Resource Center

Clear Measure provides resources to empower software leaders and developers in software delivery, fulfilling our vision to improve and inspire software teams worldwide.
Artificial intelligence is transforming software development, but its impact extends far beyond code generation. This session examines AI through an engineering lens, starting with the computational realities of large language models: they can answer well-formed questions and generate solutions, but they cannot reliably formulate hypotheses, determine when a task is complete, or evaluate the quality of their own output. These limitations make external validation, testing, and architectural oversight essential. The presentation explores the practical implications for software teams, including distinguishing architectural concerns from implementation details, applying risk-based code review, and redesigning build-and-test pipelines to keep pace with AI-accelerated development. It also revisits Fred Brooks’ surgical-team model, arguing that AI amplifies the effectiveness of small, highly skilled teams rather than replacing engineering judgment. Finally, it considers the economic and organizational consequences of dramatically reducing the cost of software creation and examines why software measurement techniques such as function-point analysis remain relevant. The central argument is simple: AI changes how software is built, but the fundamentals of architecture, quality assurance, and systematic validation become more important—not less. Webinar transcript: https://clearmeasure.com/ai-driven-software-engineering-transcript/  
In this episode, host Jonathan “J.” Tower sat down with Jeffrey Palermo, CTO and Chairman at Clear Measure, to talk about what changes in software development once AI writes much of the code, and what doesn’t. Jeffrey argues this shift is different in kind from the web, agile, mobile, and cloud transitions that came before it, because it changes how we interact with a computer rather than just how we write code. He’s equally direct about the limits. A language model is very good at answering questions and has no way to come up with one worth asking, which is the part that still has to come from us. From there, J. and Jeffrey get into why the definition of “good” has to come from outside the model. In practice, that means automated tests as the external standard and builds fast enough to keep pace with how quickly AI now changes code. Jeffrey makes the case that the ten-minute build that felt fast in the DevOps era is too slow now, and that getting down to two minutes means running every stage in parallel instead of in sequence. They also dig into which code is structural and which is decoration (his skyscraper analogy is worth the listen), why Fred Brooks’s surgical team is relevant again, and his prediction that the separate IT department is on its way out. If you’re trying to work out what software engineering discipline looks like on the other side of AI, this episode is for you.
Every engineering leader eventually hits the same fork in the road. A system is unstable, a project is behind schedule, or a team is missing a skill it needs right now. The instinct is to hire. But the cost of hiring a software engineer runs higher, and takes longer to pay off, than most budgets account for, and hiring alone doesn't guarantee the underlying problem actually gets fixed. The Cost of Hiring a Software Engineer or Architect The median annual wage for a software developer in the United States was $133,080 as of May 2024, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That figure is base salary only. It doesn't include benefits, payroll taxes, or the rest of the overhead that comes with a full-time employee.   Employer benefit costs currently add roughly 30 percent on top of wages for private industry workers, according to BLS data from March 2026. Applied to a $133,080 salary, that works out to a little under $40,000 a year in additional cost, on top of wages, before the person has written a single line of code. That $40,000 figure is our own calculation based on the two cited BLS numbers, not a separate published statistic, but the math is straightforward: salary times the benefits-load percentage.   Then there's the timeline. SHRM's 2025 recruiting benchmarking data puts average time-to-fill at about a month and a half. For specialized or senior technical roles, that number tends to stretch further, since the pool of qualified candidates is smaller and interview cycles run longer. The same data shows executive-level cost-per-hire is up 113 percent since 2017 and 21 percent since 2022 alone. Third-party analyses of SHRM's benchmarking data put average cost-per-hire somewhere in the $4,700 to $5,500 range for non-executive roles. SHRM's own full dollar figure sits behind member access, so treat that specific range as directional rather than an exact SHRM-published number. The Costs Nobody Budgets For None of the numbers above account for ramp-up. A new hire, even a strong one, needs weeks or months to understand an existing codebase: its architecture, its quirks, and the reasoning behind decisions made years before they joined. During that stretch, the problem that triggered the hire in the first place is still unresolved.   