Matt Watson

Full Scale

Helping companies scale with affordable talent in the Philippines. Provided $50M worth of dev services to over 200 clients since 2018.

Our 300+ employees are helping dozens of companies build their software quickly and affordably.

* Philippines based, English fluency is superb!
* Staff augmentation model, our team works directly for you!
* Focused on senior level developers
* No middle man project managers in the way

Founder & CEO

Product Driven Newsletter

Inspiring every person in tech to have a product-first mindset when it comes to building software products and teams

Podcast & Newsletter

Startup Hustle

Podcast about entrepreneurship with over 6 million downloads! We interview entrepreneurs and others related to the startup ecosystem.

At Capacity

The only smart ads platform for home services. We turn search ads off when our customers have full schedules or are "At Capacity". We turn their ads on and advertise special offers when they need more customers.

Founder, CEO, CTO

CAMP Digital

Leading the development and product teams to help take CAMP to the next level. CAMP Digital is the industry leader in digital marketing for home services. We have the unique ability to dynamically change ad campaigns based on the capacity of our customers.

Stackify

Stackify (sold 2021 to Netreo, then to BMC in 2024) provides the ultimate combination of tools for developers to monitor and troubleshoot their applications. We combine application performance monitoring (APM) with server monitoring, app metrics, advanced error tracking, and log management in a single, easy to use platform for developers.

Founder, CEO

VinSolutions

One of two original founders of the company in 2003. Started the company with the simple goal of helping car dealers upload car photos to the internet and syndicate them to internet classified websites. Over many years the product rapidly expanded in to an inventory management, website, CRM, and internet marketing product. VinSolutions became the market leading CRM solutions for car dealers with thousands of customers. I provided most of the product vision for the entire suite of products and as CTO was in charge of all product and software development.

Founder, Chief Technology Officer

Physicians Reference Laboratory

Designed and developed laboratory information systems

Senior Architect & Lead Developer

Ticket Solutions

Designed and developed software for tracking and retailing tickets

Senior Application Developer

Serial Entrepreneur, Startup CTO, Podcaster, Blogger @ VisionaryCTO.com

Founder and CTO of one of the early SaaS companies in 2003 and bootstrapped it to $35M ARR and a $150M exit in 2011 (VinSolutions).

I founded Full Scale in 2018 to help myself and others scale their teams with talent from the Philippines for 70% less.

Learn more about Full Scale: https://fullscale.io

I host a podcast and write a weekly newsletter about the gap between business and software engineering called Product Driven.

https://newsletter.productdriven.com

We started Full Scale to do software development the right way from the Philippines. Our 300+ employees are helping dozens of companies build their software quickly and affordably.

* Philippines based, English fluency is superb!
* Staff augmentation model, our team works directly for you!
* Focused on senior level developers
* No middle man project managers in the way

Engineers used to talk to customers.
No product manager. No layers. Just: understand problem → build solution.

Then something changed.

The internet exploded. Companies grew. And we created this new role called "Product Manager."

We split one stream into two silos.

"Product can't deliver without engineering. Engineering can't deliver without product. It's symbiotic. Yet we siloed them." - Kathy Keating

My take? We did this because engineering was slow and expensive. So we built everything around them. 

Product managers, QA, DevOps, more processes.

We put developers in the basement like mushrooms. Told them to just write code.

Then we wonder why they don't understand what they're building or why it matters.

We've created a system designed for failure. Two teams that need to be one, pretending they're separate.

No wonder we have operational issues in almost every product/engineering org.

Have you figured out how to make product and engineering actually work as one team?

fullscale-io

Talks about #startups, #entrepreneurship, and #softwaredevelopment

5x Founder & CTO | Author of Product Driven | Bootstrapped to 9-Figure SaaS Exit | CEO of Full Scale | Teaching Product Thinking to Engineering Leaders

"AI is eliminating junior roles but we still need senior people."

Think about that for a second.

