Uncertainty: Where logic-bound engineers collide with real-world business complexity
We've all felt the gap when business developers and engineers meet to solve the same problems. It's not that we have different goals, but we speak different dialects: one is a business mind shaped in fluid market terms, and the other is bound by logic in precise, conclusive code. Even on teams full of strong communicators, the conversation slips past each other.
Recently, I listened to the podcast The Architect's Paradox: Embracing Uncertainty in Software Architecture. It gave me the words I needed to understand this relationship better. It helped me appreciate the shift from solving the immediate problem as an engineer to shaping a system that can handle the change. I've put a few words on what I learned from the podcast here, and how it helped me better understand my role as an architect.
Two disciplines, two ways of navigating complexity
Business professionals spend their careers inside living systems: markets move, regulations shift, and customer behaviour changes without warning. Success comes from spotting patterns early, accepting ambiguity and making decisions that can be revised as the landscape evolves.
Engineers are trained differently. Logic is king in everything we do, from approach to our first line of code. Our tools reward reduction. We take a fuzzy idea and turn it into precise data structures, algorithms, and interfaces. Clarity is not just helpful; it is required; a compiler will not accept an almost correct answer.
To be clear, neither approach here is better. Trouble begins when we expect the other side to think the same way. Business peers can see detailed technical questions as unnecessary red tape, while engineers can feel lost when requirements arrive in loose narrative form.
Where the gap shows up
We have all seen projects stall when the conversation circles a single word, such as customer or order. Engineers ask for a definition that anticipates every future edge case: legal names versus nicknames, merged accounts, and privacy flags. Meanwhile, stakeholders need the system to recognise the most common scenario that drives revenue today. The engineering instinct is to protect the codebase from costly rework by getting the "right" model up front. Product and business colleagues, accustomed to refining ideas as more data arrives, expect to adjust details sprint by sprint.
The result is a slow‑motion stalemate. Engineers delay implementation until they can draw a complete class diagram. Stakeholders wonder why such an obvious feature is now blocked in JIRA. Meetings multiply, each side repeating the same points more loudly, and progress inches forward only when someone reluctantly agrees to "just pick something so we can code." That temporary truce often collapses a month later when the following edge case appears, and the debate starts again.
This friction does not mean either group is wrong. Engineers are guarding long‑term maintainability; stakeholders are maximising time‑to‑market. The gap exists because each discipline defaults to its way of managing uncertainty.
What changes when you step into architecture
When I worked strictly as an engineer, my instinct was to protect the code base from ambiguity. Stepping into an architectural role required a different stance. The podcast framed it well: architects must make decisions in the presence of incomplete information and accept that some assumptions will be wrong. In other words, we move from eliminating uncertainty to managing it.
Practical architecture focuses on flexibility. I now ask how the design will respond when our current model of customer, product, or order inevitably evolves. Instead of waiting for certainty, I model likely change, choose easy-to-adjust seams, and explain the trade-offs clearly to engineers and business partners.
Residuality and strategic complexity
The podcast introduced the idea of residuality, a technique that deliberately stresses a design with "what if" questions until weak spots appear. The goal is not to predict every future detail but to discover which parts of the system must stay open for extension. A manageable amount of complexity becomes an investment in future adaptability rather than avoidable technical debt. (Remember, technical debt is a tool)
Seeing Beyond SOLID
My initial response to the podcast was reflex: "If we follow SOLID, future change is already covered." The Open‑Closed Principle certainly helps, but it still limits the discussion to class boundaries; my reaction shows that I am still susceptible to zooming too far in.
As an architect, I sometimes propose what seems like off-target designs for the current problem. The engineers do precisely what they have been trained to do: break the requirement down, isolate the core abstraction points, and then develop a cleaner alternative that solves today’s case way more elegantly, so their push-back is completely justified from a purely engineering angle.
The point, however, is wider. As architects, we are trying to leave behind residues, as these intentional flex points that let the system fold and unfold when present assumptions give way, for instance, when a new market, regulation or product variant surfaces next quarter, that same logically cut interface and objects no longer fit.
Residuality means deciding in advance where the system can safely crack. By inserting small boundaries now, we create controlled routes for future extension and avoid the all‑or‑nothing rewrites that stall delivery. As architects, it is our responsibility to ensure the team sees these and understands them, but we can't expect the team to form them; it requires a different context.
Lessons I am taking forward
Architectural thinking shifts the focus from tidy code to resilient systems. Success isn’t the neatest fix for today, but a design that handles tomorrow’s changes with minimal fuss. Seeing it this way finally gave me the words for what separates my work as an architect from my work as an engineer.
Expect change rather than perfection. As business reality shifts, the design must bend gracefully instead of standing rigid.
Translate instead of defend. My job is to turn broad business goals into technical choices without demanding stakeholders speak with code-level precision.
Share uncertainty openly. When we admit what we do not know, the team can decide where flexibility matters and simplicity is safe.
Bridging the gap is less about teaching one side to think like the other and more about appreciating both perspectives. Engineers bring the discipline that turns ideas into reliable software. Business colleagues bring the insight that keeps the product relevant. Architects sit in the middle, comfortable with both views, guiding the system through the uncertainty that connects them.
My take on the conversation here doesn't do it anywhere justice, so I highly recommend listening to the full episode. Even if you’re not an engineer, the conversation offers insights to make your following discussion with technical teams smoother.