The Engineer's Dilemma — Why "Good Work" Doesn't Always Get Recognized
Many engineers believe that "if you build something technically excellent, it will be recognized."
However, reality doesn't always reward effort or quality proportionally.
Behind this lies a structural problem: the absence of shared criteria for "what makes something good."
In environments with limited time and resources, prioritization decisions are constantly required.
These decisions, whether explicit or implicit, are always based on values.
Even technically correct solutions can be judged as "not a priority for us right now."
It's not "we should do it because it's good,"
but rather "we do it because it aligns with the values we prioritize most"
When you understand this difference, the way you frame technology begins to change.
Learning from Experience — "Technology Without Clear Value" Is Unsustainable
A development project I was involved in once collapsed in a short period.
The cause was simple: no one could clearly articulate "what we were aiming for" or "why we were doing it now."
Even technically meaningful initiatives become fragile when "which values guide our work" remains ambiguous.
Without a shared axis of value, decisions drift toward convenience and short-term logic.
Value is not about "what is good" but about expressing "what we consider good."
Whether you can articulate this clearly determines the direction of your team.
The Difference Between Features and Value — "What It Can Do" vs. "What It Means"
Engineers are accustomed to talking about "what can be done."
However, features are not substitutes for value.
| Aspect | Feature | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Content | What it can do | Why we do it |
| Subject | Creator/Provider | Our own philosophy |
| Evaluation | Technical utility | Meaning, consistency, resonance |
The value here is not about the total amount of societal "happiness."
Rather, resonance emerges as a result of embodying what we prioritize.
Resonance is a result, not a goal.
Value is a compass for direction, and the clarity of that compass generates trust.
Value 3 Framework — Three Steps to Define and Articulate Value
Step 1: Define Your Value Focus
Not "for whom" but "what do we consider good?"
Then discover "who resonates with this way of thinking."
Reversing this order leads to being pulled by others' expectations and losing your own values.
Step 2: Articulate as a Story
Value cannot be conveyed through abstract ideals alone.
Share as a narrative: "what we aim for," "what we avoid," "why this represents us."
By expressing it as a story connecting past, present, and future, value becomes embedded in organizational culture.
Step 3: Distill into Clear Language
Ultimately, value must be expressed in concise language.
Rather than vague ideals, having "a one-sentence guideline for decisions" is crucial.
This becomes the common language supporting daily decision-making.
Organizations with a clear statement don't waver.
Organizations with only vague words spend time in endless debate.
Values Shape Strategy
Even with the same goals, different underlying values produce entirely different strategies.
One organization prioritizes "precision," while another centers on "speed" or "flexibility."
It's not about which is superior—what you prioritize becomes your organization's identity.
With clear values, decisions remain consistent.
Conversely, organizations with ambiguous values see priorities shift with circumstances, leading to drift.
That's why expressing value criteria in a few words is not merely slogan-making—
it's an act that sharpens decision-making precision.
The Power to Articulate Value and Your Career
The ability to articulate value is not just communication skill.
It's the thinking ability to clarify "what criteria guide my decisions and what future I envision."
People with this ability provide direction regardless of their position.
Meanwhile, no matter how technically skilled, those who cannot articulate value find their influence limited—
their reasoning doesn't reach others.
I believe the power to articulate value will become increasingly important.
Not as a global trend, but because in this complex era, we're increasingly asked "what do we rely on?"
In times of uncertainty, what guides people and organizations is not technology but clarity of value criteria.
Common Ground and Differences with Design Thinking
Value thinking often overlaps with design thinking.
Both share the process of exploring better solutions through empathy, concretization, and validation.
However, they differ in focus.
| Aspect | Design Thinking | Value Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Starting Point | Empathy with others (their challenges) | Our own values (what we consider good) |
| Purpose | Creating solutions | Clarifying decision criteria |
| Result | Prototypes, ideas | Decision consistency, culture formation |
While design thinking focuses on "finding better solutions,"
value thinking is the act of "defining what makes something good."
In other words, design thinking is a "creative process," while value thinking is "establishing philosophy."
Both complement each other, forming two wheels for organizational and individual maturation.
Conclusion — Technology Is "A Means to Live Our Values"
Technology is not the goal but the means to embody value.
When we have clear criteria for what we consider good and what we aim for,
technology becomes not just a deliverable but a mirror reflecting "who we are" to society.
Value is not about conforming to others.
Rather, it's about being able to quietly say, "this is the path we choose."
It's this stance that earns resonance and trust.
While honing technical skills, also hone the ability to articulate value.
This is the new intelligence required of engineers navigating an era of change.
Top comments (0)