You’re probably building your 2026 headcount request the same way most CTOs do: identify velocity gaps, calculate how many engineers would close them, and make the business case.
But somewhere between 15 and 50 engineers, the math inverts. We’ve seen teams add three engineers and ship fewer features than before. The cost-per-feature increases while deployment queues lengthen and PR backlogs expand.
The constraint is that deploy pipelines, review processes, and manual workflows hit saturation before headcount scales. You need to fix the system before adding to it.
Before you justify five more engineers, ask whether your deploy pipeline, review process, and daily workflows can actually absorb them, or you’re about to pay $750K for people to wait in line.
In this edition, I will discuss what to address first before your next hire starts in Q1.
Stay updated with Simform’s weekly insights.
Your deploy process can’t absorb more people
Most teams treat deployment like a fixed ritual: write code, wait for review, wait for tests, wait for a merge slot, wait for the release window.
That works fine with eight engineers. At 30, it becomes a parking lot.
Case in point:
One EdTech SaaS company expanded from 20 to 50 engineers, yet still achieved the same 20 deployments per day. Their Slack became a virtual queue; developers logged in early to reserve a merge slot. Six to eight engineers were regularly waiting three hours or more each to ship their work.
The cost
When your pipeline becomes serial, you’re paying people to wait. At a $150K average salary, six engineers waiting three hours daily costs you roughly $140K per year in idle time, and that’s conservative.
What worked
The edtech company automated its queue with GitLab Merge Trains and immediately jumped to 35+ deploys per day. Same team size, zero new hires, double the throughput. They fixed the constraint before adding capacity.
Manual processes can’t keep up with headcount
New hires inherit whatever friction already exists, such as environment setup, test runs, deployment checklists, and debugging failures. At 15 engineers, that’s manageable. At 40, it becomes a tax on everyone.
Case in point
AuditBoard’s flaky tests were annoying with a small team. A few random failures here and there. As their engineering team grew, the same issue became unmanageable. Every code push triggered test failures from unrelated modules.
Each failure meant that multiple engineers spent hours debugging, re-running builds, or simply ignoring tests altogether because they could no longer trust them.
The cost
Manual toil compounds with team size. If five new engineers each spend two days setting up environments, that’s 80 hours of lost capacity before they write a single line of code.
Multiply that across onboarding, flaky builds, and repetitive debugging, and you’re hiring people to fight your process instead of shipping features.
What worked
AuditBoard automated flaky test detection and quarantine using BuildPulse. Builds became reliable overnight. Engineers stopped wasting hours triaging false failures, onboarding friction dropped, and feature velocity recovered, all without adding headcount.
These constraints don’t announce themselves with a dashboard alert. You need to instrument them the same way you instrument production systems.
So, what you need to measure before you hire
Track three metrics: deployment frequency per engineer, PR time-to-merge, and percentage of developer time spent in meetings.
If deploys per person are flat or declining as headcount grows, your pipeline is saturated.
If the PR wait time is creeping past 24 hours, reviews are becoming a constraint. If meeting time exceeds 15% of the week, coordination is eating capacity.
What it tells you
One SaaS company tracked these metrics quarterly and caught the problem early. At 25 engineers, their deployment frequency per person had dropped by 30% in six months, despite the total number of deploys remaining stable. That single metric told them the pipeline couldn’t absorb more people.
The shift
Instrument your development workflow the same way you instrument production systems. Set thresholds, such as when the time-to-merge exceeds X days or the deploy queue time reaches Y hours, to pause hiring and address the constraint.
Deploy pipelines, review queues, and manual processes don’t announce when they’re saturated. They quietly turn new engineers into idle capacity, costing you in salary while delivering less. The fix is in making infrastructure decisions deliberate before the constraint becomes a business problem.
I work with teams on diagnosing where systems actually bottleneck and what to fix first. Check it out.
