I have never heard of this approach. It does sound interesting in theory, but I have a hard time seeing this work beyond the simplest of CRUD apps.

My initial concerns would be:

- Maintainability: the "duct-tape logic", as you put it, sounds like spaghetti code from hell. Making sense of a feature comprised of tons of chained third party calls will be a nightmare.

- Expressiveness: complex functionality may require complex code. I don't quite understand how you would write even medium complexity algorithms using this system.

- Reliability and performance: you are now entirely at the mercy of third party providers. This is often the case with SaaS products, but this seems like a particularly severe case. Each hop reduces performance as well, which may impact user experience (assuming we're talking about user-facing features).

- Quality: by moving business logic out of code, you're throwing out testability, so no more unit tests. I guess integration tests could still happen, but they're going to be slow, expensive, and involve someone writing the actual code - which, given the premise of product managers creating features, seems very unlikely.

Code is data but now no data is code.

this only works for very early stage

Sounds quite similar to how running an internal dev shop in an enterprise environment used to be, before SaaS apps took over. "Power users" would write basic apps in SharePoint, Domino, Business Objects, or other such "low-code" platforms... even Salesforce in its early days. It worked fine for department-level CRUD/LOB apps. If anything they were doing grew and became important enough that their lack of engineering skills became a problem, us IT folks would come in, take over the app, refactor it, and make in an officially supported app. But we would have hundreds of half-baked apps out there that were good enough to handle the small stuff that small business groups needed. We focused on keeping the platforms up to date, running well, setting up various data they could query, etc.

This is not the new normal.

Engineering should be doing the engineering.

Product should be doing product.

DevOps should be providing infra.

If end users want to use a report generator or setup a notification rule that's one thing but duct taping features together never is sustainable.

The hardest part is a good authz system.

Has anyone else tried this kind of setup?

Yes.

We don’t even have the budget to hire non-technical people for tech products. Everybody gotta code. We also avoid feature bloat.

We focus only on core features. If someone has an idea and can build it, they’re welcome to try. But most ideas won’t make it to production.

I like to point back at an ancient pattern in engineering: prototypes.

Prototypes are built to learn. They're not optimized nor efficient. They don't scale. They discover what needs to be built and are then thrown away. They should not be sold into production. Learning also includes getting user feedback, or finding out whether all the systems play together well.

Once the prototype is valid, pass it to an engineer to build it in properly and efficiently.

Another variation might be turning the engineers into ops. I did that early on at a startup. We built the whole delivery management system in 3 days - who ordered what, the state of it being delivered (packed/in delivery), informing buyers of product tracking number, asking them whether it was received in good condition, flagging things that have exceeded delivery time, etc. This was before AI and I built it so damn fast because it's a pain to handle this process on spreadsheet. The downside was that orders in those 3 days were delayed by 3 days.

But the big downside to engineers doing these is that you have to pay them engineer salaries. If it leads to a world where marketers can be given engineer salaries and engineers can be given marketing jobs, maybe we're in a better place?

this approach is cool for speed and small teams but duct-taping features with low/no code tools quickly gets messy. you lose the deep control engineers provide and debugging complex flows turns into nightmare mode. also testing? good luck with automated tests when your logic is scattered across 5 different services and zapier chains. scaling this needs discipline or you’ll end up with a brittle spaghetti monster nobody wants to touch.

it’s a neat hack but definitely not the new normal for anything beyond MVPs or tiny startups.

This is a fascinating model, thanks for sharing. The classic "engineering as the bottleneck" problem is something every product engineer feels, so I deeply appreciate the desire to solve it.

I'm intrigued by this API-first approach, and it's left me with a few questions from my perspective as an engineer who builds product features:

How do you handle features with complex UI/UX? While a push notification is a perfect fit, how would a non-eng person build, say, a new analytics dashboard with interactive charts or a multi-step modal view? Is there a clear line where a feature's complexity means it has to go back to the engineering team?

Who owns the holistic user experience? With different people building features decentrally, how do you ensure the product feels cohesive and not just a collection of disconnected Zapier flows? I imagine maintaining a consistent design system and user journey could be a challenge.

You mentioned the "duct-tape logic" problem. This is the part that resonates—and worries—me most. Do you have a formal process for refactoring or "graduating" a successful duct-tape solution into a core, robust, engineer-built API? How do you manage that accumulating technical debt?

As an engineer, the idea of focusing solely on clean, scalable APIs is incredibly appealing. At the same time, there's a certain joy in crafting and shipping a polished feature directly to users. It's a really interesting trade-off you've presented.

Thanks again for the thought-provoking post.