If Your Tech Team Can’t Talk to Users, AI Will Take Their Jobs (and You’ll Be an Accomplice)

If Your Tech Team Can’t Talk to Users, AI Will Take Their Jobs (and You’ll Be an Accomplice)

By Guillermo Tena
Conceptual illustration of a human and an AI figure facing each other, symbolizing the relationship between technology and humanity, with "AI" at the center.

Why User Conversations Are Your Most Underused Engineering Tool

Not long ago, after one of those painfully failed product validations, I found myself wondering: how many key decisions have I made without truly understanding who I’m trying to help? I’ll admit—it hurt to realize the answer.

As a Founder / Product Owner / Business Developer, I’ve had the privilege of working with brilliant technical minds. People who write code like poetry—masters of distributed systems, CI/CD, pipelines—the whole stack. But when it comes to having a genuine conversation with a user, many freeze up. Not because they don’t care, but because no one ever taught them the art of asking the right questions.

If you’re a CTO or COO leading a software team—especially in growth-stage companies from Austin to Dallas—here’s your wake-up call:

If your engineers can’t talk to users, you’re not just building in the dark. You’re handing the job to AI, one disconnected sprint at a time.

What Happens When Dev Teams Work Without User Signals

Without user context, your team may:

  • Ship features instead of solving real problems.
  • Use deadlines as the only motivator—eroding product purpose.
  • Iterate fast, but in circles.
  • Turn your backlog into a graveyard of half-guessed ideas.
  • Miss out on disruptive innovation. Real innovation comes from human empathy, not just roadmaps.

I once led a team where the technical challenge wasn’t particularly complex. A CTO told me building the KHERO app didn’t feel “intellectually interesting.” Later, I realized my mistake: I hadn’t explained the impact of what we were building. If I had conveyed that his work would help thousands of people feel like heroes and change the lives of hundreds of breast cancer survivors, I’m sure his perspective would’ve shifted.

When your developers fall in love with the problem, not just the tech, you’ve got an unstoppable team—even when the intellectual challenge isn’t the biggest.

The Mom Test: Why It Should Be Required Reading for Tech Leads

Based on The Mom Test by Rob Fitzpatrick, here’s what we train our developers to do:

  • Don’t pitch—listen.
  • Wrong: “Would you use this?”
    Right: “How did you solve this last time?”

  • Ignore compliments.
  • “Sounds good” ≠ commitment. Real signals come from past actions, not vague future promises.

  • Ask about reality, not hypotheticals.
  • “Would you walk to fundraise?” → 100% yes.
    “Do you walk or run? When was the last time?” → 20% follow-through. Reality > good intentions.

We seek validation, but what we really need is truth. And truth doesn’t emerge when you talk—it shows up when you listen.

Using this shift in approach, we fine-tuned our segment and doubled download and usage rates for the KHERO app.

Developer participating in remote customer call to strengthen nearshore team collaboration

Want to Build a Better Team Culture? Start with This Ritual

We implement a simple practice called Coffee with Customers for our engineering teams (in Mexico, Colombia, and with partners in Texas):

  • Prep (15 min): Devs create one hypothesis and write 3 user-safe questions.
  • Live Call (20 min): A real user call—no selling, just learning.
  • Post-Mortem: We analyze what we learned, share it, and use it to shape the backlog.

The result?
Devs stop building because someone said so. They start building because someone needs it.

For CTOs, COOs & Product Leaders: This Is About More Than Research—It’s About Leadership

A tech lead who can’t explain the “why” behind a sprint is managing, not leading.
Great leaders:

  • Create space for devs to hear users.
  • Reward curiosity over code volume.
  • Coach their teams to spot truths hiding in plain sight.

Why This Matters in Nearshore Teams

With distributed teams across LATAM, communication gaps can multiply. But when nearshore engineers—like those we place from Morelia to Medellín—talk to end users in real time, everything changes:

  • Higher alignment
  • Better backlog quality
  • Shorter cycles
  • Stronger culture
  • Lower churn

Person using a laptop and holding a coffee cup while reviewing code and remote collaboration tools—symbolizing the flexibility of modern tech work.