Where do senior developers come from? Junior developers.

What happens in 10 years when we haven't trained any juniors?

Here's the catch-22 I've been thinking about lately:

As a junior dev today, do you:
💻 Lean heavy on AI to write code faster (but not understand what it does in the bigger picture)? Or
🧠 Write everything manually to truly learn (but fall behind on productivity)?

But here's what AI CAN'T do:
- Architect complex systems
- Understand your customer's actual problems
- Handle ambiguity and unknown unknowns
- Make strategic product decisions

"People talk about 'vibe coding' something over the weekend. You vibe coded a simple function that doesn't actually solve big complex problems."

Big problems are complex. And complexity involves things you don't even know you don't know.

The first few years of engineering used to be an apprenticeship. Learning the language. Building habits.

But if AI is writing all the junior-level code, who's doing the apprenticing?

This is going to bite us. Hard.

If you're a junior dev, how are you navigating this? If you're senior, how are you thinking about training the next generation?

Your engineers love their task-driven culture.

No tough decisions.
No customer complaints.
No accountability.

Just tickets in, code out. Simple.

But here's what that's really saying:

"I don't care if this matters."
"This isn't my problem."

You've probably trained them to be passengers, not drivers.

And when the product fails? They'll shrug and update their resumes 🤷‍♂️

Because you never gave them a reason to care.

If you really want engineers who fight for your product, give them OWNERSHIP of the outcome, not just the output.

I get it. Giving engineers product ownership feels risky.

"What if they make the wrong call?"
"What if they talk to customers wrong?"

But you know what's riskier? Building a team of people who don't care if your product succeeds. 

That's a one way ticket to failure.

"Hire slow, fire fast" emerged from manufacturing decades ago. 
It's killing software companies today.

Here's why: 
Manufacturing operated on 18-month waterfall cycles. 
Software runs on 2-week sprints.

I have numbers that tell the story:
📅 Average developer hiring: 66 days
🧑‍💻 Features your competitor ships in that time: 20+
👥 Developers open to new opportunities: 73% (Stack Overflow 2024)
⌛ How long top talent waits: 21 days maximum

I've watched this play out repeatedly. A B2B SaaS company with $5M funding needed 4 developers. 

They spent 5 months "getting it right."

During those 5 months? Their competitor launched first. Captured 70% of the market. 

That "careful" process cost them $8M in valuation.

Your existing team doesn't just cover the gap. They burn out at 40% productivity loss. They update resumes. They lose faith in leadership that can't solve capacity problems.

So what's the alternative? 

One fintech startup hired 8 developers in 30 days using trial projects. 

Yes, 2 didn't work out. Cost: minimal. 

The other 6? Shipped 4 months early.

Bad hires cost $30K and 60 days to resolve. 
Slow hiring? $495,000 in opportunity cost.

The math is clear. 

Bad hires are fixable. Missed market windows are forever.

What's the longest you've waited to fill a critical tech role? And what did it really cost you beyond salary? 🤔

Engineers should constantly ask why, push back on bad ideas, and suggest alternatives.

Some of our clients find it jarring at first. 

"Why is my developer questioning requirements?"

Because that's what great engineers do. 
They think. They challenge. They improve.

Unless, you want silent compliance and mediocre products 🤔

"You can't prioritize everything. That's just chaos."

I've watched too many CTOs try to please everyone.

It always just ends up with:
- Engineers drowning in "urgent" requests
- Products that do everything poorly
- Teams that ship features nobody uses
- Burnout disguised as productivity

Here's what actually works:
🙅‍♂️ Say no to 80% of requests.
🎯 Focus on the 20% that move the needle.
💡 Let your competitors build the features that don't matter.

This team built what they wanted to build.
Not what users needed.

They got so focused on technical excellence.
They forgot to make it useful.

That’s what happens when teams ship without product thinking.

Maybe you should get Product Driven before spending $300k on features no one asked for.

