Most products fail because they ignore the messy reality of how people actually use them. I help you create products that work by understanding the overall system, designing for  behaviour, emotions and people’s real context. 

Most importantly, I think about risk - always.

I’ll help you see what can go wrong to users and the business, so we can mitigate it and make informed trade-offs (rather than nasty surprises)

Here’s how I help you:

🤝 If you're a potential client:
→ UX Audits: analysing your product and identifying opportunities
→ Fractional design and research support that drives business, and user impact
→ Clarity on strategic direction and vision 


📕 If you're here for my content, I write about: 
→ How to consider the *overall* experience
→ Connecting design impact <> business impact
→ Identifying different types of risk (and mitigate it)
→ Designing for how people *actually* use things by considering context, behaviour and emotions 
→ Tips to help along your design processes

I'd love to hear about how I can help you. Drop me a message on LinkedIn, or send an email to: hello@ampersandco.studio

And if you don't have a project, I'm always down for a coffee chat!

Emily Anderson

Issue #1 of Beyond the Happy Path newsletter is live!

This one is all about Churn. It’s not the sexiest thing, I know

It's easy to assume that when people stop using our products and services it's because they *wanted* to. We focus on reasons like: they didn’t see value or it’s too expensive

But that’s not always true.

Sometimes people leave because they had no choice. They leave because they *have* to:

Maybe their ability changed and they can't use it anymore. Maybe they're struggling financially and can't afford it right now. Or maybe someone passed away.

In this issue I dive into:

➡️ Why we need to think about churn in terms of “wanted to” vs “had to” reasons (i.e voluntary, involuntary, and situational churn)

➡️ Real examples that can help to reduce churn

➡️ Ideas for how you can start considering it in your process

Incase you missed it, you can read the post in the link below (and subscribe for future issues too  👀)

https://lnkd.in/ef9CMEAE
---

It's very early days of the newsletter and I'm not going to pretend to have it all figured out. So if you've got any feedback of what you want to see more / less of, I'd love it here it!

Designer | Reducing risks to users and businesses | Founder, Ampersand | Speaker

We can do it better and faster. I coach Scale-ups CxOs to boost their business with their current team, making minimal changes.

Empowering Founders and CEOs of Scaling Software Companies to Unlock Sustainable Growth

We specialize in aligning teams, simplifying systems, and empowering leaders to scale without chaos.

✅ Team and Department Alignment: Creating clarity and cohesion, so every team works in harmony toward the same goals.
✅ Market Understanding: Pinpointing opportunities and crafting strategies that resonate.
✅ Delivering Market Value: Building systems that prioritize impactful delivery over inefficiencies.

Our Approach:

🌟 Simplicity: We focus on the essential changes your team needs to scale effectively—no fluff, just results.
🚀 Challenge: We’ll push you to break limiting beliefs and overcome obstacles, ensuring you grow alongside your company.
💡 Honesty: Expect transparency. We’ll give you the hard truths needed to move forward, faster and better.

Why It Matters:

As a founder or CEO, you’ve done an incredible job getting your company this far. But rapid growth introduces new complexities—misalignment, communication breakdowns, and inefficiencies that can stall your momentum.

That’s where we come in. With a proven track record of transforming teams and operations, we help you regain clarity and control, ensuring you meet growth milestones without sacrificing creativity or culture.

Are you ready to scale smarter, not harder? Let’s talk.

Santi Pozo

If you think hiring QA engineers will reduce your bugs, read this.


I’ve worked with dozens of software companies. Most of them had QA teams. Some had entire QA departments.

The pattern is always the same.

QA complains developers make too many mistakes. Developers complain QA is a bottleneck.

Both are right. And both are missing the point.

The real problem isn’t QA. It’s developers not being accountable for the quality of their own work.

So tickets get thrown over the wall. Poorly defined. Poorly thought through. Then rejected by someone with less technical experience and half the salary.

That’s not quality assurance. That’s organizational dysfunction.
Hiring QA doesn’t fix that. It just hides it longer.

Santi Pozo 

Fix slipping deadlines · Align tech with business · Ship predictably at scale

If you think adding more testers will solve your quality problems, read this.


I’ve seen this play out at some of the most recognizable SaaS companies in the country. The cycle is always the same.

QA complains that developers ship broken code. Developers complain that QA is where speed goes to die.

Both are right. And both are missing the point.

The problem isn’t your headcount. It’s your handovers.

