Tech Industry Experts Share How To Boost Engineering Team Speed

Forbes - Mar 20th, 2025

In the fast-paced world of technology, engineering teams often face challenges such as heavy workloads, technical debt, and constant context switching, which can slow down productivity. To address these issues, engineering leads are adopting a variety of strategies aimed at boosting team velocity without compromising quality and safety. Members of the Forbes Technology Council suggest practical methods like implementing 'no-meeting mornings,' fostering continuous knowledge-sharing, and leveraging AI for backlog prioritization and Agile workflow automation. These approaches help reduce context-switching, optimize task sequencing, and enhance collaboration, ultimately leading to more efficient code delivery and improved team performance.

The significance of these strategies lies in their potential to transform how engineering teams operate. By promoting a culture of extreme ownership, transparency, and continuous learning, engineering leads can ensure their teams are aligned with customer needs and project goals. The use of asynchronous communication, pair programming, and technical debt sprints further streamlines processes, enabling quicker problem-solving and better resource allocation. As technology evolves, these strategies highlight the importance of adaptability and innovation in maintaining high productivity levels in engineering teams, ensuring they remain competitive and responsive to the ever-changing demands of the tech industry.

Forbes Technology Council Transparency Engineering Team Velocity Ai And Automation Agile Methodologies Technical Debt Pair Programming Extreme Ownership

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a collection of strategies from industry experts aimed at improving engineering team velocity. It scores well in terms of source quality, as it draws on the insights of members of the Forbes Technology Council. However, the article lacks comprehensive evidence or data to support the effectiveness of the proposed strategies, which impacts its accuracy and potential impact. The focus is primarily on high-level industry perspectives, which may lead to an imbalance in viewpoint representation. While the article is timely and relevant to current industry trends, its appeal to the general public is limited. Overall, the article offers valuable insights for technology executives but could benefit from more diverse perspectives and empirical evidence to enhance its credibility and impact.

Accuracy

The story presents a variety of strategies aimed at improving engineering team velocity, each attributed to specific experts. The claims made are generally plausible and align with common practices in the tech industry, such as reducing context switching and fostering continuous improvement. However, the effectiveness of these strategies can vary based on team dynamics and project specifics. Verification through empirical data or case studies would strengthen the claims. The article does not provide detailed evidence or data to support the effectiveness of the proposed strategies, which limits the precision of the claims.

Balance

The article predominantly presents strategies from members of the Forbes Technology Council, which could introduce a bias towards viewpoints from high-level executives and industry leaders. There is a lack of perspectives from other stakeholders, such as developers who implement these strategies or researchers who study their effects. This creates an imbalance, as the article may not fully represent the challenges and considerations faced by all members of engineering teams.

Clarity

The language used in the article is clear and accessible, with each expert's recommendation presented in a straightforward manner. However, the structure could be improved by grouping similar strategies together or providing a summary of the main points. The article maintains a neutral tone, but the rapid succession of expert opinions without deeper exploration or context can make it difficult for readers to fully grasp the nuances of each strategy.

Source quality

The sources cited in the article are members of the Forbes Technology Council, an invitation-only community of technology executives, which lends credibility to their insights. These individuals are likely to have substantial experience and authority in their fields. However, the article does not provide information on potential conflicts of interest or biases these experts might have, which could affect the impartiality of their recommendations.

Transparency

The article provides the names and affiliations of the experts sharing their strategies, which adds a level of transparency. However, it lacks detailed explanations of how these strategies were developed or tested. There is no discussion of potential limitations or challenges associated with implementing these strategies, nor is there any disclosure of conflicts of interest that might impact the impartiality of the advice given.