By Purusoth Mahendran
Most engineering teams build systems that work today, but the best teams build systems that survive orders of magnitude growth. The difference becomes apparent when transaction volume shifts from millions to billions, rigid workflows give way to conversational interfaces, and batch processing evolves into real-time intelligence.
The gap between these approaches isn’t about writing better code; it’s about understanding that software architecture must account for operational reality, data quality constraints, and inevitable business evolution. Real scalability depends on architecture, data quality, and organizational design.
When Systems Hit Their Breaking Point
Every system has a threshold where small changes cause outsized failures. A service that performs well under moderate load can experience cascading outages under heavy traffic. Retries that help at low volume can amplify problems at scale, creating feedback loops where new capacity saturates instantly.
My experience building returns processing systems at major e-commerce platforms illustrates this principle quite well. Every return touches inventory management, payment processing, fraud detection, warehouse routing, and customer communication. Early systems handle this through synchronous calls and tight coupling because it works. But here is where growth shows the fragility; services that ran perfectly for years require complete rewrites because they can’t handle new load patterns when demand grows 100x.
As Jeff Dean from Google puts it, teams should “design for ~10X growth, but plan to rewrite before ~100X.” The pattern repeats across industries. Teams either build with modularity and observability from the start, accepting upfront complexity, or they rebuild later under pressure.
The strategic choice matters more than the tactical one. Accept that current convenience creates future technical debt or invest in flexibility before you need it.
Of course, early-stage teams don’t always have the luxury of perfect architecture. Startups move fast to find product-market fit, not to design for infinite scale. And that’s okay. What matters is recognizing when the growth curve shifts from search mode to scale mode.
The mistake isn’t moving fast early, it’s not pausing to rebuild when you realize you’ve hit the architectural limits of your prototype. Every system eventually needs that inflection point where you trade speed for stability. The best teams sense it early and act before the cracks turn into outages.
AI Systems Don’t Fix Bad Data, they Amplify It
AI systems amplify existing data qualifying problems rather than solving them. I experienced this first hand while scaling the Music catalog that powered recommendation , search and personalization systems at a major Music streaming service. The challenge wasn’t algorithmic sophistication, it was inconsistent metadata, misspelled genres, and missing attribution. Better models trained on messy data produce unreliable outputs.
Data quality issues often surface only in production when real users encounter edge cases. Data pipelines require the same engineering rigor as application code: versioning, testing, monitoring, and rollback capabilities.
Organizations treat this as an operations problem but it’s really an architecture problem; systems that improve data quality at the source prevent AI failures downstream. Tooling that helps content creators fix metadata during upload eliminates hours of manual cleanup later. Infrastructure that validates data schemas before ingestion catches errors before they cascade.
The insight goes beyond structured data. Computer vision models analyzing user-uploaded images need robust preprocessing. Natural language systems handling free-form text need entity recognition and intent classification, while multimodal systems fusing images, text, and audio require synchronized timestamps and contextual metadata.
Teams building AI features without addressing data quality find their initiatives stalling regardless of model sophistication. The constraint isn’t the computation or algorithms but the information that those systems consume.
Architecture Reflects the Organization That Builds It
Systems mirror the communication structures of the organizations that build them. Teams that ignore operational realities when designing software create friction that compounds over time.
I learned this while navigating a series of complex integrations and new product launches post acquisition of a BNPL offering by a Fintech giant. Integrating buy now, pay later checkout flows across multiple product lines requires understanding how money moves through systems, who handles disputes, and where regulatory requirements intersect. Technical architecture matters, but the more complex problems involve mapping business operations to service boundaries.
Marketplace platforms face similar challenges. Matching customers with service providers requires understanding how professionals operate, what information they need for accurate quotes, and when automation helps versus when it confuses. Systems that route users based purely on algorithmic optimization ignore the operational reality that some requests need human judgment.