And if that person eventually leaves, so does everything they learned along the way. Institutional knowledge about why a system works the way it does doesn't always transfer well before someone's last day. Whoever comes next often ends up rebuilding that same context, on roughly the same timeline, at roughly the same cost. Long-Term Hire vs. Specialized Team: A Side-by-Side Look Long-term hire Specialized engagement team Median annual wage $133,080 (BLS, May 2024 data) Scoped to the engagement, not an ongoing salary Benefits and payroll overhead Adds roughly 30% on top of wages (BLS, March 2026) Not applicable Average time to fill the role About six weeks (SHRM 2025 benchmarking) Engagement can typically begin in days Recruiting cost Commonly cited in the $4,700 to $5,500 range per hire (SHRM-based industry benchmarking) None Ramp-up to full productivity Weeks to months, even after the offer is signed Existing methodology and tooling shorten ramp time What's left behind if the person leaves Institutional knowledge often leaves with them Documented practices and a trained team remain Why Fixing the Problem Isn't Enough A team that comes in, patches the immediate issue, and leaves solves today's problem. It doesn't always prevent tomorrow's version of the same problem. That cost usually doesn't show up on the invoice. It shows up months later, when the same class of issue resurfaces because nobody on the internal team understands why the original fix worked, or how to extend it as the system changes.   That's a different failure mode than a bad hire or a slow recruiting cycle, but it can be just as expensive over time.   The alternative is an engagement built around transfer, not just repair: fix the issue, and leave the internal team able to maintain and extend that fix on their own after the engagement ends. That's the idea behind Optimize the Team, one of the five pillars in Clear Measure's own delivery methodology. What That Trade-off Looks Like in Practice This pattern shows up across Clear Measure's own case studies. At Alphapoint, increasing utilization of Octopus Deploy's automation features from 10 percent to 80 percent raised productivity by more than 84 percent. A jump like that doesn't come from a single fix. It comes from a team using more of the tooling it already owns, correctly, which takes someone who understands both the tool and the client's environment well enough to teach the difference.   Solera is the clearest example of fixing and teaching together. The company had been dealing with old deployment software and failed builds and releases. Clear Measure modernized its TeamCity and Octopus Deploy pipelines, and the engagement didn't stop at eliminating the errors. It included team training on the updated tools, so Solera's own team could run the new pipeline without depending on outside help once the engagement wrapped. Clear Measure builds that into its Octopus Deploy services directly, including a structured, multi-hour training session led by a Clear Measure architect covering build server integration, release strategies, and best practices.   Other engagements show a similar pattern with different details. One eLearning platform client automated server provisioning and configuration, cutting build times by 85 percent and stabilizing its AWS environments. S3, a line resolution and claims administration provider, had reached the point where its original system, built on LightSwitch under earlier budget constraints, had become unmaintainable: changes slowed the whole application down, invalid data was causing runtime errors, and support ticket volume was climbing. Clear Measure rebuilt the system using .NET and N-tier architecture, then kept rolling out new features without the delays that had plagued the old system, at a lower cost of service delivery. S3's CEO described it less as a software delivery and more as a shift in how the company thought about improving its own operations.   Marlette Funding is a longer-view example. After Clear Measure helped build a business-critical, message-based system with strong reliability guarantees, Marlette grew from a startup to closing more than $1 billion in loans within four years. Hardy Food Delivery saw a more immediate return: streamlined deployment timing decreased the average cost of implementing new features by more than 75 percent.   In each case, the client's own team came out of the engagement able to do more than it could going in. Weighing the Trade-off None of this means hiring is the wrong move. Every engineering organization needs full-time people who know its systems cold, and no engagement replaces that. But when the goal is solving a specific, urgent problem and making sure it doesn't come back, the math looks different than a standard hiring decision. Cost per hour and time to start both matter, but so does what the internal team can still do on its own once the work is finished.   That calculation is shifting further in the client's favor. AI-assisted development lets Clear Measure deliver on engagements like these more efficiently than in the past, which shortens the time it takes for the investment to pay off.   If that's the problem in front of you right now, request a conversation with Clear Measure to talk through what fixing it, and leaving your team stronger for it, could look like.   Sources referenced in this post:
  • Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook: Software Developers (median wage, May 2024 data)
  • Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, March 2026 (benefits load)
  • SHRM, 2025 Recruiting Executives Benchmarking (time-to-fill, cost-per-hire trend)
 

Many organizations are investing in AI tools, but few are seeing measurable improvements in software delivery. In this webinar, Jeffrey Palermo introduces the AI Software Factory—an orchestration pattern that helps software leaders improve throughput by combining AI automation with quality, stability, and end-to-end visibility.