When quality is "someone else’s job," nobody takes ownership. Tickets get tossed over the wall half-baked and poorly defined. You aren't testing code; you’re managing a lack of discipline.

That’s not a QA issue. That’s a systemic failure that more people simply can't fix.


I’ve helped the biggest names in the industry stop the blame game. The reward? High-velocity shipping without the "Friday night" fear.

Is quality a department in your company, or is it a shared habit?

La mayoría de “seniors” en software no son seniors.


Y no lo digo por provocar.
Lo digo porque lo veo constantemente en empresas reales.

Para mí es bastante simple:

1. Eres junior si no te vales por ti solo.

2. Eres mid si eres autónomo y el valor que generas compensa lo que cuestas.

3. Eres senior si lo que te pago no solo sirve para que tú hagas un buen trabajo,
sino para que otros trabajen mejor gracias a ti.

Ser senior no va de años,
no va de stack,
no va de escribir código “más complejo”.

Va de impacto.
Va de influencia positiva sobre el sistema y sobre las personas.

A partir de ahí, el apellido es secundario:
senior IC, team lead, staff, principal, CTO… lo que toque.

La diferencia real es a cuánta gente ayudas a rendir mejor.

Esto conecta mucho con un post reciente de Emilio Carrión,
donde explica muy bien lo que NO es un senior 

👇
https://lnkd.in/dRr29rsv

Staff Engineer @ Mercadona Tech | Convierte tu código en impacto de negocio. Mentor de Ingenieros hacia una mentalidad Product-Led.

Hubo una época en la que me encantaba ser el "Cuello de Botella".

Me gustaba pensar que si yo era el único que sabía cómo demonios funcionaba el módulo de pagos, mi trabajo estaba asegurado. Me aferraba al conocimiento como si fuera el Anillo Único. (Un poco triste ahora que lo pienso. Y qué estrés por dios 😅).

Creía que eso era ser Senior: ser imprescindible. Pero eso no es seniority, eso es un secuestro.

Si nadie puede tocar el código sin que tú des el visto bueno, no eres un líder técnico, eres un punto único de fallo con patas.

De esto es de lo que voy a hablar en el próximo T3chFest, de "El Senior Egoísta". Porque me he dado cuenta de un par de cosas después de sudar tinta en muchos deploys:

- El Mentoring no es "cosa de RRHH": Es una herramienta de arquitectura. Si no eres capaz de explicarle tu sistema a un Junior en 20 minutos sin que le explote la cabeza, el problema no es el Junior. El problema es que has diseñado un sistema demasiado complejo.
- Tu código tiene fecha de caducidad: Lo que escribí hace 3 años probablemente ya sea "legacy" o se haya reescrito. Pero lo que le enseñé a mis compañeros en ese tiempo, eso sigue ahí.
- Enseñar es egoísta (del bueno): Cuanto más saben los demás, menos me llaman a mí cuando se rompe producción un viernes a las 6 de la tarde. (Y solo por eso, ya vale la pena).

La verdadera maestría no es ser el mago que guarda los secretos en su torre. Es conseguir que, si mañana me atropella un autobús (o me toca la lotería, seamos optimistas 🙏), el equipo siga funcionando igual de bien sin mi.

Ahí es cuando sabes que has hecho bien tu trabajo.

Así que voy a estar en Madrid en marzo intentando convencer a mi "yo" del pasado de que suelte el control. Si te pasas, nos tomamos algo y nos contamos las penas.

¿Os ha pasado esa fase de querer controlarlo todo o soy el único que ha tenido ese "ego"?

Most engineering managers think their problem is "velocity."
They’re wrong. Their problem is anxiety.


I’ve seen developers who can’t sleep because of their Jira boards. People going to psychologists to manage the stress of "pollos sin cabeza" (headless chicken) management.

When you have 15 things open and 0 things finished, you aren't "agile." You’re just vibrating with stress.

The way out?

You don't need more developers. You need a system that lets your team breathe. Order isn't just about speed; it's about peace of mind.

Imagine this: A Monday morning where everyone knows exactly what to do, and nobody is drowning. Want that calm? Its your choice to stop that chaos and start the flow...


Elevate Your Delivery.

If you think a "workshop" is too soft for your engineering team, read this:


I’ve worked with the biggest SaaS players in Spain. Most of them start our workshops as total skeptics!

"What is a game going to teach us about our code?" "We don't have time for this; we have features to ship."