The architectural implication is that service boundaries should align with business capabilities, not technical components. Payment processing, identity verification, and dispute resolution belong in separate services because different teams own those operations. Combining them for technical convenience creates coordination overhead that slows every future change.
Modularity as a Competitive Advantage
This principle applies to AI-powered features. Image analysis, intent classification, and provider matching serve distinct operational needs. Bundling them into monolithic models makes iteration harder. Separating them allows teams to improve components independently as new techniques emerge.
Modular design with clear interfaces between components allows teams to adapt as requirements shift. Teams building monolithic systems optimized for current requirements struggle when priorities change.
Retail platforms expand product categories constantly. Fintech companies adapt to regulatory changes quarterly. Marketplace platforms integrate new AI capabilities monthly. Systems that can’t accommodate this velocity become bottlenecks.
The right design pattern identifies which components change frequently and isolates them behind stable interfaces. Payment logic remains stable while AI models evolve. User interfaces change weekly while business rules stay consistent. Rate limiting and authentication evolve independently of the services they protect.
Yes, modularity adds upfront complexity. But it’s the difference between teams that can adapt smoothly and those stuck rewriting core systems every few years.
Beyond Transactions: Building for Human Experience
If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting TechTalks with a paid subscription (and gain access to subscriber-only posts)
Once reliability is solved, real competitive advantage shifts to reducing friction through intelligent, adaptive experiences. That requires not only solid engineering but also user empathy, clear communication, and tolerance for ambiguity.
Backend systems reward optimization and precision. Product development demands those same skills plus the ability to reason about human behavior and communicate trade-offs.
Conversational interfaces are a good example. They let customers describe needs naturally instead of navigating menus. But they introduce new complexity: understanding context, managing expectations, and handling failures gracefully.
The hardest part isn’t training the models. It’s designing pipelines that stay reliable when users provide messy inputs, ambiguous text, blurry images, background noise. Systems need to degrade gracefully rather than fail abruptly.
Engineers who combine technical depth with operational awareness and user empathy will define how AI systems actually work in practice. As models become commoditized, differentiation will come from deployment quality and experience design, not just raw accuracy.
Evolving From Transactions to Intelligence
Software development is evolving from systems that execute transactions to systems that understand intent. The fundamentals stay the same: scalability demands thoughtful architecture, AI depends on data quality, and sustainable systems must anticipate change.
The interface layer keeps expanding. Systems now interpret images, voice, and conversational context alongside clicks and forms. Each new input method creates new architectural choices where to process data, how to synchronize states, and how to fail gracefully.
Teams that design modular systems with clear boundaries handle this evolution naturally. They can swap recognition models, add input channels, and refine orchestration without rewriting the core. Teams that build tightly coupled architectures, on the other hand, find themselves rebuilding every time a new capability becomes mandatory instead of optional.
The cost gets paid either way upfront through architectural discipline or later through emergency rewrites. The best teams pay early and grow sustainably
Startups optimize for velocity. Enterprises optimize for resilience. The sweet spot lies in knowing when to switch.
Early on, getting to product-market fit matters more than architectural purity. But once you see traction, the same shortcuts that speed you up begin to slow you down. That’s the moment to invest in modularity, observability, and data quality, the foundations that let you scale without rebuilding every year.
From returns processing to AI-powered marketplaces, the principle is universal: move fast when you must, but design to last once you can. Systems that survive scale aren’t just well-coded; they’re well-timed.
About The Author
Purusoth Mahendran is a Senior Engineering Manager at Thumbtack, where he leads AI-powered initiatives transforming how customers describe and solve home service problems through innovative intelligent systems. Previously, he scaled Amazon’s returns platform from hundreds of millions to billions in processing volume and led efforts that improved the quality of metadata in Amazon Music’s catalog containing millions of tracks. At Cash App, he led critical integration efforts following Block’s acquisition of Afterpay. Purusoth specializes in building high-performing engineering teams, implementing AI solutions at scale, and mentoring emerging leaders through structured development programs.