The Great Resignation and the future of corporate cultures: Rebuilding a better software industry for all

The Great Resignation and the future of corporate cultures: Rebuilding a better software industry for all

Outsourced Engineering Team, Product Development, Project Management

Written by: Curated by: Sergio A. Martínez

A Turning Point for the Software Industry

When the Great Resignation ignited in early 2021, the software industry faced more than a wave of resignations. It confronted a reckoning. Engineers walked away from long-standing roles, critical projects, and entrenched cultures that once seemed immovable. What followed was not merely an employment shift but a deep cultural reset that forced companies to question their internal structures, decision-making norms, and the human experience behind their engineering output.
This period reshaped expectations on both sides. Developers gained clarity on what they want from their careers—autonomy, respect, meaningful work, and environments where communication is reliable and leadership is accountable. Companies, in turn, realized the cost of ignoring signals that had been building long before 2021: burnout, opaque communication, inflexible policies, lack of psychological safety, and cultural disconnect.
For CTOs and engineering leaders, the Great Resignation is no longer a historical event. It’s a defining moment that continues to influence hiring, retention, project execution, and the long-term viability of software teams. To build a healthier, more resilient industry, leaders must understand what truly changed, why it matters, and what comes next.

A New Perspective on Work: The Cultural Reset

The early 2020s will be remembered as a cultural turning point for software engineering. At the height of the Great Resignation, high-performing developers left companies with little warning, sometimes exiting in the middle of mission-critical initiatives. The shift exposed a mix of organizational issues that had been tolerated for too long: technical debt buried under constant pressure to deliver, leaders who confused long hours with commitment, and communication models built on top-down directives instead of genuine alignment.
The departures were not just a response to burnout. They were a reaction to a collective realization that quality of life could not be an afterthought. Remote work proved that productivity doesn’t rely on presenteeism. Engineers learned that they could choose roles where their contributions mattered without sacrificing autonomy or personal well-being. The power dynamic subtly moved toward talent.
Organizations that struggled with this shift often faced deeper systemic challenges. The inability to adapt to remote collaboration, outdated management practices, slow decision cycles, and a lack of psychological safety created environments where disengagement grew quietly until it became impossible to ignore.
Yet, in the long term, this disruption opened the door to healthier engineering cultures. Companies were forced to rethink how they define work, collaboration, and leadership. Instead of equating success with constant urgency, forward-thinking teams began focusing on clarity, expectation-setting, humane workloads, and giving engineers the space to do deep, meaningful work.
The reset also accelerated conversations about inclusion, diversity of thought, and creating workplaces where individuals feel safe raising concerns or proposing ideas. And for distributed teams across time zones, including nearshore and hybrid models, this cultural evolution became a strategic necessity. Alignment wasn’t optional anymore—it became the backbone of operational health.
In this context, the Great Resignation didn’t damage the industry. It exposed the cracks and gave leaders the opportunity to rebuild on stronger foundations.

Rebuilding Culture After Disruption: What Leaders Must Address

Rebuilding an engineering culture after a large-scale talent departure requires more than replacing team members. It demands rebuilding trust, strengthening communication, and reassessing the relationship between leadership and the workforce. For many companies, the Great Resignation highlighted how fragile culture can become when left unexamined.
The first step is acknowledging the root causes. Developers rarely leave solely for compensation. They leave because of unresolved friction: poorly defined roles, inconsistent expectations, leadership inconsistency, limited growth opportunities, or environments where concerns are minimized instead of addressed. A resilient engineering culture begins with honest introspection across all levels.
Rebuilding trust requires transparency. Regular communication—delivered consistently, not only during crises—helps re-establish stability. Leaders who communicate openly about decisions, priorities, roadmaps, and challenges set a tone of shared accountability. This is especially important for hybrid or distributed software teams, where misalignment can expand quickly.
The next layer is redefining collaboration models. Flexible schedules, distributed work, asynchronous communication, and shared ownership are no longer perks; they are standard expectations for engineering teams. Companies that cling to rigid or outdated structures risk losing a new generation of technical talent who values autonomy and clarity.
Human Capital leaders, including those shaping culture at Scio, emphasize the importance of fostering psychological safety and building a culture where contribution is valued and voices are heard. “A sense of trust needs to be established by keeping everyone informed,” notes Helena Matamoros of Scio. “Clear communication, respectful interactions, and a welcoming environment help teams stay aligned and motivated.”
Reconstruction also requires rebalancing incentives. Team-based recognition, career development pathways, and mentorship programs give developers a sense of progress and purpose. Balanced workloads, realistic sprint commitments, and space for learning help teams avoid falling back into patterns that contributed to burnout in the first place.
Companies that invest intentionally in their culture—defining what “healthy” looks like and reinforcing it through systems and habits—set themselves up for long-term stability. Distributed teams, including nearshore partners, thrive in environments where expectations are clear and collaboration is built on mutual respect.

What Comes Next: Building the Software Industry of the Future

As the dust settles years after the Great Resignation, its long-term influence is clear: engineering cultures must continue evolving. The next phase is not merely about retaining talent; it’s about building organizations that engineers want to stay in.
The future of the industry depends on three interconnected priorities: communication, respect for individual strengths, and diversity—both demographic and cognitive. Companies that integrate these principles will be better equipped to handle complexity, scale, and rapid change.
One area where this is especially critical is team structure. Modern engineering teams are no longer local by default. Hybrid and distributed setups, with nearshore pods or remote developers collaborating across time zones, require thoughtful coordination. Communication must be intentional. Clarity must be embedded. Teams must understand how their work fits into the larger product vision.
Technical excellence also depends on cultural alignment. Innovation thrives in environments where engineers can think freely, challenge assumptions, and propose alternatives without fear of reprisal. When employees feel valued—not just as resources but as contributors with insight—their work improves and retention increases.
The industry is also seeing a shift toward skills-based hiring rather than pedigree-based hiring. After the Great Resignation, companies realized they could find exceptional developers outside traditional pipelines. This expanded global talent approach encourages stronger, more diverse engineering teams capable of solving complex problems with fresh perspectives.
Workplaces that embrace this flexibility will lead the next decade of software development. Those that revert to rigid structures or outdated management practices risk repeating the mistakes that triggered the Great Resignation in the first place.
Ultimately, the software industry’s path forward depends on creating cultures where engineers can grow, feel engaged, and contribute at a high level without sacrificing their well-being. If companies can commit to this, the next era of technology will be more stable, more innovative, and far more human.

