On Brainstorming and Thinking Strategically🧠

Now, this doesn't mean ignoring reality. There are laws of physics. There are real limits to the capabilities of humans and the technologies we possess. But when we immediately jump to "that's impossible," we shut down exploration before it even begins.

Instead, we want to think about what it would take and the limitations we face getting there.

Big Vision Thinking vs Clear Path Thinking

Let me illustrate with an extreme example.

If I told you I want to send a message to Alpha Centauri and have it reach them by Christmas, you might immediately want to say "that's impossible, it can't be done" and look at me a little silly for even thinking we can do that.

But that's clear path thinking that immediately stifles any opportunity for innovation or exploration of alternatives.

If you were to instead tell me: "We would need technology that allows us to break the speed of light," this now not only brings forward the limitations (the speed of light), but also communicates where energy would be needed if we wanted to overcome the limitation.

A master of strategic thinking might push even further: "We don't currently have a solution for that, so that needs some R&D that would likely be expensive with no guarantee of return, or we'd have to find an acquisition that could be completed in time for Christmas."

Now we've provided an improbable, but possible (if you squint) path forward.

It's one you might be unlikely to pursue (arguably crazy if you did), but you are paving the way for alternatives to be discussed, or pivots to a lower goal. Maybe now that I know no one else is going to do this soon, "by Christmas 2050" is OK, and now the speed of light is no longer the main limitation.

Real-World Applications for Developers

Often these types of situations aren't as dramatic as physical impossibilities. They're everyday technical challenges that feel impossible at first glance.

Example: The "Impossible" Performance Requirement

Your product manager says: "We need sub-10ms response times for this API endpoint."

Your immediate reaction might be: "That's impossible with our current architecture."

But try the strategic approach instead:

• Clear Path Thinking: "Can't be done. Our database queries alone take 50ms."
• Big Vision Thinking: "We'd need to eliminate database calls, pre-compute results, move to edge computing, or completely rearchitect how we handle this data."

Now you're having a real conversation about tradeoffs:

• Move to in-memory cache? (Cost: Redis cluster + complexity)
• Pre-compute at write time? (Cost: Storage + eventual consistency)
• Edge computing? (Cost: CDN fees + deployment complexity)
• Reduce precision requirements? (Cost: Product compromise)

You might find that it was "impossible based on how I would have approached it," and not an actual technical impossibility. Or you might discover that 10ms isn't actually the hard requirement—maybe 50ms is fine for 99% of requests, and you can optimize the critical 1%.

The Strategic Path Forward

When someone proposes something that feels impossible, try this framework:

1. Identify the limitation: What specific constraint makes this feel impossible?
   • "Our monolith can't scale beyond X requests/second"
2. Consider what is causing the limitation: What technology, process, or resource would make it possible?
   • "We'd need to move to microservices, add horizontal scaling, implement caching, or optimize the bottleneck"
3. Estimate the cost: What would it take to overcome that limitation? Time? Money? Risk?
   • "Microservices migration: 6 months, 3 engineers. Caching layer: 2 weeks, 1 engineer" Explore alternatives: Edge computing? (Cost: CDN fees + deployment complexity)
   • Reduce precision requirements? (Cost: Product compromise)

This approach transforms "no" into a strategic conversation with concrete options. I know, I know, as an engineer this can sometimes feel like taking shortcuts, especially when you're constantly asked to do so. What I like to tell engineers feeling this pressure is that sometimes we make ammends to guarantee we get to work on interesting things. When the business is constantly presented with large uncompromised estimates, the riskier projects tend to be the ones that get de-prioritized -- and those are the ones that can be the most fun and often lead to breakthroughs. So be willing to compromise through your own creativity.

The Innovation Unlock

Here's the thing about banning "impossible": you create space for unexpected solutions.

Sometimes the person proposing the "impossible" thing knows something you don't. Maybe they've seen a similar problem solved at their previous company. Maybe they read a paper about a new algorithm that could work here. Sometimes they're seeing a path that isn't obvious from your perspective.

And sometimes, by exploring why something seems impossible, you discover that it's not—it just requires a different approach than you initially imagined.

Moving Forward

Next time you're in a technical discussion and your instinct is to say "that's impossible," pause.

Ask yourself:

• What would need to be true for this to work?
• What are the actual technical limitations?
• What would it cost to overcome them?
• Is there a simpler adjacent solution, even if we need to be a little creative?

You might still conclude it's not worth pursuing. But you'll do so with a clear understanding of why -- and that understanding often leads to better, more achievable alternatives.

This mindset shift has another benefit: it makes you a better architect and engineer. By constantly mapping the terrain between "current state" and "desired state," you develop stronger intuition about what's genuinely hard versus what just requires effort.

The best strategic thinking doesn't shut down big ideas. It maps the terrain between where we are and where we want to be, making the path forward visible even when it's steep.

And sometimes, just sometimes, you'll find that the "impossible" thing was only impossible because no one had bothered to map the path yet.