Shifting Engineering Delivery from Features to Value
- Chris Burgess
- Jan 15
- 5 min read
How to change how engineering thinks about what it is building
By Chris Burgess.
When I started working with the company, nothing was broken.
This was a full-stack hardware and software system, and the technology worked. A camera was pushing live video in conditions where most systems would fail. Configuration tooling made it possible to tune performance quickly. From an engineering perspective, progress was clear.
The problem was not whether the system worked. It was whether anyone could explain why it mattered beyond the specific use case it had originally been built to solve.
That gap between capability and meaning is where teams get stuck talking about features instead of value.
And it is where the real work of shifting from features to value begins.
The camera was always the most differentiated part of the system; the challenge was understanding which architectural decisions mattered, and why, beyond making the system work.
Lesson 1: Working systems are not the same as a product
This was a company with deep engineering strength and a revenue model rooted in services. Projects were delivered, but success was defined by whether a particular customer’s use case had been solved. That mindset had served the business well, but it needed to change if the company wanted to start selling products.
What existed were prototypes shaped by delivery, designed to solve the problem of a single customer with a specific use case. Each component made sense on its own, but the potential of the wider toolkit was unclear. The opportunity felt much larger than the story we could currently tell about it.
The ambition was to unlock something bigger. To take what had been built for one customer and understand whether it could matter to many.
I was brought in as a fractional product leader not to invent new technology, but to help the team make sense of what already existed and decide what it could become. What I could not see was a shared answer to a simpler question.
Why might any of this matter to someone outside the building?
Lesson 2: Make value visible before deciding what to build next
Any product led company knows the importance of speaking with target customers to validate their needs, ideally before anything is built. In reality, that is rarely how things unfold. This situation was no different.
The technology already existed. Validation was still critical, but before I could have meaningful conversations outside the company, I needed to understand what we had and why the team believed it mattered.
I was not the expert. They were. My role was to create a way for them to teach me what they had built, using a structure I could understand, challenge, and reflect back.
So the first thing I did was slow everything down. Not to delay progress, but to surface where value actually lived before deciding what to build next.
I started by listing the specifications I was aware of, across both hardware and software. This gave us a concrete place to begin. Everyone recognised the language, which made it easier to engage. It also created a foundation we could later draw on for product marketing.
But the real value came from what we did next.
Once the specifications were visible, the goal changed. This was not about rewriting the roadmap. It was about making today’s work legible enough to validate tomorrow’s decisions.
I stopped asking “what are we building?” and started asking a different question.
Why is this important?
For the team, this was unfamiliar territory. Engineers are used to defending feasibility. This work forced us to confront uncertainty instead, and to make it visible rather than something to work around.
Most importantly, it created clarity. Decisions got easier. Trade offs became discussable. Engineers understood why certain things mattered beyond pure function.
Lesson 3: Define success as clarity, not progress
Success for me was deliberately modest.
This work took place in the second week of a fractional engagement, working two days a week. I was not there to declare a product, validate a market, or drive a roadmap. I needed to be informed enough to have credible, in depth conversations with potential partners in the weeks that followed.
Not sales conversations, but real discussions about value, constraints, and where this system might genuinely fit.
Just as importantly, I was thinking about what success needed to look like for the team at this stage.
The goal was to create a single source of truth that allowed the company to pause, reflect, and align between working sessions. The two day cadence mattered because it created space for thinking, not just reacting.
Specifically, success meant enabling the company to operate with more clarity through:
A shared narrative about what the product is and is not
Clear guardrails for what we would build and what we would not
Explicit assumptions that could be tested deliberately rather than accidentally
In practice, the impact was immediate.
The conversation changed. The company moved from delivering impressive projects to thinking like a product organisation. Decisions became easier. Trade offs became discussable. Engineering excellence remained intact, but it was now anchored to purpose rather than possibility.
Nothing fundamental changed about how the team built its solutions; what changed was how they thought about what they were building.
Shifting from Features to Value: The Underlying Principle
When validation from outside the building does not happen first, everything that follows becomes harder. That does not mean the time or money invested was wasted. It means the value now needs to be surfaced and explained.
In deep tech, the biggest risk is rarely that you cannot build the thing. More often, it is failing to realise the value in what has already been built.
Value does not surface on its own. To realise it, you have to explain the why. That is the mindset shift required.
Engineering teams do not want to be told that their work was wasted. Founders do not want to believe that time, budget, and focus have been spent in the wrong place.
Product leadership, especially in deep tech, is about deciding how to take a product to market. That starts by making existing work visible, discussable, and testable beyond pure feasibility.
Shifting an engineering-led team to being product-led starts with a change in mindset.
In my role, I am not there to add features or force a roadmap. I remove ambiguity, make uncertainty visible, and help teams learn faster together.
If you are leading a startup or scaling a product team and want to reduce ambiguity, align around real value, and turn technical excellence into product clarity, let’s talk. I help founders and product leaders build focus without losing momentum. Reach out at info@crwburgess.com.
Comments