Comparative Table: Traditional vs. Modern Engineering Culture

Aspect
Traditional Engineering Culture
Modern Engineering Culture
Leadership Style Top-down decisions Collaborative, transparent decision-making
Work Model Office-centric, synchronous Hybrid, distributed, async-friendly
Expectations Long hours, urgency as norm Sustainable workload, clarity, humane pace
Career Path Static roles, limited visibility Skills development, mentorship, flexible growth
Communication Need-to-know, occasional Frequent, consistent, open
Feedback Culture Reactive Continuous, constructive
Talent Sources Local hiring only Global and nearshore talent integration

Key Takeaways

Building a people-first engineering culture leads to better outcomes, better collaboration, and better long-term performance.

Rebuilding culture after a disruption like the Great Resignation requires trust, transparency, and reevaluating the systems that allowed issues to persist.

Involving employees at every level promotes alignment and gives teams a sense of ownership and clarity.

A healthy, people-centric culture becomes a foundation for innovation, retention, and a stronger software industry overall.

FAQ

Engineering Culture & The Great Resignation – FAQs

Why culture, clarity, and trust became decisive factors for engineering leaders.

Engineering roles often combine high pressure, ambiguous expectations, and sustained burnout. When remote work expanded global options, many developers chose environments that respected their well-being, autonomy, and long-term contribution.

Maintaining alignment and clarity across distributed or hybrid teams, while ensuring communication stays frequent, consistent, and transparent as organizations scale.

By communicating openly, resetting realistic expectations, investing in career development, and creating safe channels where engineers can raise concerns without fear of reprisal.

Because even strong architectures fail when teams are misaligned, disengaged, or burned out. Healthy culture reinforces delivery, resilience, and long-term organizational stability.

The importance of balance, leadership, and communication in QA: A chat with Team Lead Ángeles Banda.

The importance of balance, leadership, and communication in QA: A chat with Team Lead Ángeles Banda.

Project Management, Scio, Software Development

Curated by: Sergio A. Martínez

The software industry has never been the same since the advent of remote work. Before this, it was expected to be present in an office full of computers and development materials to get projects done, which meant that, for most teams, productivity and collaboration were limited by how far members could physically travel or commute. But at the outbreak of the COVID pandemic, the software industry had to adapt quickly to push work and collaboration online to keep business running beyond physical walls. And most developers had to learn new ways to stay productive from home – many being able to access their work applications remotely for the first time.

The-importance-of-balance-icono

Of course, remote work was something that had already existed prior to the pandemic, but this crisis pushed a lot of Tech companies into developing innovative digital solutions almost overnight, bringing unprecedented dynamism to the software industry. Now, it’s normal for many software professionals to access their work from any corner of the world, and companies benefit from this by being able to look outside their neighborhood to find top talent, instead of confining themselves to a local workforce that is more sought after each passing day. 

However, this has not been an easy change. Working from home as a software developer can present unique challenges when it comes to maintaining a balance, which often means finding creative ways to integrate personal time into an already busy work schedule. Being able to work remotely, of course, gives plenty of flexibility when it comes to managing the daily tasks at hand, and stuff that used to require commuting or travel can easily be completed online, but this has created the side-effect of blurring the lines between work and personal life in a way that many people hadn’t experienced before. When work is at home, separation is difficult to preserve. 

So yeah, managing a healthy work-life balance as a software developer working from home can be tricky. The key is to figure out ways to use this flexibility in your favor, by making sure that you plan and allocate enough time for each activity throughout the day – be it coding, hanging out with family, having meals together, or taking some time out for yourself. For this reason, we had a chat with Ángeles Banda, QA Analyst and Team Lead at Scio, whose experience balancing work, leadership, and family life can shed a light on the challenges of remote work and software development in the remote age.

A sudden change

Nearshore development runs on culture: Ensuring collaboration is at the heart of every project.

For a parent trying to work from home, the challenge of software development on top of childcare can seem daunting. Working on complex developmental projects requires laser focus, whereas being available for kids calls for complete attention and availability too, which can be hard to find all in the same day, never mind during a complicated situation like a pandemic going on. How to achieve that?

“The pandemic was a big game-changer in my life, not only because I started to work remotely back then, but because my child was born in 2020, barely a month before the lockdowns began. I was still on maternity leave when world came down that we would not be back to the office for a while”, says Ángeles about those days. “And that was good at first because all daycares had to close down, so I got the chance to be with my child during those first few months, but then I had to think of a way to take care of him while I worked. His dad is also on the same schedule, so it was a tricky thing to balance, and we had to figure it out as we went.”

Of course, Ángeles wasn’t alone in that. According to a study by Rutgers University, “prior to the pandemic, the percent of men who provided at least five daily hours of active childcare was 15%, but increased to 29% during the pandemic. For women, this percentage was 23% prior to the pandemic and increased to 37% during the pandemic”, meaning that it had to be a meaningful change in how work and personal time dynamics had to be managed to keep productivity during the early stages of the pandemic and onward. And this often requires some creative thinking.

“What I tried to do was change my schedule and work hours to suit what I was doing at home. For example, I worked from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, but I had to start earlier, at 7:00 am or so, when my child was asleep, so I could get some work done by the time he was awake”, continues Ángeles. “My husband and I also had to balance and schedule any call or meeting we needed to have carefully, trying to always have one of us free in case the baby needed something. It’s interesting to note how deeply your priorities change in this situation, so striking the correct balance was essential.”

Leading from afar

Furthermore, remote teams come with their own unique set of challenges when it comes to keeping productivity, and the key to successful collaboration is strong leadership that understands how to direct team members, assign tasks, and manage expectations. Good leaders find ways to keep the team engaged even though they can’t be physically present in the same location, encouraging constant communication to ensure everyone stays focused on deadlines and deliverables. With clear direction and regular updates, remote teams can accomplish great feats of software development, but achieving that requires a kind of skill that gets tested during a lockdown.

“This process had kind of a steep learning curve because, while I was trying to adapt my work at home with being a new mom, an opportunity for growth came along almost at the same time”, tells Ángeles. “I began as a Team Lead at the time, so trying to balance all of these new responsibilities was stressful, but it also comes down to the kind of team you have. I always try to keep things a little more personal, trying to know my teammates as people, which gives you certain flexibility to work more comfortably. Still, there were moments when communication didn’t work perfectly, so I had to iron out any bump in the team dynamics. I always try to solve these issues internally, talking directly to people and trying to keep our goals clear, and as time went on, we settle on something we all feel satisfied with.”