Through live demonstrations, you'll learn how AI can automate repetitive work, enrich planning and testing, streamline production incident response, and provide the metrics needed to measure delivery performance and AI ROI. The session also explores why quality and stability are essential before scaling AI and shares practical guidance for implementing AI in a way that supports long-term software delivery success.

Jeffrey Palermo, CTO & Chairman of Clear Measure, walks through the AI Software Factory pattern in this Austin .NET User Group presentation, an executive-level framework for orchestrating how software moves through an organization to increase throughput while keeping quality high.

The session makes the case that AI builds on top of good software delivery fundamentals, not around them. Teams still struggling with escaped defects, production instability, or an incomplete DevOps environment will not benefit from AI until those are solved.

Live demos cover automated production incident resolution, a software delivery scorecard with forecasting, and auto-generated architecture documentation pulled from source code. The core takeaway is that AI works best on easy, well-defined work. Start there, measure the impact, and let human judgment handle the rest.

There is a version of AI adoption that most engineering organizations are living right now: tools get approved, some gains show up, gains plateau, and the conversation shifts to which tools to try next.  Then there is a different version. A project scoped for 26 weeks completes in 6. A labor budget of $875,000 delivers for $202,000. Defect prevention reaches 99%. ROI is realized within 21 weeks of go-live.  The difference between these two outcomes is not which tools the team used. It is what the delivery environment was built to do. Not sure what an AI Software Factory actually looks like in practice? Watch Jeffrey break it down in under two minutes.

Coding Is No Longer the Constraint 

Since Clear Measure's founding, the approach has been to front-load automation that drives quality and stability. The goal has always been to make the computer do all the work that it can.  With today's AI capabilities, even more work can be delegated safely to machines. Tasks that once took significant time no longer do. Coding is no longer the primary constraint.  That puts the focus where it belongs: architecture, strategy, and judgment.  AI isn't the strategy. It's a force multiplier when paired with discipline.  The teams still treating AI as a coding accelerator are missing the larger shift. When coding is largely automated, the constraint moves upstream to architecture and design. Teams can focus more on doing the right things for the customer market rather than on the mechanics of producing code.   

The Pattern Behind Every Major Engineering Shift 

Over time, Agile adoption led us to work in smaller batches. DevOps led us to automate the complete flow from software builds to the customer.  The AI Software Factory is the next step in that progression. It pulls automation from builds and deployments into every activity of software delivery and extends telemetry to the full process as well.  An AI Software Factory is a system that increases software delivery throughput while maintaining very high quality. It is an executive-level architecture pattern that empowers business executives to oversee software organizations. It enforces quality, stability, and speed while leveraging AI to automate repetitive work. It produces metric-based project scorecards daily and weekly so that executives know what is happening and can tune the organization.  This ensures software is delivered consistently to production in a visible way. Automation, scorecards, and guardrails provide clarity on quality, stability, and progress, so AI accelerates delivery instead of increasing risk.   

What AI Software Factory Produces 

The outcomes from a properly implemented AI Software Factory are specific and measurable:  77% reduction in project delivery timeline. A project scoped for 26 weeks completes in 6. The same scope, the same requirements, a fraction of the calendar time.  99% defect prevention rate. Up from the 95% industry baseline. Defects are caught automatically before they reach production rather than being discovered by users after the fact.  100% ROI within 21 weeks of go-live. A project that would have required $875,000 in labor delivers for $202,000, approximately $673,000 in savings. Measured against a typical implementation investment, those savings produce a full return within 21 weeks.  These are not projections. They come from building the delivery environment correctly: quality automation, repeatable deployment, architectural discipline, and AI-embedded throughout rather than bolted onto the end.   

