Companies aren’t just looking for technical expertise anymore. They need partners who can spot hidden risks and opportunities. Partners who can adapt when business goals shift mid-project. Partners who truly understand that every technical decision has a business impact.
It’s a tall order, and if you’ve been involved in software projects, you know how rarely all these pieces come together.
But what if the gap isn’t in technical capabilities or processes? What if it’s in how we think about engineering itself?
It was a Friday afternoon when the call came in. A digital pharmacy platform was in crisis. Their system, built on Laravel Nova, couldn’t handle the features needed to onboard two major distributors. The existing architecture had hit its limits, and time was running out.
They reached out to us on a recommendation from another client who had simply said, “Trust these guys. They can work miracles.”
A traditional engineering response would have been predictable: “You need a complete rewrite. Laravel Nova wasn’t designed for this. Give us 6-8 months to rebuild it properly.”
Technically correct. Completely wrong.
Instead of diving into technology stacks and system architecture, we asked about the business impact. The numbers were sobering: hundreds of thousands in revenue at risk, years of relationship building on the line, and market positioning about to crumble. The technical limitations were real enough, but the business couldn’t wait for a perfect solution.
We had no experience with Laravel Nova, but that didn’t worry us. When you’ve spent enough years pushing technology to its limits, you develop a certain confidence. “We haven’t worked with this specific tool before,” we told them, “but we’re confident we can make it work for you.”
The solution wasn’t perfect on paper: we’d stretch Laravel Nova to handle the immediate needs while simultaneously planning a more robust architecture for the future. Sometimes the perfect technical solution isn’t the right business solution.
The client got their distributors. Their business stayed on track. And now they’re the ones telling others about working miracles.
What makes this approach different from “just good engineering”? After all, isn’t every engineer supposed to solve problems?
The difference lies in how we view the problem—and more importantly, how we view our role in solving it. In that Friday afternoon crisis, we made several decisions that highlight what we call the Consultant Engineer mindset.
We led with genuine curiosity about the business impact rather than the technical challenge. That’s harder than it sounds. As engineers, we’re trained to zero in on technical constraints, to spot architectural flaws, to think in terms of best practices and clean code. And yes—Laravel Nova was being pushed well beyond its intended use case.
But here’s the thing: while traditional engineering focuses on building the right solution, Consultant Engineering focuses on delivering the right outcome. Sometimes that means working within constraints that make your inner perfectionist scream. Sometimes it means having the confidence to venture into unfamiliar technical territory because that’s what the situation demands.
Three distinct threads ran through our Friday afternoon story. The way we approached the problem wasn’t random—it came from a set of core values that define how we think about engineering:
Being Transformative: seeing possibilities where others see limitations Being Fearless: having the confidence to venture into unknown territory when the situation demands it Being Kind: truly understanding and empathizing with the human impact of technical decisions
Each of these values deserves its own story, and that’s exactly what we’ll explore in our next articles. We’ll dive deep into real projects where these values made all the difference.
This is the first in a series of articles exploring the Consultant Engineer mindset. Stay tuned for deep dives into each of our core values and how they reshape what’s possible in software engineering.