Remote teams that need to collaborate and lead from afar often have a more difficult time juggling expectations. So, to ensure successful projects, effective virtual leadership should focus on cultivating relationships as well as fostering an open communication platform between team members, which is what Ángeles learned to do. Leaders should strive to lay out clear goals, create consistent check-ins, maintain morale with recognition of individual team performance when needed, and openly invite both questions and feedback so everyone is on the same page. That way, developing a strong relationship among all members of the team can greatly increase the chances for success and make sure the development process remains efficient without compromising quality. When managed well, remote teams in software development can become a stabilizing force even during times of uncertainty. 

Assuring quality at every step

The evolution of the employee

With that in mind, we don’t need to explain how software development is tricky enough as it is. But throw in remote QA and you have a whole additional challenge. Quality assurance is an indispensable part of ensuring the final product meets the predetermined standards, but doing this remotely presents its own unique set of hurdles, like the difficulty of gauging the effectiveness and accuracy of a test while also adhering to time constraints and deadlines. Fortunately, there are ways to make these remote QA scenarios run more smoothly such as adopting automated testing strategies, employing communication tools that bridge gaps between team members, and staying organized even when managing a widely dispersed team. With careful planning and the necessary support, software development teams can navigate through the challenge of doing distributed QA with efficiency.

“I think the biggest help for the QA team was the openness of Scio to let us have all the equipment and everything we needed at home”, explains Ángeles. “It’s not like we could request absolutely anything we wanted, of course, but things like this iPhone or this Mac I have right here with me, even if I only use them to test applications and programs, made a big difference. I think it would have been easy to make us go to the office if we needed to make tests with these machines, but Scio made the effort of bringing all these resources to our home, which helped a lot.”  

However, beyond physical resources, QA isn’t something one person can do alone – it takes a village. From the Project Manager organizing everything to the developers creating solutions, software quality assurance involves so many different roles and responsibilities that without each one playing their part, success isn’t possible. This means that team members need to be creative while introducing new working processes and tools to adequately make sure that their end product meets customer satisfaction levels, yields high-quality results, and prevents any major surprises or hiccups along the way. To achieve this, Team Leaders need to keep close to this whole process, be it in person or far away, with continuous communication at the heart of it. As Ángeles explains:

“With the majority of physical interactions conducted virtually, QA teams need to be creative while introducing new working processes and tools to adequately make sure that their end product meets customer satisfaction levels. Intuitive visual feedback programs, clear-cut standards, and reliable bug-tracking methods must now be considered in addition to manual testing when it comes to developing quality software. It’s certainly not an easy feat, but overcoming this challenge will lead to better products and improved user experiences, nonetheless.”

Final words

The modern workforce is constantly evolving, and for businesses to remain competitive, they must remain ahead of the curve. Software companies like Scio that offer flexibility are doing just that – providing employees with increased job satisfaction and giving them the freedom to shape their own schedules. After all, flexibility is the cornerstone of a software developer’s well-being. Offering a predictable schedule and the freedom to work remotely empowers developers to manage their physical and mental energy more effectively by setting clear boundaries between home, work, and downtime. 

Additionally, shifts in working hours can provide an advantageous opportunity for developers to take preventive care of themselves while also enabling more collaboration when tackling complex tasks. As the case of Ángeles shows, flexible schedules supply both software developers and project teams with the ability to shift an environment focused on speed and execution into one that emphasizes thoughtful problem-solving. At its core, this kind of culture allows software developers to maintain a healthy focus on the task at hand while addressing their personal needs, which will always guarantee a positive outcome when it comes to software development.

The Key Takeaways

  • Although remote work was a game-changer in the software industry, keeping a balance between work and personal life is still a challenge.
  • At the onset of the pandemic, adjusting to these changes was difficult, and required support and skill from an organization to do it successfully.
  • The key is having a culture of growth and flexibility that offers access to the correct resources, and building teams with communication and collaboration at the heart of their dynamics.

Scio is an established Nearshore software development company based in Mexico that specializes in providing high-quality, cost-effective technologies for pioneering tech companies. We have been building and mentoring teams of engineers since 2003 and our experience gives us access not only to the knowledge but also the expertise needed when tackling any project. Get started today by contacting us about your project needs – We have teams available to help you achieve your business goals. Get in contact today!

Productivity Ratio: Understanding the “invisible work” of software development

Productivity Ratio: Understanding the “invisible work” of software development

Project Management, Software Development

Curated by: Sergio A. Martínez

We know that software development is not all just coding. As with any big project, there are plenty of tasks that must be fulfilled to create an effective end product, such as stakeholder supervision, decision-making, problem-solving, communication, and time management. Which is why it is  essential to have a clear understanding of the business goals of the software being developed, while also analyzing and interpreting the user requirements that must be worked into the development phase.

When-Excel-is-not-enough-icono

That’s part of the reason why productivity in this context is a tricky thing to track. Sure, you can see how long it takes to reach the end goal and measure it against timelines and expectations, but that doesn’t take into account all the nuances of software creation, as well as the challenges of debugging, refactoring, tweaking, editing and other tedious but crucial elements of every successful project. And this is further complicated by progress not always being linear — as soon as you start working on a project, it’s almost certain things will follow their own kaleidoscope-like paths that don’t always make sense from the outside. 

With all that, it might seem that tracking productivity is like nailing jelly to a wall: not an easy task by any stretch of the imagination, and sadly without a one-size-fits-all solution. Doing the required following isn’t impossible, though, but it requires finesse and forethought to obtain meaningful results. It also requires being aware of the “invisible work” going into the development of an application, and it requires having a complete understanding of how that many pieces fit together. Unfortunately, for some teams, ignoring the tediousness of tracking productivity can be seen as more desirable than going through the hassle. However, with the correct approach, any team can achieve such a goal.

Getting ratio’d

Productivity Ratio

Working with other professionals like designers, business analysts, or testers, is part of every software development project, so good collaboration skills are necessary to reach any goal. Furthermore, making sure that the tools you are using are appropriate for the task ahead can have a dramatic impact on how successful the project would turn out to be in the long run. All these requirements mean that a positive outcome demands a spectrum of skills, which makes the whole process more challenging, and not all of them are obvious at a first glance. In the words of this Crossing the Equator article:

“This invisible work increases the communications gap between the hidden, almost abstract world of coding on the one side and that of marketers, purchasers, and investors on the other. It’s a gap that can cause frustration and misunderstanding and can lead to employee turnover and a slowdown of business growth. It is usually the responsibility of engineering leaders to close this gap.”

