskilling before committing to deep technical change; otherwise the roadmap will outpace capability.
QA with a Clear Mandate
Quality remains an engineering responsibility, but QA makes it visible and effective. Give QA ownership of black-box testing that mirrors real user behavior, high-value flows, edge cases, and cross-system interactions.
Involve QA in acceptance criteria and data/scenario stewardship, and keep smoke checks fast and reliable in CI and staging. QA is a partner from ideation to release, not a late gate.
Communication, Definition of Done, and PR Reviews
Reduce ambiguity with lightweight, written agreements. Keep one-page direction notes per initiative and short, current artifacts that record decisions and trade-offs.
Definition of Done
Establish a Definition of Done that improves ownership and prevents "almost done." DoD can specify, for example, that a change must:
- Acceptance criteria - Clear requirements met
- Required tests for the changed surfaces
- Observability signals in place
- Updated docs where relevant
- Practical rollback or feature-flag plan
Discuss it with the engineers and tune it as practices improve grows.
PR Review Practices
Pair the DoD with disciplined PR review practices. Set expectations to avoid queueing delays. Require that reviewers check:
Technical Checks
- ✓ Correctness
- ✓ Risk assessment
- ✓ Tests coverage
- ✓ Observability
System Checks
- ✓ Data migrations
- ✓ Backward compatibility
- ✓ Performance impact
- ✓ Security considerations
✨AI as Reviewer: Modern AI tools can and should be included as an extra layer in the review process. They help catch common issues, suggest improvements, and accelerate feedback, especially for style, security, and test coverage.
Encourage small, incremental PRs to keep cycle time low; use a simple checklist in the PR template; prefer one accountable reviewer plus a domain owner when risk is high. Measure review latency and PR size trends to keep the feedback loop healthy.
Put Enabling Work on the Roadmap
Refactors, reliability improvements, and test investments must show up as first-class roadmap items with outcomes and owners. Hiding them in feature tickets guarantees they lose to short-term pressure.
"Treat enabling work as value because it reduces time-to-market and incident risk. Communicate why it matters in terms the business understands."
Direction Plus the Boy Scout Rule
Small, opportunistic improvements compound: stabilize a flaky test, simplify an interface, strengthen a log when you're already in the file. The Boy Scout rule keeps entropy in check, but it needs direction.
Name the subsystems that should evolve now, those intentionally stable, and those slated for structured rework later. Without this guidance, "cleanup" drifts into unplanned rewrites.
Boundaries and the Minimum Refactoring Bar
Direction requires boundaries and non-goals. State what initiatives will not be attempted for now, which interfaces must remain stable, and any constraints from customers, compliance, or partner teams.
Minimum Refactoring Bar
Define a minimum refactoring bar—the absolute baseline to merge safely—and make it explicit that this is step one in an iterative ratchet. At a minimum, the change must:
- Keep CI green end-to-end
- Add automated (unit or integration) tests for critical parts
- Pass a production-like smoke test for the critical user flow
- Document a practical rollback or flag strategy in the PR
- Introduce no new TODO debt
As the team stabilizes, deliberately raise the bar on a cadence (broader coverage, stronger non-functional checks, tighter performance budgets, stricter review criteria) so quality increases without freezing delivery.
Connect to the Operating Loop
As the assess–align–execute–improve loop runs, keep people at the center:
Assessment & Alignment
- Assessment: Include listening sessions with engineers, QA, and Product to surface pain points
- Alignment: Confirm owners, senior anchors, QA mandate, DoD, and PR practices alongside metrics
Execution & Improvement
- Execution: Publicize quick wins that remove friction and document what changed
- Improvement: Prune practices that don't pay their way and raise the bar where signals show readiness
"Context and people create the foundation. Technical practices amplify the results. Together, they build systems that improve themselves over time."
Continue Reading: With company context and people practices aligned, the foundation is ready for systematic technical improvements. The final article covers code quality standards, testing strategies, deployment practices, and architectural decisions that compound efficiency gains.