Slow Down, Understand the Domain, and Then Build

Many software projects begin with excitement. The team gets together, talks about new ideas, and wants to build something great. In these early meetings, a lot of technical terms are thrown around. Patterns like hexagonal architecture, clean architecture, clean code, DDD, event sourcing etc. are mentioned. They discuss which framework is best for the front end. They discuss which framework is best suited for the front end. They even talk about their preferences in database technologies: NoSQL vs SQL, or what's being hyped at the moment. But in all of this, they rarely talk about the core business problem or domain. It is common to see a strong focus on technology choices before anyone understands what needs to be built and why.

I have seen this happen many times. It is not that these developers are doing anything bad. They want to make sure the project is set up for success. They want to avoid having to make big architectural changes in the future. They think, "Let's define the patterns now, so we don't have to refactor everything later. This impulse makes sense, but it often leads to a state of confusion. The team has a fancy design, but no one is quite sure what the real value of the software should be.

Early Optimizations and Patterns

If you have been part of such projects, you know the rush to define everything up front. There is a belief that we must have a perfect foundation. Teams say, “We need a hexagonal architecture because it will allow us to switch out external systems easily,” or “We should set up a microservices architecture so we can scale later.” These are not bad ideas by themselves. The problem is they take center stage before the real business needs are understood.

In many projects, the team does not know how much data needs to be processed. They might not know how fast the system must run to meet user expectations. They have not spoken with actual users or stakeholders about their real problems. Without that information, choosing any design or architectural style is like guessing. It might work out, or it might turn into a structure that is too big or too small for the real project needs.

The Risk of Losing Focus on the Domain

When a software team jumps into patterns and technology first, they miss out on crucial understanding of the domain. The domain is the world in which your product will operate. It includes the users, business rules, regulations, and workflows. It is important to explore these details before deciding how to build the software.

If you skip these conversations, you are left with a technical shell. (That's what I observe most of the time.) It may have the best code style, and it might be ready to integrate with any service you can think of. But you may end up with software that does not solve actual problems. You risk spending weeks or months on development, only to realize that what you built does not match the real business goals. At that point, changes can be costly, and the team morale might drop.

Focusing on the domain first helps you see which features matter the most. It reveals which parts of the system are likely to change. It also uncovers critical details about data volumes and performance needs. With this knowledge, you can choose a suitable architecture. Maybe you do not need a complex structure for a small application. Or maybe you need something more robust. Unless you learn the domain and become a domain expert over time, you will never know.

Why We Gravitate to Technology First

Developers learn about new frameworks or architectures and want to use them right away. This is partly driven by curiosity and the desire to keep skills fresh. It is also fun to experiment with new techniques. Some teams might also fear that if they do not get the architecture right from the start, they will have to spend a lot of time refactoring.

There is also an industry trend that pushes for best practices from day one. Many blogs and talks suggest certain patterns are “the only way” to do things. The problem with this industry is that it usually has no real connection to reality. It has often never done real projects or solved real problems.

In reality, every project has different needs. You can follow a set of so called best practices and still fail if the product does not deliver what users want. On the flip side, many successful projects began with a simpler approach and adjusted over time, once they found their market or understood the domain better.

Teams also feel pressure to show progress quickly. Stakeholders want to see something running. They might be less impressed by a series of conversations with users or subject matter experts. So the team jumps into coding. They set up a fancy architecture that looks nice in diagrams. This can impress some people initially, but if the final product is not aligned with real needs, it will not matter how pretty the code is.

Balancing Technical and Domain Considerations

It does not mean we ignore technology altogether. We need to pay attention to it at a certain point. The key is to balance the learning phase with the designing phase. Before locking in your framework or architecture, spend some time talking to the people who will use the software or benefit from it. Understand their pain points, how they do their jobs, and what they wish the new system could do for them.

You can start by prototyping. Prototypes are small experiments that test assumptions. They are quick to build and throw away. During this stage, you might discover that some of your initial technical ideas are overkill. Or you might find that you actually do need certain optimizations because the data is bigger than you thought. Either way, your decisions will be driven by concrete findings, not just guesswork.

In parallel, it is fine to keep patterns and practices in mind. You can set coding standards, choose a programming language, or decide on a framework that is common within your team. You might prefer certain database solutions if your team has expertise in them. The difference is you do not lock everything down before you understand the main problems. You stay open to changing the approach if new information comes in.

Embracing Continuous Learning

Software development is rarely a straight line. It is a path with twists and turns. Business requirements change. You learn new things about the domain that you did not know at the start. The teams should engage in this learning process and adapt their architecture and design accordingly. They do not see it as a failure to rework parts of the system. They see it as a natural part of building software that actually delivers value.

If you pick a pattern like hexagonal architecture, that is fine. But do it because you have a specific reason that ties back to the domain or to the expected evolution of the system. For example, if you know that the application will need to integrate with several external services that might change over time, then hexaagonal architecture could be a good choice. But if you only have a single integration point that is unlikely to change, then a simpler approach will do the job.

The same goes for performance optimizations. If you know the system will handle millions of records and require near real-time responses, then design for that. But if your data is much smaller, you can start simple and optimize later if you need to. Avoid the trap of adding complexity for problems you do not actually have.

How to Shift Focus onto the Domain

1. Ask questions early: What problem are we solving? Who are the users? How will they benefit? Find out what kind of data you will be dealing with and how large it might be. If you do not have exact numbers, try to get a rough estimate.
2. Talk to stakeholders: This includes end users, managers, and anyone else who might be affected by the software. Ask about their workflows, their biggest hassles, and their wish list of features.
3. Map out the workflow: Draw a simple diagram of how the business process looks without the software. Then place the software in the process and see where it fits. This helps you understand the context before jumping into code.
4. Start with small prototypes: Build a quick version of a key feature to test an idea. Show it to real users. Gather feedback. This way you can confirm if you are on the right track before investing too heavily in architecture.
5. Review and adapt: As you learn more, adjust your design. If you realize a certain pattern is not needed, let it go. If you find out you need more flexibility, bring in a pattern that supports that. Keep an open mind.
6. Make it simple when you can: Complexity is not always a badge of honor. If a simple solution solves the problem, that is usually better.

Conclusion

When we focus on technology before the domain, we risk building something that does not solve real problems. We pour time into patterns and optimizations that might never be used. We run the danger of missing deadlines or wasting resources because the core business issues remain unclear.

By taking the time to learn about the domain first, we create a clear path for our project. We see what features matter most. We gather real data about how much the system will grow or change. Then we choose technology patterns that fit those needs. This approach feels slower at the start, but it saves time and frustration in the long run.

Remember that your goal is not just to write code. It is to solve a problem or deliver value. Knowing the domain and the willingness to become a domain expert is the best way to guide your technical decisions. This approach leads to software that people actually want to use. It also leads to more satisfied development teams, because their efforts are focused on building something that matters. By slowing down to understand the domain, you can move faster in the long run.

Cheers!