In other words, measuring «invisible work» can be difficult due to the complexity of any project. While time and effort can obviously be used to gauge progress, many intangible elements must be factored into the equation, but it’s hard to quantify the value of research, problem-solving strategies, code refactoring, and investigating emerging technologies that all help to improve software quality. In addition, developers must often adjust their efforts on the fly if stakeholders change their expectations or new information comes in. As a result, measuring invisible work requires an experienced team who understands what needs to be tracked and how to factor it into the overall process. And one of the more interesting approaches to this comes from a very simple formula: productivity ratios.

Productivity ratios in software development are the gauge by which you measure whether or not a process is successful, indicating the amount of work completed versus the amount of time and effort expended. In other words, it looks at how much time and resources have been invested in a project, such as coding and bug fixes, against the end result. The productivity ratio, consequently, it’s an important metric for gauging how effective a development team is at producing quality work. And understanding how to calculate it can be an invaluable tool for ensuring a project’s success. The formula to do so can be expressed as the following:

productivity ratio

The tricky part, however, is how to define what the input and the output mean in the context of development. The most common approach is looking at the basic resources that go into the project (work hours, number of developers, cost per hour, among others), against a specified result, like development milestones reached, user stories, pull requests, and many others, with the general idea that something is being produced continuously. 

The result of the equation is then compared to a baseline (industry standards, or past development story, for example) to obtain an estimate of the total productivity of a given team. But how does this tie back to the invisible work involved in software development? Coming back to the Crossing the Equator article:

“It’s a human-focused thing. It also applies to collaboration, knowledge sharing, and team-building activities. Successful organizations build products that customers love, which can only happen when the right people are involved and treated correctly. Teams cannot afford to hire people who merely hit the keyboard to write code without any profound understanding of or connection to the end user. Understanding the business means understanding its processes and goals and ensuring full team alignment.”

A different way to look at development

Productivity Ratio

In short, without a holistic view of development, a productivity ratio cannot work as is because a lot of the effort is not directly apparent in the final product (like planning, writing documentation, ensuring clear communication between stakeholders, managers, and developers, implementing and maintaining the adequate tools, observing security, refactoring the code, etc.), but it’s required to guarantee the timely delivery of a product, its quality, and the overall success of it. 

After all, putting all the focus on coding is not enough and in fact can lead to disaster if other aspects of the project such as design, testing, debugging, and the actual use case are not taken into consideration. Without properly assessing these elements a lot of issues can arise while rolling out the software to customers resulting in wasted effort and resources. That last part is key: developers should take an all-encompassing approach by focusing on the final users as the overall destination of the whole process, and what they are getting from the whole ordeal is, perhaps, the most important point of all. Consequently, an effective productivity ratio should be defined less in terms of input/output, and more like:

productivity work

The core of this approach is to stop seeing the development process as an isolated black box where effort goes in and results come out, and instead get into a mindset of the “total work” output by a team against what the client and final user will be receiving. This should not just be an abstract idea but rather a value that’s central to all efforts during production, helping align everyone with a clear goal. Additionally, when strong ties exist between a software development team and its users, trust is established allowing for up-front feedback before any changes or upgrades would be made, all but ensuring that technical implementations fit with user expectations. Bottom line – all software development projects should prioritize the user experience, helping teams align their efforts from day one. Making sure everyone understands and is deeply invested in this user focus allows for more meaningful and consistent collaborations internally, bridging the gap between the visible and invisible work. Ensuring there is a clear baseline for the productivity ratio, will end up manifesting into an ideal, successful product that satisfies users completely.

The Key Takeaways

  • Productivity is always an important concern for any software development project because it can give a clear picture of the effort and resources put into development.
  • One of the biggest challenges of tracking productivity is the “invisible work” involved in creating a successful application, which is never obvious in the final product.
  • A successful approach might be the “productivity ratio” that measures the input against the output of any project, but it needs to be used carefully to consider invisible work.
  • To that end, keeping the focus on the final product that the user will be receiving can give a better idea of the productivity of a team, comparing the ratio of effort put in versus what the user will be getting.

Scio is an established Nearshore software development company based in Mexico that specializes in providing high-quality, cost-effective technologies for pioneering tech companies. We have been building and mentoring teams of engineers since 2003 and our experience gives us access not only to the knowledge but also the expertise needed when tackling any project. Get started today by contacting us about your project needs – We have teams available to help you achieve your business goals. Get in contact today!

Normalization of Deviance: What to do when human nature collides with procedures in the workplace.

Normalization of Deviance: What to do when human nature collides with procedures in the workplace.

Product Development, Project Management, Software Development

Curated by: Sergio A. Martínez

Let’s think of the following example: imagine a brand-new bridge connecting two highways over a river. This highway sees a lot of traffic, including transport trucks that must pass from one side to the other daily, which tend to have a weight, on average, of about 25 tons. Thus, they mark the bridge accordingly: Limit Weight: 25 tons. However, the engineers know that they need a safety margin to ensure that the bridge doesn’t stress and wear out too quickly, so it’s designed to actually support up to 35 tons. It all seems good until one day, ten years later, the bridge collapses; a 40-ton trailer tried to cross it, and a tragedy occurred.

Why-will-platform-engineering-and-self-service-be-two-of-the-biggest-trends-in-2023-icono

It’s easy to point a finger at the culprit, right? That truck was way too heavy for this bridge, so we need to build sturdier bridges and think of a system that checks if a truck has the appropriate weight before crossing. Maybe even instill punishments and fines for people going over this limit. Easy stuff. Well, if that’s the case, then nothing was learned from this disaster. It will happen again in the future.

This is normalization of deviance. Simply put, it’s when people become so accustomed to seeing certain things done wrong that they no longer register as problems, but instead as the way “things work”. And they do work, until the day they don’t: catastrophic failures like a bridge collapsing are seldom the result of a single, unavoidable act of God, but instead the accumulation of small problems that one day reach a breaking point.  And normalization of deviance is a huge problem in the software development industry. 

However, how exactly does the normalization of deviance work, how does it affect software development, and what could be the steps to mitigate, or outright eliminate, the risks it presents?

Bending the rules (until they break)

Normalization of deviance

Software and civil engineering are not that different, at least when it comes to the complexity and precision needed to build things. After all, engineering of any kind is the art of finding solutions that work under stress: creating stuff that works reliably, no matter who is using it. So, no matter if you work with code or concrete, the process is roughly the same: you need to take into account every single situation that the design demands. And thus, both disciplines also tend to have very similar problems, with the normalization of deviance being one of them.