👉 https://buff.ly/ep3Ie83

My 16-year-old wants to be a software engineer.

The first task I gave him?
Build a web page and try to get elements to line up.

Welcome to the hardest part of building software. 

Writing code is the easy part.
Making a design actually look right on the screen? Still a nightmare for every engineer.

I once forgot to give a developer Jira access. He sat idle for two days.

That $800 mistake taught me something crucial: Remote integration fails because we treat it like an afterthought, not a system.

Here's what nobody tells you about integrating offshore developers:
The best ones don't need hand-holding. 
They need structure. 
They need context. 
They need to feel like they belong on Day 1, not Day 30.

We've all seen it. 

Brilliant developer joins Monday. Can't access repositories. Can't build the application. Sits through meetings understanding nothing. By Friday, they're updating their resume.

Then we blame them for "not working out."

But whose fault is it really? 
You hired them. You trained them (or didn't). You set the priorities.

After 800+ developer integrations, I've learned that Week 2 is make-or-break. 
Not Month 2. 
Week 2.

That's when they transition from observer to contributor. 

Miss that window, and you've lost them. Yes, even if they stay another six months.

Companies spend $50K on recruiting but won't invest 30 hours in proper integration. No wonder their remote teams fail.

How would you integrate global talent?

Laura Tacho revealed what's really happening with AI across 500+ companies.

We thought AI would make everyone faster. Instead, we've created a two-tier system where juniors devs generate and seniors janitor.

The companies winning with AI are the ones who FIXED their broken FUNDAMENTALS first.

Bad documentation? AI makes it worse.
Unclear requirements? AI amplifies the confusion.
No customer connection? AI builds the wrong thing faster.
Your product manager spending 3 days building a "perfect" prototype in v0? They could've just told the engineer: "Make a screen with 3 columns that does this thing."

We're so obsessed with AI tools that we've forgotten the basics.

Laura's research shows AI saves about 4 hours per week. 
Not 40%. 
Not replacing developers. 
JUST 4 hours.

You know what would save more time?
- Clear requirements
- Direct customer feedback
- Actual decision-making authority
- Less organizational friction

The uncomfortable reality is, AI is exposing every dysfunction in your engineering organization. 

It's not reducing complexity. It's actually doing the opposite.

Companies treating AI like a silver bullet are learning an expensive lesson: You can't automate your way out of organizational dysfunction.

Fix your fundamentals first. Then add AI.

Is your team using AI to accelerate success, or amplify existing problems?

My 16 year old is learning the hard lessons fast. 😂

What should I make him do next?

"Why didn't anyone catch this bug?"

"Because everyone was waiting for my review."

15 developers. One approval bottleneck. Zero ownership.

Some leaders think they're maintaining quality, when they're actually destroying initiative. 

Here's what that control really costs:
👉 Engineers stop thinking critically
👉 Velocity tanks
👉 Innovation dies 

The irony is: the more you control, the less control you actually have.

Want real quality? 
Stop checking everything. Start building engineers who don't need checking.

Want real velocity? 
Relinquish control. Start enabling.

Want real innovation? 
Stop dictating answers. Start asking better questions.

Ownership isn't given. It's GROWN. 
And it only grows when you stop hoarding control.

Every developer wastes 20% of their week.

Not because they can't code. Because they're stuck.

Laura Tacho from DX shared research that reveals over half of developer experience problems come down to one word. CLARITY.

"How do I do this?"
"Is this in scope?"
"What's the actual requirement?"
"Why are we building this?"

Your developers are brilliant. They can architect complex systems and solve impossible problems. 

But they're sitting in meetings, waiting for answers, blocked by decisions that should've been made yesterday.

I used to think documentation was boring. Turns out it's costing companies 30+ minutes per developer, per day. That's 2.5 hours weekly just hunting for answers that should exist.

No one want's to admit, but we've created layers of product managers, scrum masters, and processes to "help" developers. But we've actually disconnected them from the very problems they're supposed to solve.

