Built to last: Why every great software project starts with the right vision

/Built to last: Why every great software project starts with the right vision

There’s a quiet truth in software that most people only realize after their first failed build: The code doesn’t break the project, the lack of vision does.

Teams often rush into development because momentum feels good. An idea appears clear. The pressure to “launch something” grows. Investors or internal teams want updates. So, everyone jumps straight into development. But what happens next is common enough to be predictable: the product ships, users react differently than expected, and the team ends up rebuilding entire sections of the system. As software researcher Barry Boehm mentioned in his book back in 1981 “Fixing an error after development is often 100 times more expensive than addressing it during planning.” That was over four decades ago, and somehow the lesson is still being relearned every year. This is where the real story begins. Not in code, but in clarity.

Why planning and discovery matter more than people think

Planning and discovery often sound like stalling steps, but they’re actually the most important activities in a software project. They force everyone to stop assuming and start understanding. Studies on project failures repeatedly show the same pattern: unclear requirements, too many assumptions about users, and overlooked technical constraints cause the majority of reworks. As a 2017 report on project overruns by Oxford University’s Bent Flyvbjerg points out, “projects fail not because of complexity, but because of overconfidence and rushed decisions.” Discovery counters that as it gives you a clearer picture of your users, a realistic list of features, an understanding of technical requirements and early warnings about scalability challenges.

Why planning and discovery matter more than people think

Choosing the right tech stack, on purpose

Picking a tech stack is like choosing the foundation of a building. You won’t see it every day, but the entire structure depends on it. Yet many teams choose based on the developer’s personal preference, something trendy, or whatever was used on their last project. In his well-cited 2017 paper on scalable systems design, T. Alshaye wrote that “early architectural decisions define the economic feasibility of long-term software evolution.” In other words: while building a product, your early choices determine whether you can evolve smoothly or whether a future rebuild becomes unavoidable. A good tech stack balances performance, developer availability, security needs, future integrations and long-term maintainability A bad stack looks fine at launch, then slowly becomes a bottleneck until teams eventually need to scrap and rewrite the system.

What happens when you rush development

Rushing feels efficient until it doesn’t. Here’s a scenario many founders quietly relate to: A local logistics startup needed a driver assignment system. The founders were in a “we need this next month” mindset, so they skipped user research and built an admin dashboard based on assumptions. Drivers ended up using it differently, managers requested features that weren’t planned, and the database structure didn’t support real-time updates. By month four, they were rewriting major parts of the system. This isn’t rare. A study by McKinsey in 2020 found that over 70 percent of digital projects exceed their budgets because early design and architecture decisions were rushed. Rushed decisions result in multiple rewrites, technical debt, poor user adoption, integration issues and escalating maintenance costs. Speed feels productive but going fast early often means going backwards later.

Why UX + strong consulting are non-negotiable

Good UX is never a “nice to have” just like how great consulting is not optional because, together, they form the compass of the entire project. UX isn’t about making a screen pretty. It’s about making systems usable. When users don’t understand a flow, or when processes don’t match real-world behavior, development becomes a patchwork of fixes. Likewise, strong consulting challenges founders’ assumptions and translates business goals into technical reality. And, that shift of understanding reality is what saves most projects.