Let’s go back to our bridge example: what was the actual problem? The truck was way too heavy to safely cross that bridge, for sure. But why was such a truck trying to cross it in the first place? Because simply put, it was a normal thing to happen, and if that sounds like a contradiction, you would be right. After all, the normalization of deviance is a lesson in human nature.

People like to bend the rules. That’s what we do. Intellectually, we know rules are meant to keep things working properly, but rigidity is not our strong suit as a species. In the words of veteran programmer Foone Turing: “We always want to optimize. We want to do things cheaper, quicker, and more at once. And the thing is, most of the time going a little faster, a little hotter, that’s fine. Nothing goes wrong. Engineers always design with a safety margin, as we’ve learned the hard way that if you don’t, stuff goes wrong very fast. So going 110% as fast as the spec says? probably OK.”

So, you may see where this is going. In our bridge example, an interesting wrinkle is that the disaster didn’t happen right away, it was a full decade after the bridge was constructed. That’s the tricky thing with the normalization of deviance: it takes time to build up. It works through subtlety: if your bridge says that it has a limit of 25 tons, but you once drove a 30-ton truck through it and nothing happened, then the actual limit is higher, right? You can do it again. And if you do it enough times?

“You’ve been going 110% all the time. It’s worked out just fine. You’re doing great, no problems. You start to think of 110% as the new normal, and you think of it as just 100%. […] Then one day you’re running into 5 other problems and need to push something, well, maybe you do 120% today? After all, it’s basically just 10% of normal…”. That’s how you get a 40-ton trailer trying to cross a bridge rated way lower than that: someone drove through it with 35 tons of cargo, and nothing happened. 36 should be fine, right? Or 37, or 38, and so on. Bending the rules became so normal, without any immediate consequence, that it ceased to be wrong. Slowly, it became the standard, and a standard supported by bent rules is always a time bomb.

But how to avoid deviance?

Normalization of deviance

In software development, the normalization of deviance can happen at every level. For example, at a product level, it’s not exactly unheard of to release software that is not fully tested, on the assumption that the bugs will be fixed in future releases, which can lead to serious problems, such as data loss or security vulnerabilities. At the development level, programmers can start to disregard code style conventions if they feel slowed down by them (there’s a deadline to meet after all), resulting in a codebase that is difficult to read and maintain. And at the security level, it’s often easier to just write down a password than wait half an hour for IT to reset your account if you forget it. In either case, the result is the same: an organization will start accumulating issues until something serious breaks one day.

However, diagnosing the normalization of deviance can be difficult because there’s no immediate feedback loop to it. The bridge probably doesn’t produce a loud cracking sound if you go a couple of pounds above the limit, or the code doesn’t stop working immediately if you deviate a little from a style convention, so implementing effective ways to detect when it’s happening, or to deter this kind of behavior, can be tricky.   

The aforementioned Twitter thread gives a great example of why: “Susan gets in trouble because she put a post-it note with her password on her monitor, and we had to sit through a boring security meeting about password security. So, people learned to put their passwords in their wallets and their phones.” Or in other words, maybe the systems we have in place provide the incentive to deviate from the rules in the first place, and having after-the-fact measures don’t do enough to stop the buildup of problems. In that case, it falls on the culture of an organization to take into account these possible challenges and take the steps necessary to avoid lowering standards as a normal practice. These four key points might help:

  1. Rules are not forever. When it comes to technology, a year might as well be a decade in terms of advancement and innovation, so every procedure and workflow must be constantly reviewed to ensure “rule-bending” is not encouraged when certain parts lag behind, becoming obsolete or just ineffective. Revising and streamlining are always valuable skills for the leadership of any company to have, and giving people the power to always ask “why” could help avoid problems down the line.
  2. Open communication is critical. In that same sense, the main danger of deviance is that it develops in secret. Effective project management means communicating effectively with people, making clear the purpose of every rule, and being open to opinions, suggestions, and discussions to ensure those rules are effective and followed. Also, promoting an environment where a developer can communicate when a rule must be broken for the good of a project is crucial, as it allows management to respond and control such changes. “This situation has happened to us in the past”, says Jesús Magaña, Senior Project Manager at Scio. “And this decision has never been taken lightly. The objective, after all, is reaching the finish line without compromising quality or performance. This ‘shortcut’ has to be done with the consent of the Project Manager and the client, keeping in mind the possible consequences of doing so.”  
  3. Any change has to be clear and well-thought. The software sector is also ripe for new technologies, frameworks, languages, and tools to be implemented during development, but these changes are not trivial. If a new element is adopted within the development environment without proper measures (like clearly explaining the benefits and drawbacks of the new tool, giving people enough time to acclimate to change, being open to concerns, etc.), the risk of deviance grows.
  4. A culture of collaboration, not politics. Probably the most common cause of normalization of deviance, many of these examples don’t happen in isolation. Humans are social beings that tend to form cliques and in-groups that cover for each other, which can happen at every level of the organization, and thus be the perfect place to brew deviance that could snowball into disaster. So, promoting collaboration, being lenient enough with consequences so people feel comfortable about speaking up, but not to the point that developers feel they can get away with anything, and frequently promoting people to mix and work together in different configurations might be the key. It all comes down to skilled leadership.

And knowing is half the battle

Normalization of deiance

However, let’s not assume that these steps, although useful, are completely infallible when it comes to mitigating the normalization of deviance because this kind of behavior is simply human. We bend the rules when we know we shouldn’t, even at a personal level sometimes (“I’m on a diet, but this piece of cake shouldn’t be a problem, right?”), but that doesn’t mean that we cannot anticipate, learn, and improve at every opportunity. Understanding this is what separates good software organizations from the rest of them. After all, as Jesus Magaña tells us, “one of the values of the Agile Manifesto establishes that ‘people and interactions are above tools and processes’, which implies that a process doesn’t have to be a rigid path. Sometimes you need to veer off-course, and that’s not cheating. Let’s just keep in mind that, if everything is going well during development, a process is meant to help us to be consistent with the quality of our work.”

The Key Takeaways

  • Normalization of deviance, of lowering standards over time, is always a risk in any industry, especially software development.
  • Simply put, people are going to bend the rules when that benefits them because that’s simply human nature.
  • The main danger is that this normalization is almost always invisible until too late, helping the build-up of issues and problems until a disaster occurs.
  • It’s up to the management and culture of an organization to mitigate this deviance, which is virtually impossible to eliminate but can be avoided with the right approach to communication and collaboration.

