I hate "Quick Wins"

"I hate and categorically refuse quick wins", I angrily yelled.

The managers in the meeting jumped. They weren't used to seeing me lose my zen and calm temper so often.

"I have a huge ethical problem with this organisation's culture of quick wins. We are adding more layers of band-aids before even healing the scares", I continued.

As the discussion went on, they insisted on not agreeing, and I preferred to end the meeting there. We slept on it.

That night, as I was getting ready for dinner, my wife asked me why I was yelling at my office in the afternoon.

I summarised the incident as follows: we have a service in our product that is costing us opex and cloud bills, that is worldwide exposed, threatening our security and most of all, it's in-house made and redundant with an already managed services from our cloud provider. I wanted to remove that service, reduce the surface attack, decrease our technical debt and mostly ease the pain of our operators and customers, but the managers think that it's very long to do, and they prefer to hide it under another abstraction/UI without changing it because it's quicker, it's faster and provides a quicker "value".

Being a VP herself, she asked me, "I know that I don't have the full context, but what they are suggesting seems to be really a quick win; why are you against it?"

But since I can't yell at her and because I know well that she was really curious to understand how her stubborn Architect of a husband functions, I tried to structure my thoughts, and here I'm sharing with you what I told her.

If we rely on the Impact/Effort Matrix, quick wins are obviously the high impact/low effort area, which I read as the best balance between what we have to provide for the most effective value in the *long term*.

But as with great concepts, they are adapted, misinterpreted and stretched to something else. That being said, we engineers get attracted quickly to quick wins because we think that:

• They steer the focus on urgent pain points,
• They announce visible progress,
• They give a perception of productivity,
• They provide a feeling of risk reduction,
• ... and the Technical Debt can wait

However, let me start with this: [These] Quick wins are like quick shots of dopamine; instant gratification, but the crush later hits harder.

Nota Bene: In this post, I'll focus on this misinterpretation of quick wins.

Why are quick wins bad?

The answer really depends on the priorities and the stage of the project, but quite often, they all end in what I concluded:

- Technical Debt Accumulation
- Misaligned Goals
- Short Time Focus
- Inconsistent User Experience
- Compromised Architecture

Technical Debt Accumulation

Quick wins are like patching a leaky pipe instead of fixing the plumbing. Sure, it works for now, but the underlying problem grows and with it, technical debt.

Over time, this debt amplifies and compounds, slowing development and inflating maintenance costs.
Consequently, your team will spend more hours untangling messy code than building new features or innovating. Maintenance costs will skyrocket, and even minor enhancements will suddenly become monumental tasks.

What is the actual cost of these "quick" fixes? A[nother] lost momentum and an exhausted team.

🟡 As Architects, we're not just coding for today; we're building systems that need to endure. Fix it sustainably now, or pay the price later—with interest.

Misaligned Goals

Chasing quick wins often prioritises "fast results" over strategic outcomes. It's like sprinting when you should be running a marathon.

This mindset creates a culture of reactivity: patch what's broken now and figure out the rest later.
When speed becomes the goal, the real priorities, such as innovation, strategic planning, and long-term vision, all take a backseat. Teams end up firefighting instead of building something meaningful. The result? The product no longer aligns with its true goals.

🟡 Real progress isn't just about speed; it's about direction. As Architects, we should ask ourselves, "Are we solving the right problem or just the fastest one?" Because speed without strategy isn't progress; it's just running in circles.

Short-Term Focus

Quick wins are distractions dressed as progress. They are like shiny objects: tempting but distracting. They fix what's visible, putting out fires while ignoring the gas leak waiting to explode.

The result? A system that looks fine on the outside but is corroded with hidden cracks. Over time, these cracks widen, and suddenly, the whole thing isn't scalable, maintainable, or even usable. The short-term focus of quick wins trades real progress for the illusion of it.

🟡 Sure, they're tactical and feel productive, but they're often just glorified band-aids. Instead, Architects need to think long-term. Are we solving for today, or are we laying a foundation for tomorrow? Survival isn't Architecture. Building something that lasts is.

User Experience

Quick wins can fix your today's headache, but they often create tomorrow's migraine for users.

Imagine a product with different types of UI: one is sleek and modern page, the next looks boxy like it's stuck in 2000, and a third is so cluttered CLI where you can't find any reliable output. That's the result of Patchwork Design Driven by quick wins instead of a cohesive vision.

Small patches solve immediate issues but create inconsistencies that confuse users and hurt the product's identity. A fragmented workflow frustrates the user. Users don't care about how fast you ship fixes; they care about a seamless, intuitive experience.

When we chase speed, we lose sight of the user. And without users, even the most technically advanced products will fail.

🟡 As Architects, we're not just fixing problems but also designing journeys. And journeys built on patches lead straight to frustration. Build the experience, not just the feature.

Compromised Architecture

Think of your Architecture like building a structure with LEGO. Quick wins are like snapping pieces together without checking the instructions. In the end, you get something that looks fine at first glance, but try to add another layer or move it, and the whole thing wobbles or falls apart.

When you build for immediate results, you create an Architecture that's "good enough" for now but can't handle future challenges. Scalability? Out the window. Security? An afterthought. Performance? Patchy at best.

A sustainable Architecture needs a solid foundation: one that can support the weight of future features and growth. Quick wins tend to sacrifice this foundation, leaving discrepancies that grow with time. And here's the harsh truth: aligning those discrepancies later costs far more than doing it right the first time. You'll face rework that's not just expensive but disruptive. Systems will break when you least expect it, and economies of scale and speed become a nightmare.

🟡 As Architects, our role isn't just to address today’s challenges but also to prepare for tomorrow’s opportunities.