Final Thoughts (and a Gift)

I’ve made all the mistakes—mistaking interest for intent, validating products with my own pitch, skipping user contact. But I’ve learned. And I’m still learning.

If you want a practical, one-page cheat sheet based on The Mom Test—something you can use in your next team meeting—just reach out to me at linkedin.com/in/guillermotp

Remember:
Don’t try to be interesting. Stay interested.

Guillermo Tena

Guillermo Tena

Head of Growth
Founder @ KHERO (clients: Continental, AMEX GBT, etc.) Head of Growth @ SCIO Consultant & Lecturer in Growth and Consumer Behavior

Technical Debt vs. Misaligned Expectations: Which Costs More? 

Technical Debt vs. Misaligned Expectations: Which Costs More? 

Written by: Monserrat Raya 

Wooden scale with yellow blocks representing technical debt and misaligned expectations imbalance

Introduction:

What Causes Software Project Delays—and What Costs More?

For U.S. tech companies—especially those in Texas—technical debt and misaligned expectations are two silent risks that can compromise delivery when working with nearshore software development teams in Latin America.

We all know that poorly written, unmaintained, or rushed code (technical debt) leads to bugs and cost overruns. But what about when your team builds exactly what was asked—only to realize it wasn’t what was expected?

This article explores:

  • What technical debt really costs
  • How misaligned expectations silently sabotage agile teams
  • Which problem costs more—and why
  • How strategic digital nearshoring can reduce both risks

According to the 2023 State of Agile Report by Digital.ai, 49% of agile teams cite misaligned expectations and unclear requirements as the leading cause of delivery delays. This makes expectation alignment not just a communication issue—but a strategic priority in distributed and nearshore software development environments.

What Technical Debt Really Means in Software Projects

Technical debt refers to the hidden cost of choosing quick, suboptimal solutions in code that must be “paid back” through future refactoring, bug fixes, and maintenance.

Common causes of technical debt:

  • Rushed development for MVPs or deadlines
  • Poor architectural decisions
  • Lack of automated testing
  • Legacy code and developer turnover
  • No time allocated for refactoring

A 2023 study by Beta Breakers reveals that 50% of a project’s software budget is often spent fixing issues after delivery, highlighting how unchecked technical debt becomes a massive drain on engineering resources—and ROI.

How technical debt impacts your project:

  • Slows down development velocity
  • Increases cost of maintenance
  • Introduces fragile, hard-to-scale systems
  • Undermines team morale and innovation

What Are Misaligned Expectations in Agile Software Projects?

Misaligned expectations occur when stakeholders and teams have differing understandings of project goals, timelines, or definitions of completion. This misalignment can lead to inefficiencies, increased costs, and project delays.

How Do Misaligned Expectations Affect Agile Teams?

  • Stakeholders may expect fully production-ready features.
  • Developers might consider «done» as «coded, not tested or deployed.»
  • Product owners could assume a shared understanding of backlog priorities.

Such discrepancies can result in:

  • Endless rework and scope creep.
  • Tension between teams and stakeholders.
  • Delivery of features that don’t align with business needs.
  • Frustration stemming from perceived underperformance.

According to McKinsey, technical debt can consume up to 40% of the value of a company’s technology estate, diverting resources from innovation to maintenance.

Furthermore, companies with mature product and operating models have 60% greater total returns to shareholders, indicating the financial benefits of alignment and effective operating structures.

Illustration representing the contrast between technical debt and misaligned development efforts

Technical Debt vs. Misaligned Expectations: Which Costs More?

Aspect
Technical Debt
Misaligned Expectations
Definition Quick fixes that sacrifice long-term code quality Gaps in understanding between teams and stakeholders
Root Cause Rushed code, lack of testing, no refactoring Unclear goals, vague scope, poor communication
Visibility Measurable via code quality tools and reviews Often invisible until delays or dissatisfaction arise
Impact on Cost 33% loss in developer productivity (Stripe) Up to 60% increase in maintenance and rework (McKinsey)
Agile Risk Medium – usually technical in nature High – especially with distributed or nearshore teams
Cultural Sensitivity Low – mostly code-centric High – often caused by cultural or communication gaps
Prevention Strategy Refactoring, CI/CD, quality standards Frequent alignment sessions, shared backlog, agile onboarding

Real Example: When Misalignment Was Costlier Than Code

A U.S.-based healthtech company nearshoring to Latin America delivered multiple sprints on time and within budget—but friction grew.