Scio is an established Nearshore software development company based in Mexico that specializes in providing high-quality, cost-effective technologies for pioneering tech companies. We have been building and mentoring teams of engineers since 2003 and our experience gives us access not only to the knowledge but also the expertise needed when tackling any project. Get started today by contacting us about your project needs – We have teams available to help you achieve your business goals. Get in contact today!

The Toyota Production System in software development: Lean, Agile, and Effective.

The Toyota Production System in software development: Lean, Agile, and Effective.

Product Development, Project Management

Curated by: Sergio A. Martínez

Software development is a notoriously unpredictable process. Even the most experienced developers can find themselves facing unexpected challenges and surprises which can lead to frustration, as new requirements pop up, deadlines change, and unanticipated bugs can throw everything off course, especially as projects grow in size and scope, and a tighter collaboration and approach is needed.

The-Toyota-Production-System-in-software-development-Lean,-Agile,-and-Effective-icono

As a result, in such a volatile industry, it’s important to avoid waste whenever possible; anything that doesn’t add value to the end product, from inefficient code to unused features, should be left off, as it helps to keep development costs down and ensures that the final product is as high-quality as possible. 

However, due to how unpredictable software development can sometimes be, a good approach is to use lean practices. Lean practices in software development aim to create more value for the customer while minimizing waste. This is achieved by constantly improving the process and eliminating anything that doesn’t add value, helping to reduce the risk of errors and defects by catching them early on.

Our current model of lean development comes from the Toyota Production System, a manufacturing approach that seeks to make the whole process as efficient as possible in seven key areas: overproduction, inventory, motion, defects, over-processing, waiting, and transport. And although the material processes involved in manufacturing cars and developing software look very different from a distance, applying this same logic brings even better outcomes; common lean practices include things like continuous integration, continuous delivery, and test-driven development, in addition to reductions in the cycle time and batch size, so developers can ship working software more frequently and get feedback earlier, allowing them to make course corrections sooner, leading to a more efficient process overall. 

As a result, lean practices can lead to significant improvements in software quality and developer productivity by promoting continuous improvement and efficient use of resources. By identifying and removing unnecessary steps, lean practices help to improve quality and speed while reducing costs. In an industry where time is always of the essence, lean practices can play a vital role in helping developers deliver high-quality software on time and within budget.

Lean Manufacturing and Agile Methodologies, hand in hand

The Toyota Production System in software development Lean, Agile, and Effective. 3

“Both approaches have their strengths that complement each other very well. On one hand, lean manufacturing is all about efficiency and minimizing waste, and on the other, Agile focuses on flexibility and responding quickly to changes”, says Luis Aburto, CEO, and Co-Founder of Scio. “Together, these two methodologies can help to create a process that is both efficient and adaptable; for example, Agile can help to identify areas where lean manufacturing could be improved. And lean manufacturing can help to streamline the Agile process and make it more efficient, enabling developers to create a process that is both responsive and efficient – the perfect combination for today’s ever-changing landscape.”

But what do these lean practices look like in an Agile environment? By adapting the Toyota System into a software development process, we can come up with a series of key areas or steps where it’s possible to avoid waste, and thus create products that accomplish the goals of the client, the team, and the project in the least wasteful way possible. Such key areas are:

1. Unnecessary Features.

There is an oft-cited study by the Standish Group that famously says that “45% of the features in a given application are never used”. If that number seems too high, you may be right (it was based on four internal applications, which is a small sample), but trying to keep requirements in check is a key point of lean development. If your requirements team tries to anticipate everything a client might want in their product, it’s easy to add features that will not matter to the final user. An Agile methodology, then, which prioritizes the most critical features, is the best strategy to save resources otherwise wasted on elements nobody needs or wants.

2. Unnecessary Value.

Following the last point, there is such a thing as unnecessary value, also known as “gold plating”, which is devoting too many resources to polish a product in places where it’s not necessary, risking the cost-effectiveness of a project. “Good enough” is not a bad approach, especially in software where a finishing point tends to be nebulous at best, and continuous support, debugging, and updating is a normal part of the job.

3. Unrealistic Expectations.

Most of the problems of these last two points stem from overestimating the resources, time, and effort needed to accomplish a project, and thus overpromising on a result. Trimming down requirements to their most basic and critical not only helps a team to get going with development but also ensures they can make the necessary progress on each sprint, focusing on a narrow set of variables easy to control and correct. Going beyond that only ensures problems down the road.

4. Unnecessary Innovation.

Ready-made solutions to challenges and obstacles in development are not forbidden; getting stuck “reinventing the wheel” is an easy way to waste resources and delay a product in search of a completely new approach that might or might not have benefits in the long run. No-code solutions to prototype applications, AI-based tools to look into coding solutions, and the like are tools that can have a marked positive outcome when striving for timely delivery each sprint.

5. Unnecessary Downtime.

Waiting for a team, or even a single developer, to deliver to another to continue development is seldomly a process that results in efficiency. One of the key points in Agile methodology is to structure development to avoid this downtime, with short overlapping steps that ensure no one gets stuck and delays the contributions of the rest of the team and splitting development into blocks where “the business owners can identify the next set of features while the development and QA teams can implement the last requirements.”

6. Over-relying on QA.

Going back to our “good enough” philosophy, achieving this result doesn’t mean that developers can let their guard down concerning bugs and errors in the codebase of the product; good lean development has quality implementation at each step of the process, with QA as a continuous process that audits development at each step. Code reviews, unit testing, and constant communication are key to reducing the time and resources necessary in QA to achieve the best possible product.

7. Underused Creativity.

The Agile methodology knows the value of creativity and problem-solving as a tool during development, letting each member of the team add their knowledge, experience, and insight into the perfect solution for any programming challenge. Treating development as a machine where every cog has a specific function, without context, collaboration, or communication, is a sure recipe for negative outcomes if the individual developer doesn’t have the flexibility to bring any useful input they might have.

Bringing Agile talent to your team

The Toyota Production System in software development Lean, Agile, and Effective.

When it comes to software development, the lean approach is all about doing more with less, having the goal is to reduce waste and increase efficiency by streamlining the development process and choosing the right talent and collaborative environment that can be conducive to that, with Nearshore augmentation offering an alternative that brings the best of both approaches.

One of the benefits of Nearshore development is that it is easier to implement a lean software development process. This is because the team is already in place and there is no need to go through the hassle and expense of setting up a new office or hiring additional staff, saving on time and resources when starting a new project. In addition, nearshore teams are typically more flexible and responsive than offshore teams, making it easier to implement changes rapidly. 

