Most engineering improvements fail not because they're wrong, but because they're too big.
Teams spend months planning massive rewrites that never ship. They design elaborate processes that collapse under their own weight. They pursue architectural perfection while actual delivery grinds to a halt. Meanwhile, the small improvements that could have made a real difference get deprioritized because they don't seem important enough.
The Fibonacci sequence has a property that applies surprisingly well to engineering teams: each number is the sum of the two before it, and the order matters. Small things combine to create bigger things, but only when sequenced correctly. You can't skip ahead. Progress builds on progress. The power isn't in any single step; it's in the compounding and the sequencing.
What Compounds in Engineering Teams
Not all improvements compound. Some give you a one-time benefit. Others keep paying dividends forever. Knowing the difference is the key to sustained velocity.
Developer experience compounds. Every minute you save from a developer's daily workflow gets multiplied by every developer, every day. Speed up the test suite by 30 seconds and you've saved hours across the team each week. Automate a manual deploy step and you've saved time forever. Fix the flaky test that everyone reruns twice and you've removed friction that was silently slowing everything down. This is exactly what platform teams do best.
These improvements seem small in isolation. Thirty seconds? Who cares? But they add up. A team where everything is slightly faster, slightly more reliable, slightly less annoying ships more than a team fighting friction at every step.
Knowledge sharing compounds. When one person learns something and shares it, that knowledge spreads. Good documentation written once gets read hundreds of times. A team norm established early shapes how dozens of future engineers work. A debugging technique shared in a postmortem prevents the same investigation happening again.
Teams that invest in knowledge sharing get smarter over time. Teams that don't keep rediscovering the same lessons and making the same mistakes.
Quality compounds. Clean code is easier to modify than messy code. Good tests catch bugs before they become production incidents. Clear architecture makes the next feature easier to build. Each investment in quality makes future work faster, which creates time for more investment in quality.
The reverse is also true, unfortunately. Technical debt compounds. Shortcuts accumulate. Each workaround makes the next change a little harder, until the codebase becomes a minefield where every step is dangerous.
Trust compounds. Teams with high trust move faster. They don't need exhaustive documentation of every decision because they trust each other's judgment. They don't need approval processes because they trust people to make good calls. They can have direct conversations because they trust the relationship can handle disagreement.
Building trust is slow work. It happens through consistent behavior over time, through following through on commitments, through handling mistakes gracefully. But once built, trust accelerates everything.
What Doesn't Compound
Some investments look productive but don't actually build on themselves.
Big bang rewrites don't compound. They're one-time events that consume months of effort and, if they succeed, leave you in roughly the same position: shipping features, maintaining code, fighting entropy. The rewrite might be necessary, but it doesn't create ongoing returns.
What does compound is making small improvements continuously. Refactor a module when you're working in it. Improve the tests as you go. Clean up documentation when you notice it's wrong. These incremental investments maintain quality without stopping the machine.
Process for process's sake doesn't compound. Adding checkpoints, reviews, and approvals might catch issues, but they also add friction. A heavy process doesn't get better over time; it just gets heavier as edge cases and exceptions accumulate.
What compounds is building systems that make the right thing easy. Automated checks that run without human intervention. Guardrails that prevent mistakes without blocking progress. Tools that guide people toward good practices rather than processes that punish bad ones.
Heroics don't compound. A senior engineer pulling an all-nighter to ship a feature might save the quarter, but it doesn't make the next quarter easier. In fact, it often makes things worse: the code written at 3 AM becomes the code everyone has to maintain for years.
What compounds is building capacity. Teaching others so you're not the only one who can solve hard problems. Creating systems that don't require heroes. Maintaining a sustainable pace that you can keep up indefinitely.
Finding High-Leverage Small Investments
If small compounding investments are so valuable, how do you find them? A few heuristics that help:
Look for recurring friction. What do engineers complain about every week? What do they work around rather than fix? What manual steps interrupt every deployment? These are signals pointing toward investments that would pay off repeatedly.
Measure time spent, not just time saved. It's easy to justify a tool that saves 10 hours per week. It's harder to notice the tool that saves 5 minutes a day across 20 people. But the second one is often more valuable.
Prioritize multipliers over additions. Adding one more engineer adds capacity linearly. Making every engineer 10% more effective multiplies across the whole team. The multiplier is almost always the better investment.
Follow the calendar. Look at what happens every day, every week, every month. Daily activities are worth optimizing more than quarterly ones. Improvements to frequent events compound faster.
Trust engineer intuition. If multiple engineers keep suggesting the same improvement, that's a strong signal. They're the ones experiencing the friction. They know where time is being wasted.
Why This Is Hard
If small improvements compound so effectively, why doesn't everyone focus on them? Because they're not exciting, and it takes time to feel the effects.
Nobody gets promoted for shaving 30 seconds off the test suite. Nobody gives a conference talk about fixing flaky tests. The improvements that compound best are often boring, unglamorous work that doesn't show up in OKRs or quarterly reviews. Worse, the payoff is delayed. You make the investment today and feel the benefit months later, after it's compounded enough to notice.
Big projects are easier to see and easier to get credit for. A major rewrite has a kickoff, a plan, milestones, a launch. A hundred small improvements just look like maintenance.
This is a leadership challenge. Organizations get what they celebrate. If you only celebrate big launches, you'll get teams that pursue big launches at the expense of steady improvement. If you celebrate the boring work that makes everyone faster, you'll get compounding returns.
The Fibonacci principle isn't complicated. Small investments, consistently made, build on each other over time. But there's wisdom in the ordering. Some improvements unlock others. Some need to come first. The sequence matters as much as the individual steps.
The teams that understand this outperform the teams that keep swinging for the fences. Not because they're smarter or work harder, but because their approach to improvement actually works. Each improvement makes the next one easier. That's the power of compounding. And it's available to every team willing to do the small, boring, important work in the right order.
Frequently Asked Questions
Ready to build compounding advantage in your engineering team?
Let's Talk →