Against the "AI-first" memo.

The phrase "AI-first" has had a good run, which is the kindest thing I can say about it. It is now doing more harm than good inside serious engineering organizations, because it is being used as a substitute for the work of figuring out which specific workflows in the company should be rebuilt, and in what order.

An "AI-first" directive, unlike a product directive, leaves every team free to interpret the mandate in its own favour. The team with the loudest champion writes the most ambitious memo, and the team with the quietest champion — often the one nearest the core of the business — is left to catch up. What you get, six months later, is a portfolio of half-finished experiments and a handful of compliance risks.

At Matador we replaced the directive with a list. Eight workflows, picked for a combination of frequency and fragility, each assigned to a single accountable engineer, each with an exit criterion. It is less quotable than "AI-first," and it has produced more.

I am not opposed to ambition. I am opposed to ambition that has not been given the courtesy of a deadline.