“As the software development landscape evolves, more organizations are turning to lean and agile methodologies to streamline their processes and deliver better results. And while these approaches can offer a number of benefits, they tend to work best when teams are nearshore”, explains Luis Aburto. “Nearshore teams tend to have a better understanding of the local market and what customers are looking for. This knowledge can be invaluable when it comes to developing software that meets the needs of the target audience. Additionally, nearshore teams are typically more responsive to changes and feedback, which is essential in an agile environment.”

As a result, lean software development processes can be more effectively implemented with a Nearshore team in place. This can lead to quicker turnaround times and reduced costs, making it an attractive option for businesses that are looking to improve their bottom line. In addition, it is important to build flexibility into the development process, being willing to adjust plans on the fly and make changes when necessary. By remaining flexible, developers can ensure that their projects stay on track, even when faced with unexpected challenges.

The Key Takeaways

  • The unpredictability of software development can create situations where avoiding “waste” (of time or resources) is the main obstacle to productivity and the effectiveness of a development cycle.
  • The “Toyota Production System” can offer some guidance for a lean development approach that can help alleviate these challenges.
  • Lean development is as its most effective when paired with an Agile methodology, feeding each other to achieve peak effectiveness and the least waste during any given project.
  • Working with Nearshore talent to augment your staff is also a great option to avoid waste, as an organization doesn’t need to commit time or resources to build a team and start development right away.

Scio is an established Nearshore software development company based in Mexico that specializes in providing high-quality, cost-effective technologies for pioneering tech companies. We have been building and mentoring teams of engineers since 2003 and our experience gives us access not only to the knowledge but also the expertise needed when tackling any project. Get started today by contacting us about your project needs – We have teams available to help you achieve your business goals. Get in contact today!

The Bus Factor and Nearshore talent: A net positive outcome

The Bus Factor and Nearshore talent: A net positive outcome

Nearshore, Outsourced Engineering Team, Project Management, Software Development

Curated by: Sergio A. Martínez

Why the Bus Factor Still Matters in Modern Engineering

Software teams talk a lot about technical debt, code quality, and futureproofing. Yet one of the most overlooked risks in any engineering organization rarely lives in the repo. It lives in people.
The Bus Factor measures how many team members you could lose before a project stalls. It is a blunt metric, but it speaks directly to resilience. If only one or two developers fully understand a system, the team is running on chance. In a market where engineers move faster than ever, relying on tribal knowledge is a liability.
High-performing engineering teams take the Bus Factor seriously because it highlights weak communication patterns, siloed expertise, and short-term decisions that accumulate into long-term fragility. When a project loses key contributors, velocity drops, onboarding slows, and the codebase becomes harder to maintain. Even a single unexpected exit can turn a well-run cycle into weeks of recovery.
This isn’t just an operational challenge. It’s a strategic one. A low Bus Factor affects the ability to ship consistently, hire efficiently, and maintain trust with stakeholders who depend on stable delivery.
Engineering leaders who want predictable outcomes need to design for resiliency, not hero-driven development. Raising the Bus Factor requires shared ownership, cross-training, clear documentation, collaboration patterns that scale, and a culture where knowledge is distributed by design.
This is where nearshore organizations can shift the equation. When teams operate in aligned time zones, with shared context and a collaborative operating model, the Bus Factor naturally increases. Knowledge circulates. Expertise compounds. And teams build systems designed to survive—even when individuals move on.

Section 1: What the Bus Factor Really Measures (And Why It Fails Fast in Siloed Teams)

The Bus Factor sounds dramatic, but the idea behind it is simple. If the success of your product depends on a handful of people, the risk is structural. Even well-run teams occasionally rely on one “indispensable” engineer who knows exactly how a critical subsystem behaves. Maybe they built the core architecture. Maybe they patched a legacy integration from memory. Or maybe they simply hold context no one else has the time to absorb.
The Bus Factor reveals how easily this kind of knowledge bottleneck can break a roadmap. It measures three core elements:
1. Knowledge concentration
If one engineer understands the deployment pipeline, the domain logic, or the performance model, the Bus Factor is low by default. Context that lives in only one brain isn’t scalable or portable.
2. Process fragility
Teams built around implicit routines and unwritten practices will always struggle when turnover hits. Without predictable rituals around reviews, documentation, and technical decisions, anyone added later is playing catch-up.
3. Communication habits
If collaboration feels ad hoc instead of structured, knowledge transfer is accidental. High Bus Factor teams treat communication as part of the architecture.
A low Bus Factor exposes even strong teams. Developers go on vacation. Life happens. People get promoted. Priorities shift. Senior engineers move companies. The issue isn’t human unpredictability; it’s that the system wasn’t designed to handle it.
When a team with a low Bus Factor loses a key contributor, engineering leaders often see the same downstream effects:
Delayed releases

Reduced velocity

Incomplete or outdated documentation

Overwhelmed remaining team members

Knowledge gaps that surface only during incidents

Lower morale and rising stress levels

Onboarding friction for replacements

Technical teams feel this pain acutely because software doesn’t pause. Features, integrations, and fixes still need to ship. A high Bus Factor isn’t about expecting the worst. It’s about building a system that continues to operate at full capacity even when the unexpected happens.

Comparative Module: Low Bus Factor vs. High Bus Factor

Factor
Low Bus Factor
High Bus Factor
Knowledge distribution Concentrated in 1–2 engineers Spread across the team
Velocity Highly dependent on key people More consistent and predictable
Onboarding Slow and brittle Structured and supported
Risk exposure High Low
Team morale Vulnerable Stable
Incident recovery Depends on heroics Shared responsibility
A high Bus Factor is not an accident. It is the result of deliberate engineering leadership and intentional team design.

