We've all been there. You're deep into a project, and before you know it, the solution has spiraled into something far more complex than necessary. You're building the tech equivalent of a Swiss Army knife when all you needed was a pair of scissors. It's easy to fall into the trap of over-engineering, especially when ambition and creativity are flowing.

But what if I told you the solution might be to embrace a little bit of laziness? Yeah, you read that right. The good kind of lazy.

Who is the 'Good' Lazy Team Member?

In mentoring, we often come across that one team member who questions everything-but not in a negative way. They're the person who constantly asks, "Have we done this before?" or "Why do we need to do it this way when there's an easier option?" These aren't just throwaway questions; they're part of a mindset focused on hyper-efficiency, ensuring we don't reinvent the wheel.

This "good lazy" team member is a strategic asset, especially in agile teams. They're the ones who focus on streamlining processes, optimizing what's already been done, and keeping solutions as simple as possible. They bring up critical questions that steer projects away from unnecessary complexity and over-architecting solutions. In a fast-paced software development environment, these team members help us stay grounded and focus on what's truly necessary.

Over-Architecting - The Hidden Productivity Killer

Over-engineering might seem harmless at first. After all, more features can't hurt, right? Wrong.

It starts with good intentions. You're excited about the project, you want to make sure it's scalable, future-proof, flexible. So, you build it bigger. You account for every possible use case, throw in features "just in case," and before you know it, you've got a massive, complex system that no one really knows how to use-or maintain.

And the worst part? Most of it wasn't even necessary.

The Lazy Mindset in Action

I've had the privilege of working with people who embody the 'good' lazy approach. These individuals cut through the noise and deliver exactly what's needed, no more, no less. They ask the right questions:

• "Do we really need this feature right now?"
• "Can we achieve the same result with less code?"
• "Is this architecture solving a real problem, or are we just making it complicated for the sake of it?"

In agile teams, this mindset becomes critical. The goal is to deliver fast, iterate, and adapt. Over-architecting only slows this process down. The "good lazy" team member is the one who keeps us in check, ensuring we stay lean and agile while delivering solutions that solve today's problems without introducing tomorrow's headaches.

Why Simplicity Wins Every Time

Here's the thing: simplicity works. Simple solutions are easier to maintain, faster to implement, and less likely to break under pressure. And in most cases, they meet the actual needs of the user without the overhead of unnecessary complexity.

I'm not saying you should never think about future needs or dismiss more complex architecture patterns that might be useful tomorrow. But be practical. If you're highly confident that a little extra architecture is warranted today because it's easier to implement now rather than patching it in six months later, then absolutely spend the time to do it.

However, if you're devising solutions to problems that don't exist yet and are highly unlikely to ever exist, then... don't waste time. The 'good' lazy team member reminds us that just because we can build something now, it doesn't always mean we should. They help us focus on what's essential today, rather than what might be needed at some undefined point in the future.

A Real-World Example

I often find myself needing to resist the urge to over-architect because... I truly enjoy what I do and sometimes want to build something because it's more fun / interesting. I find it fun to try to plan for tomorrow when possible because it feels good to come back six months later and realize, "Yeah, we saw this coming and planned for that, and now we can implement the future requirement more efficiently" making you seem like a hero to the business. But like all things, it's a balance.

To drive the point home, check out this YouTube short. It perfectly illustrates how over-architecting can come back to add confusion in just six months. It's a humorous take but hits close to reality for many of us in tech.

You don't want to end up with your own "NounActivitier" and, in six months, waste time looking for the right code to enhance because it's so abstract that you can't find what you need. Especially when you think about it and realize the business is highly unlikely to need that abstract behavior. And with modern IDEs, how hard is it really to rename or refactor a class to make it more intuitive for a future requirement when it comes up?

Wrapping It Up

So, the next time you're in the thick of a project and everything's getting a little too complicated, take a step back. Find the lazy person on your team (or channel your inner one), and ask yourself if there's a simpler way to get the job done. Odds are, there is.

And trust me, your future self-and your team-will thank you for it.

What Do You Think?

What have you seen as the balance between being 'too lazy' vs. 'efficient lazy'? Share your experiences or thoughts in the comments below. Let's start a conversation on how embracing simplicity can lead to greater success.