Both are right. And both are missing the point.

The problem isn't that you lack talent. It's that you lack a shared language.

We play our Hospital Game. Within 60 minutes, the skepticism dies. The team finally sees why their "Push" system is killing them. They realize that trying to heal 10 patients at once is why they’ve finished zero.

As one Lead Dev told me: "I had zero hope at the start... today, my team finally feels like it’s worth it."

I’ve optimized delivery for Holded and Embat. The result isn't just speed—it's belief in the system.


Does your team speak the same language, or is every squad playing a different game? 

P.S. Below are some pictures from one of our workshops with a client, what started as a stone cold room, became a room full of smiles and laughter! XD

Read twice. In your life or business, what’s the first thing that comes to mind?

Comment and share below.

The more I learn about business, the more I’m convinced that less is more.


We’re constantly fighting our action bias.
Doing things feels like progress.
Thinking feels slow.

But every time I’ve seen real results,
they came from spending more time deciding what not to do.

Not paralysis by analysis.
Just clarity.

When I learn from the best operators in the world,
I’m always struck by the same thing:

Their systems are boring.
Simple.
Almost disappointing.

And incredibly powerful.

They all say some version of the same idea:
learn to enjoy boredom.

The more boring a business is,
the more reliable, repeatable, and profitable it tends to be.

That’s a shock for the startup world,
where energy, adrenaline, and constant movement are almost a badge of honor.

But businesses don’t scale on adrenaline.
They scale on consistency.

We don’t need to be taught more.
We need to be reminded more.

Refine.
Reduce.
Strip the business down to its essence.

I’ve never seen anyone “outpower” a business successfully.
But I’ve seen many outsmart it.

Curious:
What’s the biggest simplification or realisation that moved your business forward?

This single question changed how I think about managing people.


“What version of me would you like to meet one month from now?”

I heard it recently in a conversation about relationships. 

A couple has been asking each other this question every month for the last five years. 

Their marriage is strong. 
Their careers are better. 
And They couldn’t be healthier. 

And it hit me: this summarizes almost every difficult conversation I’ve had about people management. At some point, a company and an employee meet. 

Both are in a current state. 
Both want to evolve.

The company wants new results, new markets, more impact. 
The person wants growth, recognition, better balance. 

Is not about blaming where you are is about choosing where you’re going next.

Any other tip for people management (or marriage) that worked well for you?

Hiring more developers to fix a "slow" team is like adding more cars to a traffic jam. Read this


It doesn't make things move faster. It just creates more metal to crash into.

The real "bottleneck" isn't talent. It’s the WIP (Work In Progress).

Like with many of my clients, I recently saw a board with 17 open tickets. The team was "busy," but nothing was moving.

We changed one rule: "No abras otra patata hasta que no tengas cerrada la que tienes en la mano." (Don't open a new potato until you've finished the one in your hand.) 

The result?

- Less stress.
- Higher quality.
- Faster delivery.

I couldn’t emphasize it any more:

Complexity is a choice. Simplicity is a discipline.
Stop starting. Start finishing!

I just spoke with a recently promoted VP
at one of the biggest tech companies in Europe.

What surprised me wasn’t the scale of his challenges.
It was how familiar they were.

Same patterns I see everywhere:
- Projects going late
- Backlogs with poor ROI
- Teams struggling with seniority and accountability

Nothing exotic.
Nothing “enterprise-only”.

Every software company hits the same wall.

If you’re dealing with this, I have two pieces of news for you.

The bad one:
You’re not alone — and that’s actually sad.
Because I keep seeing smart people getting overwhelmed or burning out
over the same problems, again and again.

The good one:
These problems are surprisingly fixable.
We’ve been working on them for years
across startups, scale-ups, and large tech companies.

Same root causes.
Same patterns.
Same tools.

If you’re facing any of these challenges,
DM me.

I’ll share the single most useful tool we have for your situation.
No pitch.
No sales.

Just trying to fix a pandemic we’ve normalized for way too long.

Not delivering all your projects last year might not have been the problem...



The problem is you assumed delivery would create impact.
I’ve seen this pattern repeat across companies and industries.

A quarter starts with a roadmap.
The roadmap turns into pressure.
Pressure turns into execution.
Then the quarter ends.
Some things shipped.
Some didn’t.
And the retro sounds familiar.
“We overcommitted.”
“Too many dependencies.”
“Not enough focus.”

All true.
And still missing the point.