Section 2: Practical Ways to Increase the Bus Factor Inside Your Team

Engineering leaders know that redundancy is expensive, but resilience is essential. Increasing the Bus Factor doesn’t require doubling headcount; it requires building a healthier operating system for your team.
Several concrete practices strengthen a project’s Bus Factor, regardless of size or tech stack:
Encourage Shared Ownership of the Codebase
Teams with a strong Bus Factor treat the codebase as a collective asset. Engineers regularly review each other’s work, pair when needed, and avoid territorial ownership of modules. Shared responsibility reduces the risk of knowledge silos and increases consistency in style, patterns, and decisions.
Document Decisions, Not Just Systems
Documentation isn’t about writing encyclopedias. Effective documentation captures the “why”—the architectural reasoning behind decisions. This includes trade-offs, constraints, risks, and rejected paths. When a new engineer understands why something is built the way it is, they contribute sooner with fewer mistakes.
Build Rituals That Reinforce Knowledge Transfer
Agile ceremonies are helpful, but they are only the start. High Bus Factor teams add:
Architecture reviews

Tech talks led by team members

Code walkthroughs before major releases

Onboarding playbooks regularly updated

Postmortems stored in searchable systems

These rituals normalize shared learning and reduce the chance that only one engineer understands a critical function.
Make Cross-Training an Expectation
No engineer should be the only person capable of maintaining a subsystem. Even in specialized domains, at least two people should fully understand how the system behaves. Cross-training also boosts morale because it prevents individuals from becoming de facto bottlenecks.
Build Psychological Safety
Teams with psychological safety ask questions earlier, share concerns sooner, and collaborate more openly. When engineers feel comfortable saying “I don’t understand this part,” knowledge spreads naturally. Silence is the enemy of a high Bus Factor.
Reinforce Clear Communication Across Every Layer
Strong teams communicate in ways that scale: structured updates, transparent decisions, clean PR descriptions, and consistent coding standards. These create artifacts that help future engineers onboard without relying on tribal knowledge.
All these practices contribute to one outcome: a system that doesn’t collapse when someone leaves. But maintaining this level of resilience becomes harder when teams are distributed across distant time zones or built through offshore subcontracting models.
This is where the nearshore advantage becomes visible.

Section 3: When the Bus Factor Lives Across Borders

Remote work is now a default operating model. Distributed teams bring access to global talent, but they also introduce complexity. Hiring offshore teams in distant time zones can reduce cost in the short term and increase risk in the long term.
A low Bus Factor becomes more fragile when misalignment increases. Leaders often face these challenges when working with offshore vendors:
Limited overlap in working hours

Slow feedback loops

Fragmented communication patterns

Specialists who operate in isolation

High turnover hidden behind the vendor’s internal structure

Documentation gaps that widen with distance

Missed knowledge transfer during handoffs

When only one or two people inside a vendor understand your platform, your Bus Factor effectively shrinks to zero. Engineering leaders often discover this during emergencies or scaling cycles, when the partner cannot replace talent without significant onboarding delays.
This dynamic doesn’t happen because offshore teams lack skill. It happens because the engagement model doesn’t support shared ownership. The farther away the team is—culturally, operationally, and geographically—the easier it is for silos to form and go unnoticed.
Why Nearshore Changes the Equation
Nearshore teams in aligned time zones operate differently. They collaborate in real time, join your rituals, and integrate with your engineers rather than running tasks in parallel. This increases context-sharing, reduces communication friction, and raises the Bus Factor without adding layers of management.
Nearshore teams also tend to have lower turnover and greater stability, which reinforces continuity. When your partner invests in cross-training, internal knowledge hubs, and shared tooling, the Bus Factor naturally grows.
In the words of Scio’s PMO Director, Adolfo Cruz:
“Losing key people during development is more than a knowledge gap. It has ripple effects on morale, delivery speed, and a team’s ability to attract new talent.”
Avoiding that ripple effect requires a partner who treats resilience as part of the operating model.

Section 4: How Nearshore Talent Raises the Bus Factor by Design

A strong nearshore partner doesn’t just provide developers; it builds a team that distributes knowledge from day one. At Scio, this operating model is intentional. Collaboration patterns, team structure, and cross-training rituals all exist to raise the Bus Factor across engineering teams.
Real-Time Collaboration in Shared Time Zones
Aligned time zones eliminate overnight lag. Questions get answered quickly. Reviews happen during the same day. Decisions become shared rather than asynchronous. This alignment maintains context and reduces the risk of drift between teams.
Embedded Knowledge-Sharing
Nearshore developers join your standups, retros, demos, and architecture sessions. They participate in the decision-making process instead of just receiving tickets. This integration expands knowledge across both teams.
Cross-Training Built Into the Culture
High-performing nearshore teams don’t allow expertise to pool in one engineer. They cross-train systematically, ensuring redundancy across the stack. If one contributor steps away, another steps in without disruption.
Scio’s Internal Practices (Internal link placement → link to Scio’s blog on Agile or collaboration)
Scio’s teams operate with built-in rituals that reinforce collective ownership. Regular peer reviews, architectural walkthroughs, and strong onboarding systems ensure that no one person becomes a single point of failure.
A Partnership Model Built for Continuity
Unlike offshore vendors that rotate engineers without notice, nearshore partners prioritize stability. They understand that trust, consistency, and shared culture directly affect outcomes. When a nearshore partner invests in workforce retention and long-term relationships, the Bus Factor rises naturally.
Where External Validation Helps (External link suggestion)
For engineering leaders researching risk mitigation strategies, resources like the SEI (Software Engineering Institute) at Carnegie Mellon provide frameworks for understanding operational risk in distributed teams.
A nearshore partner that embraces these principles provides more than capacity. It provides resilience.

Section 5: The Net Positive Outcome

A higher Bus Factor protects delivery, but it also improves collaboration, morale, and strategic flexibility. Teams with distributed knowledge respond faster during incidents, onboard new engineers more effectively, and maintain consistent velocity through organizational change.
Nearshore talent amplifies these benefits. It allows engineering leaders to maintain speed, reduce risk, and expand capability without increasing fragility. When teams operate collaboratively, in real time, with shared context, the organization becomes stronger.
The Bus Factor isn’t just a metric. It is a mirror reflecting how a team builds, shares, and preserves knowledge. Raising it requires discipline, but the payoff is substantial: stability, predictability, and long-term success.
With the right partner, increasing the Bus Factor becomes an advantage rather than a struggle. Nearshore collaboration makes resilience accessible, operationally practical, and strategically aligned with how modern engineering teams work.

FAQ

The Bus Factor in Engineering Teams – FAQs

Why knowledge distribution matters for resilience, delivery continuity, and long-term scalability.

The Bus Factor measures how many team members could leave a project before it becomes difficult or impossible to maintain or deliver. A low Bus Factor signals concentrated risk.

Because it concentrates critical system knowledge in a small number of individuals. Turnover, vacation, or role changes can quickly disrupt delivery, slow incident response, and increase operational risk.

Nearshore teams operate in aligned time zones and follow shared collaboration rituals. This enables real-time knowledge sharing, deeper integration, and broader ownership across the team, reducing reliance on single individuals.

Yes. Documentation, shared ownership, cross-training, pair programming, and consistent communication patterns all help small teams operate with greater resilience without increasing headcount.