Just Ask yourself: are you building the foundation for a skyscraper or assembling a fragile house of cards? Quick wins might look impressive now, but solid, thoughtful Architecture is what keeps the whole thing standing when the pressure comes.

Real-life cases

There are countless examples of quick wins that backfired spectacularly, leaving behind a trail of chaos, lost trust, and staggering costs. We can pick the examples of the Volkswagen Dieselgate Scandal or Facebook's "Move Fast and Break Things" Era and how they really hurt them.

Volkswagen Dieselgate Scandal

Volkswagen’s shortcut to glory by putting cheat devices to dodge emissions standards, looked genius until it didn’t.

In 2015, the world saw through the charade. Billions in fines, massive recalls, and a global reputation in tatters became their legacy. What started as a "quick win" for passing regulations became a $30 billion catastrophe. The real cost? Trust. Customers, once loyal, saw betrayal where innovation was promised. It’s a painful reminder: cutting corners might save time, but the fallout costs everything you were trying to protect.

Facebook's "Move Fast and Break Things" Era

"Move fast, break things" sounded revolutionary until things truly broke. Facebook’s obsession with rapid deployment ignored the brewing storm of data privacy and platform abuse.

The Cambridge Analytica scandal ripped the curtain down, exposing the cracks left by this reckless approach. Billions in fines and a global trust crisis followed. Facebook had to pivot from speed to responsibility, spending years patching up its damaged image. This wasn’t just a broken motto; it was a hard-learned lesson in accountability.

Okay, I admit I wasn't that structured when I told my wife why quick wins are bad. But after I went quickly on the whys, she asked me about the hows and, as an Architect, how I overcame them.

Well...

How Architects Overcome Quick Wins?

- Adopt a Long-Term Vision
- Prioritise Root Cause Analysis
- Prioritise Strategic Planning
- Promote Incremental Delivery
- Educate Your Stakeholders
- Emphasise Code Quality & Technical Debt Management

Adopt a Long-Term Vision

To avoid falling for quick wins, Architects should adopt a long-term vision. Start with the end in mind, backward thinking is your secret weapon. This approach means working backwards from where you want to be, not just where you are.

Align everything with your product’s strategic goals, scalability needs, and user experience roadmap.

Does the solution contribute to the bigger picture, or does it simply patch up the immediate problem?

If you focus on the future, the decisions you make are toward the direction of sustainable growth. By extension, you stop looking at how to get a temporary fix that will eventually be more expensive.

👉🏻 Never lose track of what is sustainable.

Prioritise Root Cause Analysis

Resist the temptation to treat the symptoms alone. Instead, dig deeper with the 5 Whys technique; it’s simple but powerful. Take the time to truly understand the root cause before jumping into solutions.

Too often, quick fixes are just band-aids that cover up the real problem, leaving you to rework things ad nauseam. By prioritising root cause analysis, you ensure that your solutions target the heart of the issue.

This approach not only saves time in the long run but also prevents those frustrating cycles of constant rework.

👉🏻 Fix it once, fix it right.

Prioritise Strategic Planning

Stop chasing fires and start planning strategically. Use tools like the Impact/Effort Matrix to separate urgent matters from truly important ones.

Build a roadmap that isn’t just a reaction to today’s problems but a guide for tomorrow’s growth. Set milestones that balance quick fixes with high-impact, long-term goals. This keeps the team aligned, focused, and moving toward a vision instead of constantly shifting gears.

Strategic planning isn’t about ignoring urgency—it’s about ensuring that urgency doesn’t derail the bigger picture.

👉🏻 Plan smart, act smarter.

Promote Incremental Delivery

Incremental delivery is your ally in balancing short-term wins with long-term sustainability. Deliver solutions in manageable, well-thought-out pieces that bring immediate value while safeguarding your Architecture’s integrity. Advocate for Agile practices in your organisation.

Instead of rushing a complete solution, focus on what moves the needle now without jeopardising the bigger picture. Each increment should act as a building block, not a patch.

This approach keeps momentum strong, ensures quality, and builds trust with stakeholders without compromising the system you’re creating for the future. Build step by step, but always with purpose.

👉🏻 Start small, but think big.

Educate Stakeholders

Education is your secret weapon.

Help your stakeholders see beyond the allure of quick wins by explaining their hidden costs, such as technical debt, fragmented user experiences, and rework nightmares. Show them how short-term gains can sabotage long-term goals. Use real-world examples to bridge the gap between business priorities and technical realities. Leaders who understand the stakes are more likely to back sustainable decisions.

A well-informed team isn’t just supportive—it becomes a partner in building a future-ready Architecture.

👉🏻 Communication turns scepticism into collaboration.

Emphasize Code Quality & Technical Debt Management

Build a culture where clean code, regular refactoring, and managing technical debt are non-negotiable. Establish clear guidelines: when to tackle debt, how to prioritise it, and how to measure its impact.

Technical debt isn’t just a developer’s problem—it’s everyone’s.

Vouch for automation, Continuous Integration/Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) tools and practices; they are your secret sauce.

Remind your team that shortcuts today mean speed bumps tomorrow. By embedding quality into the process, you’re not just coding but investing in stability, scalability, and sanity. Long-term stability always beats quick-fix chaos.

👉🏻 Code quality isn’t a luxury; it’s your safety net.

Final Thoughts

I'm not sure if I've convinced my wife, as I also tried to share these thoughts with my fellow managers. Undeniably, Quick wins may feel like victories, but they’re often just traps disguised as solutions; they cost more than they deliver.

As Architects, our mission isn’t just to solve today’s problems—it’s to build systems that last.

Trade short-term fixes for long-term impact. Focus on clarity, strategy, and collaboration to create something sustainable.

The real win isn’t in how fast you deliver; it’s in the impact you create. Design with purpose, plan with foresight and ensure your Architecture endures the future.