Seed Stage: Sales Feature vs Engineering Refactor

RECOMMENDATION: Feature-First with Scoped Refactor

RATIONALE:
At seed stage with 3 engineers, survival depends on customer acquisition and revenue validation. A 2-month full refactor blocks feature velocity during the critical window where you need to prove product-market fit. However, ignoring all tech debt creates long-term problems.

PRIORITIZATION FRAMEWORK (weighted for seed stage):

TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS:

RECOMMENDED APPROACH: Feature + Surgical Refactor

Deliver the sales feature BUT incorporate targeted refactoring within the work:

• Refactor ONLY the code paths touched by the new feature
• Modernize as you build, not as standalone work
• 20% time budget for cleanup in feature delivery

Engineering gets: Incremental improvement, modernized foundation for future features
Sales gets: Q1 feature delivery
Company gets: Revenue progress + healthier codebase

STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATION PLANS:

To Sales (YES - Priority #1):
“I’m prioritizing your Q1 feature for delivery. This directly supports customer acquisition and revenue validation during our critical seed stage. Delivery by end of Q1. I need your input on the top 3 customers who need this feature so we can validate requirements and get early feedback within 2 weeks.”

To Engineering (BUNDLED APPROACH):
“I’m prioritizing the sales feature but bundling surgical refactoring within the work. As we build the feature, we’ll modernize the code paths we touch - bringing 20-30% of the system to the quality standards you want. This gives you incremental improvement while delivering business value. After Q1 feature ships, we’ll evaluate a full refactor based on what we learn.

Alternative: If there’s a specific high-leverage refactor (e.g., auth system, data layer) that takes 2 weeks and unblocks multiple features, let’s scope that as Phase 0 before feature work. But NOT a 2-month everything-refactor.”

ROADMAP:

Month 1 (Jan):
├─ [Optional] High-leverage refactor (2 weeks max) if identified
├─ Q1 Feature development with surgical refactoring (2-3 weeks)
└─ Outcome: Feature alpha ready, 20-30% code modernization

Month 2 (Feb):
├─ Q1 Feature completion + testing (2 weeks)
├─ Customer validation + feedback (1 week)
├─ Launch preparation (1 week)
└─ Outcome: Feature shipped, customer traction data

Month 3 (Mar):
├─ Iterate based on feedback (2 weeks)
├─ Decision point: Full refactor OR next feature based on Q1 learnings
└─ Outcome: Data-driven roadmap for Q2

DECISION CRITERIA FOR Q2:

If Q1 feature shows strong traction → Continue feature velocity
If technical issues block progress → Commit to focused refactor
If customer feedback unclear → Fast follow experiments

ESCALATION PREVENTION:

1. Align founder/CEO on seed-stage priorities (revenue validation first)
2. Create visible roadmap showing both feature AND code quality improvements
3. Weekly engineering sync to surface blocking technical issues
4. Transparent trade-off communication: “We’re choosing speed to market over perfect code, then iterating”
5. Bi-weekly updates to sales on feature progress

WHY THIS WORKS AT SEED STAGE:

• 3 engineers can’t afford 2-month zero-output periods
• Sales features create customer feedback loops essential for PMF
• Surgical refactoring prevents catastrophic tech debt while shipping
• Preserves optionality: Refactor fully in Q2 if Q1 validates need
• Demonstrates to investors you can ship AND maintain quality

RED FLAGS TO WATCH:

• If “surgical refactoring” scope creeps to 50%+ of time → Pause and reassess
• If engineering threatens to quit over tech debt → Schedule dedicated refactor sprint
• If sales feature fails validation → Pivot immediately, consider full refactor
• If feature takes >2 months → Technical issues may warrant refactor-first approach