Then there’s the big project.
The expensive one.
The one that promised to disrupt the business.
It gets delivered.
And when the impact doesn’t show up,
no one is really accountable for that gap.
The team shipped what was asked.
The roadmap moved on.
And the business quietly absorbed the disappointment.

What changed things for the founders I work with wasn’t better execution.
It was changing what gets defined before committing to any deliverable.

Before a single project makes it onto the roadmap, they get clear on three things:
- Who exactly needs to be different after this ships
- What behavior or decision should change for them
- Which business metric would tell us this didn’t work

Once that’s clear, something interesting happens.

Even if not everything ships,
the business still moves forward

If you think Jira is a project management tool, you’re wrong. For most teams, it’s a guilt-trip generator.

I’ve optimized delivery for the most recognizable SaaS companies in Spain. I’ve seen boards with 200+ tickets "In Progress."

The pattern is always the same.

Management wants "visibility" into every task. Developers want the "silence" to actually get work done.

Both are right. And both are missing the point.

The problem isn’t Jira. It’s that your board is a graveyard for things you haven't finished.

Every ticket left "In Progress" for three weeks isn't a data point. It’s a psychological weight. It’s a constant reminder of an unmet commitment.

When you have 20 things open and 0 things moving, you aren't "agile." You’re just vibrating with anxiety.

I’ve unblocked the biggest names in the country by doing one thing: We stop using Jira to "track" work and start using it to limit work.


Order isn't just about velocity. It’s about peace of mind. If your system doesn't give your team clarity, it’s not a system—it’s a mess.

Most “user-centric” roadmaps are actually investor-centric.
And pretending otherwise is what creates frustration.

Let’s be honest for a second.
Most startups are VC-funded.
That means they’re not profitable yet.
And salaries are paid because investors trust that some metrics will move.
(MRR, LTV, AVG SPENT, ...)

Those metrics don’t move by “good vibes”.
They move when specific users do specific things that change the business.

User centricity is important.
But it’s not the starting point.

The starting point is:
 
"Which metric needs to move so the company survives?"

What I see over and over is companies avoiding that adult conversation.
Instead, they hide intentions behind fluffy language:

“This project is strategic”
“This will unlock the future”
“We’re doing this for the user”

And then… surprise:
It’s actually for one big client
Or for a board narrative
Or to hit a quarter

People feel the inconsistency.
 And that’s where the complaints start.

I’m not against user centricity.
I’m against treating adults like children.

If the real goal is:
“We need this deal to close to move the needle”
Just say it.

Clarity beats inspiration every time.

Curious to hear your experience:
 Have you seen this play out in startups you’ve worked in?
 On either side?

If you ACTUALLY think you can fix your team’s delivery speed from the inside, read this:

I’ve optimized delivery for the most recognizable SaaS companies in Spain. (Holded, Embat, Imagin Bank, etc. etc.) The pattern is ALWAYS the same:


Leadership says the squads are too slow. Squads say everything is a priority.

Both are right. And both are missing the point.

The problem isn’t talent. It’s being too close to the noise. When you’re inside the bottle, you can’t read the label.

So you hold meetings that lead nowhere. You create task forces that add bureaucracy. You end up with five teams working like five different companies.

That’s not a delivery issue. That’s organizational dysfunction. And trying to fix it yourself doesn't solve it. 

It just hides it longer.

Welcome back everyone! 

Let's rock 2026 🚀

We hope you enjoyed the holidays.

Holiday mode is healthy. 
Company pause isn’t.

Good systems let people disconnect 
without disconnecting the business.

Most teams don’t fail because they aim too low.
They fail because their system can’t deliver.

If your 2026 plan is:

• more goals
• more initiatives
• more planning sessions

You’re likely reinforcing the same bottlenecks.

The leaders who win next year will do something different:
They’ll stop asking “What should we achieve?”
and start fixing “How does work actually flow?”

Because results don’t come from ambition.
They come from designed delivery.

If 2026 matters to you, don’t set better goals.
Build a system that makes outcomes inevitable.

This is exactly what we’re doing with our clients this year,
and it’s shaping up to be a very strong one.

Elevate Your Delivery 🚀

taplio

The Battle

Emily Anderson

Santi Pozo

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreEmily Anderson's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreSanti Pozo's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Emily Anderson

Santi Pozo

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Emily Anderson's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreSanti Pozo's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreEmily Anderson's LinkedIn Performance