I expose how preference-driven technical waste silently drains resources within organizations. I recount a case where a fully functional internal tool was dismantled, not for any business need, but to suit the tastes of a new technical lead. Despite no measurable flaws, stability gave way to complexity, and capital was squandered to satisfy personal biases. I highlight how this cycle repeats whenever leadership changes, creating endless rebuilds that offer no true progress. I urge businesses to demand clear ROI, tangible problem-solving, and long-term value before approving costly technical overhauls rooted in individual preference.
In the agency world, one of the quietest but most consistent forms of capital destruction we witness is this: perfectly functional systems being dismantled and rebuilt—not because of any business requirement, but because a new internal stakeholder wants something built their way.
We recently saw a textbook example. A client had a solid, fully functional internal tool. It was stable, efficient, and deeply integrated into their operations. No major support issues. No unnecessary licensing costs. No redundant layers. It simply worked. For years, it quietly served its purpose without fail.
Then came a personnel change.
A new technical lead joined the client’s team. With them came a strong personal preference for how things “should” be built. Not based on any documented flaw in the existing system. Not tied to any measurable business benefit. Purely a matter of individual comfort, familiarity, or resume-building.
And so the rebuild began.
We were asked to restructure the system, decompose previously integrated components, and rebuild around entirely new architectures. The result? Capital was spent. Complexity increased. Stability decreased. Costs rose. And long-term maintainability suffered — all to accommodate the preferences of a single person. The broader organization saw no real benefit. In fact, much of the original system’s elegance and seamlessness was lost.
This is a form of waste most companies rarely see clearly: preference-driven technical waste.
- It isn’t caused by incompetence or failure.
- It often comes dressed as “modernization” or “best practice.”
- It’s approved because few challenge it at the executive level.
- And it quietly burns capital with little to no lasting organizational value.
As agency owners, we’ve seen this pattern repeat itself many times. The cycle is simple: New person → New preferences → Rebuild → Spend → Lose value. Worse, when that stakeholder inevitably moves on, their successor may bring a completely different preference set — often undoing or reworking what was just built. The organization pays for each round, without ever moving meaningfully forward.
Businesses need stronger discipline here. Before greenlighting technical rebuilds, ask simple, grounding questions:
- What real business problem is being solved?
- What measurable ROI can we expect?
- How will this affect long-term cost, stability, and risk?
- Is this a necessary investment, or just a personal preference?
Without this kind of discipline, organizations will continue to quietly erode capital—not through spectacular failures, but through perfectly executed projects that never should have happened.
…