Higher Throughput Without Higher Risk 

AI-driven development builds on Agile, DevOps, and test-driven development. It enhances and accelerates the software engineer’s workflow and inner loop.  AI tools can generate code, run private builds, and execute full test suites, but only inside disciplined guardrails and environments designed for it. AI agents don't bypass quality gates or push code unless everything passes.  That is what separates using AI tools from practicing AI-driven development: higher throughput without higher risk.  AI-driven development is the practice of modern software engineering to produce sustainable results. It separates the engineers from the vibe coders.  We don't lead with tools. We lead with outcomes. AI becomes part of how the team works, with discipline, not improvisation.   

What This Means for Your Team 

AI is a tremendous automation tool for software-enabled companies. It is not a tool designed to reduce or eliminate software engineering jobs.  Adopting AI does not immediately shrink engineering teams. What it does is enable companies to compete more aggressively. With AI, software teams can get more done, faster, and with higher quality. You can deliver more value, respond to the market more quickly, and grow.  As organizations grow, each software team member gets more leverage. You are able to accomplish far more per person than before. Over time, labor decreases when measured as a percentage of total revenue. But that is not because jobs were eliminated. It is because growth was enabled.  AI expands what your teams are capable of. It empowers engineers instead of replacing them.  Concerned about what AI means for your engineering team? Jeffrey addresses it directly.  

See It in Motion 

If you want to see the AI Software Factory working end-to-end before evaluating whether it is relevant to your organization, Clear Measure recently hosted a live demonstration. Real work items, real automation, real delivery metrics updating in real time. Watch the recording here.  For a walkthrough tailored to your specific stack and starting point, live demo sessions are available and kept small for actual conversation.   

The Starting Point 

The fastest way to understand where your organization stands relative to this architecture is the Clear Measure AI DevOps Inspection, a structured evaluation of your current delivery environment across every dimension that determines AI adoption readiness.  It produces a concrete roadmap: what is already working, what gaps exist, and what to address first to unlock the outcomes the AI Software Factory makes possible.   

In Summary 

The direction the industry is heading is clear. Business software will increasingly be designed by engineers and architects, with AI handling the construction. The organizations building those disciplines now will be the ones leading when it becomes the standard.   
This builds on our AI Software Factory demonstrations that we have already done. For implementing the AI Software Factory pattern in your organization, the first objective is Clarity. That starts with measurement. If we believe that AI automation will help software delivery, we need measurements in place to give us visibility into the success of the AI implementation. Join us to learn how to start measuring and reporting on software delivery throughput, as well as DORA metrics and others.

Jeffrey Palermo, CTO & Chairman of Clear Measure, presented the AI Software Factory, an executive-level architectural pattern for orchestrating software delivery from idea to production. He opened by addressing a core problem: software delivery has become the constraint in most organizations, and teams can't simply work faster when defects and production incidents are constantly consuming capacity. Poorly engineered AI adoption doesn't solve this, it just ships bugs faster. The AI Software Factory is the next evolution following Agile, DevOps, and cloud adoption, orchestrating people, processes, and automation across the entire delivery lifecycle.

A key theme throughout was that visibility must come before automation. Using a live Kanban board demo and a real client project, Jeffrey showed how a weekly scorecard tracking throughput, mean time to delivery, escape defects, and production incidents reveals bottlenecks and process gaps that would otherwise stay hidden. From there, AI automation is introduced intentionally, starting with simple, low-risk tasks, and always measured against the scorecard to confirm real improvement. Clear Measure's goal is to help organizations build software delivery systems that safely exploit AI without destabilizing their business.

A production support team at a digital-first insurance company was spending significant time on repetitive manual tasks like resolving import failures, investigating logs, and refining tasks. These issues occurred multiple times per week, with import failures taking about an hour each, log investigations around two hours per incident, and task refinement requiring several developer hours weekly. This limited their ability to focus on higher-value work, and AI adoption across teams was initially limited.

Clear Measure helped address these challenges by introducing Cursor for repeated tasks, sharing skills and workflows with the team, and providing training for developers, team leads, BSAs, and QA. Time was also allocated to rebuild workflows using Cursor. As a result, the team saw major efficiency gains: import failures dropped to about 15 minutes, log investigations to around 20 minutes, and task refinement to 1–2 hours per week. Issue investigation time decreased, several production issues were resolved the same day, and AI adoption continued to grow across the organization.

Filters

The Five Pillars
The Five Pillars
Show more
Content Type
Content Type
Show more
Category
Category
Show more