The companies that are crushing it right now, they don't shield developers from business context. They immerse them in it.

The question isn't whether your team can code. 

It's whether they have the clarity to code the right thing.

What's blocking your developers from moving faster? Skill or clarity? 👀

Your engineering team is cranking out code faster than ever.

Sprint velocity? Through the roof.
Story points? Crushing it.
Deployments? Daily.

But here's what nobody's asking: 
Is any of it actually moving the needle?

I've watched teams celebrate shipping features that zero customers asked for. They're optimizing for output, not outcomes.

Most CTOs don't even realize they've built a task factory instead of a product team.

Your engineers aren't robots. They're problem solvers trapped in a ticket queue.

Time to break them free.

I hired a handyman and paid him 3x what his normal day job pays.

I did it because I really needed his help fixing up my house and wanted his full attention.

Guess what happened?

He regularly didn’t show up when he said he would.
And the quality of his work wasn’t great.

Just because you give someone a golden opportunity doesn’t mean they’ll make the most of it.

It’s really hard to find good people.

"How do you become a CTO?"
"Someone gives you the title."

But here's the real answer: 50% of CTOs got there by starting their own company.

How? Because you don't learn to swim by reading a book. You learn by jumping in the deep end.

When you're at a big company, your role gets smaller. 
Versus when you're at a startup, your role is EVERYTHING.

At a startup, you learn in a trial by fire:
✅ Talk to customers (because you have to)
✅ Make technical decisions (no one else will)
✅ Handle operations (everyone's on you)
✅ Drive product strategy (or die trying)

You'll either love it or hate it. 
But you'll definitely learn what it takes.

How did you become a CTO? Or how are you planning to get there? 🤔

To use AI effectively, you have to be smarter than it.

This is why most people won't get much benefit from it.

Asking it to churn out code you don't understand is likely to create bugs and problems faster.

If you can understand the code and fix the issues along the way, only then you will go faster.

The not so good engineers are getting exposed by AI, not benefitting from it. 

Even with AI, they can't keep up. 

Just creating code they don't understand even faster.

"Vibe coding" isn't "vibe startup creation."

Creating code doesn't create a product or business.

There are thousands of products or "side projects" on Product Hunt, X and Reddit that have zero customers.

Creating a business requires creating a go to market strategy that works to acquire customers.

That has always been the hard part and the real defensive moat of a business. It still is.

With Full Scale, I've learned something that seems counterintuitive about developers:

The best ones ask the most questions.
The worst ones ask none and just say "yes."

This drives some managers crazy. 

They seem to want order-takers, not question-askers.

When I started my career, I talked directly to users. Understood their problems. Built solutions. No product manager. No business analyst. No layers.

Somewhere along the way, we put developers in a corner. Turned off some lights. Said "just write code."

We built entire systems to "protect" them from having to think about users or strategy.

Eventually, devs just disconnected from their work. From why it matters. From the problems they're solving.

And now AI is exposing this disaster.

If developers can code 2x faster but don't understand WHY they're coding, we haven't solved anything. We've made it worse.

If you want better software, stop treating developers like code monkeys!

Give them:
✓ Vision - why are we doing this?
✓ Focus - what really matters?
✓ Clarity - what are we building?
✓ Ownership - shared, not siloed
✓ Courage - to speak up and challenge

It's not about making introverts talk to customers all day.
It's about completing the feedback loop, making sure they know their work mattered (orr didn't in some cases). 

That's YOUR JOB as a leader. 

Does your team know why their work matters?

From a $1B valuation to being "flipped off" as tech startup Flip is officially gone.

Friendly reminder that raising capital and valuations in no way correlates to success.

I wonder how often they used the flip off emoji on the way out?

Taplio

Matt Watson's Linkedin Analytics

What is Matt talking about?

Who is engaging with Matt

's Best Posts (last 30 days)

Want to drive more opportunities from LinkedIn?