We were brought in by a leadership team that believed their engineering organization was falling short. From their perspective, the teams weren’t moving fast enough, delivering enough value, or contributing meaningfully to the company’s growth. They suspected inefficiencies, lack of accountability, and underperformance—and they wanted answers.
It’s a familiar scenario. When companies struggle to hit growth targets or feel stuck, the instinct is often to scrutinize engineering. After all, that’s where the work gets built, right? If things aren’t moving, it must be a delivery problem.
But what we found told a different story.
Surface-Level Symptoms: Perception vs. Reality
From the outset, leadership was clear in their perception: engineering wasn’t performing. They believed the teams lacked urgency, weren’t producing enough, and weren’t aligned with business needs. The CEO and CFO expressed frustration with what they saw as a slow-moving, inefficient organization. From their vantage point, engineering was the bottleneck—and that’s what they asked us to investigate.
Our mandate was straightforward: assess the engineering organization’s effectiveness. Was the team truly underperforming? Were there systemic issues in how work was being delivered? Was there a breakdown in productivity, quality, or communication?
To answer those questions, we took a structured, data-driven approach. We evaluated the tools and workflows teams used daily—primarily Jira and GitHub. We analyzed throughput, cycle times, commit frequency, issue tracking, and sprint health. We reviewed planning practices, cross-functional coordination, and how engineering collaborated with product and other stakeholders.
In short, we examined the engine behind the product—its pace, rhythm, and reliability.
And what we saw wasn’t dysfunction. It was a capable, collaborative, and productive team. The data told a different story than the narrative we had been given.
But if engineering wasn’t the problem… what was?
Digging Deeper: What the Data Told Us
Our deep dive revealed a strong and steady heartbeat.
The data was clear: engineering was delivering. Teams were shipping code regularly and consistently, with healthy commit patterns, clean handoffs, and solid throughput. Jira showed organized backlogs, disciplined sprint planning, and a cadence of work that indicated focus and follow-through. GitHub reflected strong collaboration—teams reviewing code, maintaining momentum, and working together effectively.
We didn’t see red flags like chronic context-switching, ballooning cycle times, backlog chaos, or abandoned features. These weren’t signs of dysfunction—they were indicators of a well-run team.
Had the data pointed elsewhere, our job would’ve been simple. We would have reported the issues, made recommendations, and laid out a plan to improve engineering performance. But instead, we found a team doing exactly what they were supposed to—with no clear strategic guidance to direct or amplify their efforts.
That’s when we knew we had to look beyond engineering.
We shifted focus to the broader business context. If output was strong but leadership remained unsatisfied, the disconnect had to lie in the inputs: goals, direction, and company-wide alignment. It was time to ask not just how work was getting done—but why.
Because even great execution won’t move the needle if it’s not tied to a larger plan.
The Real Problems: No Goals, No Strategy, No Visibility
Once we ruled out engineering performance, the bigger picture came into focus.
Lack of Clear Goals & OKRs
Across the organization, clearly defined goals were lacking. A few teams had created their own objectives—usually under structured or proactive managers—but there was no top-down framework to align priorities or measure impact. Most notably, OKRs were absent, leaving no shared language for progress, no system for prioritization, and no way to connect day-to-day work to long-term business outcomes.
Teams were left to self-direct—often focusing on low-hanging fruit or local optimizations rather than what mattered most. Engineering wasn’t underperforming—they were delivering into a vacuum. Without strategic direction, their success couldn’t be meaningfully assessed, which only reinforced leadership’s perception that they weren’t adding value.
Lack of Business Strategy
This wasn’t just a goal-setting problem—it was a strategy problem.
There was no unified go-to-market strategy, no articulated product vision beyond incremental improvements, and no coordinated plan for growth. The company had a solid product and clear value proposition—but no plan to scale it. Teams operated with the best intentions, but in isolation. Without a north star, even strong ideas failed to gain traction.
This misalignment showed up everywhere. Product decisions lacked market data and persona research. Growth efforts were reactive, not deliberate. Engineering built features without confidence those features would drive the right outcomes.