The issue?

  • The development team built what the backlog described.
  • The stakeholders expected a production-ready MVP.
  • The client assumed weekly demos; the team delivered monthly updates.

The result: two sprints of rework and loss of trust—not due to technical errors, but due to misaligned expectations.

Related: How to Build Culturally Aligned Nearshore Teams That Actually Work

How Misalignment Increases Technical Debt Risks

Misaligned expectations don’t just create communication problems—they actively accelerate technical debt:

  • Developers build without full product context.
  • Features are rewritten multiple times to meet business needs.
  • Refactoring is skipped to meet misunderstood deadlines.

This loop creates what we call “compounding failure”:
→ Vague goals → Rushed features → Tech debt → Rework → Lower velocity → More misalignment.

How to Prevent Scope Misalignment in Agile Teams

Here are proven strategies for managing expectations with distributed teams and avoiding costly misalignment:

1. Clarify the Definition of «Done»

Ensure it includes design, testing, documentation, and stakeholder approval. A shared definition of done eliminates misunderstandings about the state of a task or feature.

2. Hold Frequent Expectation Check-ins

Especially with nearshore teams, use retrospectives and backlog grooming sessions to re-align priorities. Continuous communication ensures alignment stays intact.

3. Enable Cross-Border Collaboration Tools

Tools like Jira, Confluence, Loom, and Miro help bridge communication gaps across time zones and ensure documentation, visibility, and feedback loops.

4. Invest in Agile and Cultural Onboarding

Help your team understand the why, not just the what—especially in distributed environments. Business context and cultural fluency directly improve collaboration.

Related reading: Overcoming Challenges in Nearshore Development: Tips for Seamless Collaboration

Diagram comparing technical debt with misaligned team objectives in software development

What to Ask a Nearshore Partner Before You Start

Question
Why It Matters
How do you define project “success”? Ensures alignment on goals, scope, and delivery standards
How do you manage technical debt? Shows long-term engineering discipline
Do you onboard developers into our business? Prevents context gaps that lead to misaligned expectations
How are blockers and scope changes communicated? Maintains trust and prevents surprises
What agile frameworks and ceremonies do you use? Confirms process compatibility across teams and cultures

Related reading: Why Nearshore Software Development Makes More Sense Than Ever in 2025

Final Thoughts: Balancing Code and Clarity

So, is technical debt worse than misaligned expectations?

  • If you’re managing an internal agile team, technical debt may be your biggest challenge.
  • But if you’re scaling with distributed or nearshore partners, misaligned expectations can quietly cost more—in time, trust, and delivery quality.

The solution: Combine technical excellence with human alignment—and work with partners who understand both.

Looking for a Nearshore Team That Gets It Right?

Scio, a nearshore software development partner based in Mexico, helps U.S. companies in Austin, Dallas, and beyond build teams that deliver—technically and strategically.

  • English-fluent developers
  • Agile maturity and cultural alignment
  • Proactive communication and shared success metrics

Let’s talk about building a team that fits your goals

FAQ Section

Is technical debt worse than misaligned expectations?

It depends. Technical debt is visible and can be tracked, while misaligned expectations often remain hidden until delivery problems arise—especially in distributed teams.

How do misaligned expectations affect agile projects?

They cause rework, delays, scope creep, and stakeholder dissatisfaction. Agile depends on shared understanding—when that breaks, delivery quality drops.

What causes software project delays most often?

According to The Standish Group, unclear requirements and communication failures are top causes—more than technical execution.

How do you prevent misalignment in distributed teams?

Use shared collaboration tools, define «done» clearly, hold regular expectation check-ins, and provide both agile and cultural onboarding to all team members.