Lack of Market Awareness
The product was working—really well—for customers who knew it existed. But that was the problem: very few did.
Retention was strong, but new customer acquisition was weak. Brand recognition was low. When we evaluated SEO, the marketing funnel, and web presence, it was clear: search visibility was poor, and messaging didn’t differentiate the company from competitors. The product wasn’t showing up where buyers were looking—and when it did, the message didn’t resonate.
This is common. Great products often remain invisible without strategic marketing, clear positioning, and consistent visibility.
What This Teaches Us
This engagement reinforced a lesson we’ve seen repeatedly: even high-performing teams struggle without strategic direction.
When engineering is delivering but the business isn’t growing, the instinct is often to assume the output isn’t good enough or fast enough. But more often, it’s not a delivery problem—it’s a direction problem.
In this case, engineering was performing. They were collaborating across functions, supporting a stable customer base, and delivering valuable work. But without clear goals, a cohesive strategy, or a shared definition of success, their contributions weren’t translating into business progress. Not due to poor execution—but due to a lack of strategic context.
This is a critical blind spot for many organizations.
Strategy must be defined, communicated, and reinforced through actionable goals that cascade into every team. That means aligning strategy, goals, product direction, and marketing—so everyone, from engineering to sales, understands not just what they’re doing, but why it matters.
Without that alignment:
- Product decisions become reactive.
- Engineering ships features that don’t move the business.
- Marketing struggles to tell a compelling story.
- Leadership loses visibility into how execution maps to strategy.
But when alignment exists, execution accelerates, focus sharpens, and growth becomes intentional.
Recommendations and Takeaways
Solving the wrong problem wastes time, talent, and trust. Engineering wasn’t the issue—but without a clear strategy and aligned goals, the deeper problem was misdiagnosed.
To avoid similar pitfalls, here are four critical takeaways:
1. Start with a Clear Strategy
Before analyzing performance metrics, define what success looks like:
- Who are we?
- Who are we serving now—and who do we want to serve?
- What problems are we solving, and how do we win?
Your strategy should be the compass that guides decisions across product, engineering, and marketing.
2. Cascade Goals with OKRs
Once strategy is set, translate it into measurable objectives. OKRs connect company-level ambitions to team-level execution. They promote alignment and accountability and help everyone see how their work contributes to the bigger picture.
But OKRs only work if they’re driven from the top and consistently applied.
3. Don’t Neglect Your Go-To-Market Strategy
You can have a great product—but if no one knows it exists, growth will stall. Product-market fit doesn’t guarantee traction.
Invest in brand visibility, SEO, messaging, and marketing execution. Know your buyers. Meet them where they are. A great product in a quiet room is a missed opportunity.
4. Evaluate Performance in Context
When things aren’t working, don’t default to blaming delivery. Ask deeper questions:
- Are teams working hard but without clear priorities?
- Is the product strong but misaligned with goals?
- Are customers happy but growth stagnant?
Performance should be measured by how well execution maps to strategic outcomes.
Conclusion: Blame Isn’t a Strategy
In the absence of results, assumptions abound. The most common? If things aren’t moving fast enough, delivery must be the issue.
But as we saw here, those assumptions can be wrong—and costly.
The engineering team wasn’t broken. They were building, collaborating, and delivering. The real issue was above them: unclear strategy, missing goals, and a go-to-market effort that didn’t match the product’s strength.
This isn’t rare. It’s a pattern—where leadership overlooks its own role in shaping direction, setting priorities, and driving alignment.
High-performing teams can’t compensate for a lack of clarity.
So here’s the call to action:
If your teams are strong but progress is stalling, look in the mirror before pointing fingers. Ask yourself:
- Have we defined and communicated a clear strategy?
- Have we set measurable goals tied to outcomes?
- Have we invested in visibility and positioning?
Because teams do their best work when given purpose, priorities, and a path forward. Without that, even the most capable will seem misaligned.
Blame might buy time. Strategy drives results.
If you’re facing similar challenges—or simply want an outside perspective to evaluate your teams, define strategy, or implement OKRs—AKF Partners is here to help. Contact us today to turn alignment into acceleration.