Seeing the benefits of GenAI in software development without actively exploring how to implement them in our processes feels like ignoring the obvious.
For this reason, starting this year, Kaizen is investing in developing this competency and understanding how we can apply GenAI in our day-to-day operations and leverage its benefits within software development.
We see two key ways GenAI impacts our discipline:
Create systems with GenAI-powered features.
Use GenAI to accelerate development.
In short we want to:
Speed up AI adoption in software dev.
Level up our capabilities.
Share what we learn
To be clear: This exploration focuses specifically on GenAI, excluding other areas like Machine Learning, Computer Vision, Natural Language Processing, and Robotics.
The Tip of the Iceberg
This is not a post about the benefits of GenAI applied to software development, so I won't delve into that. I'll take it as obvious that the impact is expected to be massive and inevitable.
Faced with this large-scale transformation, it's natural that both the people who make up our teams and our clients feel curious, question its scope, and actively seek ways to incorporate this technology into their daily work.
This drive has two key engines: on one hand, the sheer magnitude of the technological disruption we are witnessing and, on the other, people's innate curiosity to explore its potential. We want to channel this energy in a structured way, ensuring that the adoption of generative AI is carried out with an organized and sustainable long-term approach within Kaizen.
Our commitment is to guide this revolution responsibly, protecting the privacy of data and the security of our clients and collaborators. The key is not just to integrate the technology, but to do so in a way that enhances human capabilities and generates a real and positive impact in our industry.
The Complex Nature of GenAI Adoption
One challenge in adopting this technology is that its process is completely different from cloud solutions, specific frameworks, or programming paradigm changes that we are already familiar with.
A priori, the difference mainly lies in that:
The applicability of this technology is constantly evolving.
The value that GenAI offers depends both on the user's ability to interact with the tool and on the iterative process of constant testing and adjustment.
New tools emerge daily but haven't yet consolidated in the market.
It's still difficult to define what AI adoption means in more concrete terms.
Therefore, we understand that adopting GenAI cannot be done in a deterministic way. Instead, it's better to see it as a wicked problem (complex problem, without a clear or definitive solution), because there is no clear process for achieving adoption and we don't know what needs to happen or should have happened to affirm that we have adopted GenAI and that we are using it in an appropriate and productive way.
Structure and Adoption Methodology
To carry out this adoption process in an organized and effective way, we are leveraging a company area called Innovation Hub. In this space, projects are developed and teams are formed to work on different initiatives. The goal of this group is to help us expand our offerings, support the technical pre-sales team, take advantage of opportunities to improve the company's administrative and operational efficiency, and simultaneously acquire knowledge about new technologies.
This group seeks elasticity, where different people from various teams can work on a common project. It proactively encourages participation from different people, which promotes cross-pollination and a culture of innovation.
Additionally, to address the AI adoption project given the characteristics of this technology, inspiration was drawn from Henrik Kniberg's book "Generative AI in a Nutshell", especially the chapter referring to "Leading the Change."
We found in this approach a mechanism that tackles the complexity of adopting something as disruptive as AI, promotes experimentation, responsible use, and is quite compatible with our culture and organizational structure. A key characteristic is that it is bottom-up and top-down approach, seeking to viralize adoption through demonstrations of what can be done while making formal mechanisms available to make time and tools available to learn how to use it.
What's Next?
Generative artificial intelligence is transforming the software industry, and at Kaizen we are not passive spectators: we are actively exploring how to apply it in concrete, useful, and responsible ways.
As a client, this means that:
We won't make false promises or create expectations we can't meet.
We will test, validate, and transparently share our successes and failures.
You'll be able to benefit from greater efficiency and new capabilities in projects, always with a pragmatic approach.
We will create spaces for dialogue to discover together how GenAI can bring real value to your business. The future is inevitable, but we can choose how to build it. And at Kaizen, we want to build it together with you.
Seeing the benefits of GenAI in software development without actively exploring how to implement them in our processes feels like ignoring the obvious.
For this reason, starting this year, Kaizen is investing in developing this competency and understanding how we can apply GenAI in our day-to-day operations and leverage its benefits within software development.
We see two key ways GenAI impacts our discipline:
Create systems with GenAI-powered features.
Use GenAI to accelerate development.
In short we want to:
Speed up AI adoption in software dev.
Level up our capabilities.
Share what we learn
To be clear: This exploration focuses specifically on GenAI, excluding other areas like Machine Learning, Computer Vision, Natural Language Processing, and Robotics.
The Tip of the Iceberg
This is not a post about the benefits of GenAI applied to software development, so I won't delve into that. I'll take it as obvious that the impact is expected to be massive and inevitable.
Faced with this large-scale transformation, it's natural that both the people who make up our teams and our clients feel curious, question its scope, and actively seek ways to incorporate this technology into their daily work.
This drive has two key engines: on one hand, the sheer magnitude of the technological disruption we are witnessing and, on the other, people's innate curiosity to explore its potential. We want to channel this energy in a structured way, ensuring that the adoption of generative AI is carried out with an organized and sustainable long-term approach within Kaizen.
Our commitment is to guide this revolution responsibly, protecting the privacy of data and the security of our clients and collaborators. The key is not just to integrate the technology, but to do so in a way that enhances human capabilities and generates a real and positive impact in our industry.
The Complex Nature of GenAI Adoption
One challenge in adopting this technology is that its process is completely different from cloud solutions, specific frameworks, or programming paradigm changes that we are already familiar with.
A priori, the difference mainly lies in that:
The applicability of this technology is constantly evolving.
The value that GenAI offers depends both on the user's ability to interact with the tool and on the iterative process of constant testing and adjustment.
New tools emerge daily but haven't yet consolidated in the market.
It's still difficult to define what AI adoption means in more concrete terms.
Therefore, we understand that adopting GenAI cannot be done in a deterministic way. Instead, it's better to see it as a wicked problem (complex problem, without a clear or definitive solution), because there is no clear process for achieving adoption and we don't know what needs to happen or should have happened to affirm that we have adopted GenAI and that we are using it in an appropriate and productive way.
Structure and Adoption Methodology
To carry out this adoption process in an organized and effective way, we are leveraging a company area called Innovation Hub. In this space, projects are developed and teams are formed to work on different initiatives. The goal of this group is to help us expand our offerings, support the technical pre-sales team, take advantage of opportunities to improve the company's administrative and operational efficiency, and simultaneously acquire knowledge about new technologies.
This group seeks elasticity, where different people from various teams can work on a common project. It proactively encourages participation from different people, which promotes cross-pollination and a culture of innovation.
Additionally, to address the AI adoption project given the characteristics of this technology, inspiration was drawn from Henrik Kniberg's book "Generative AI in a Nutshell", especially the chapter referring to "Leading the Change."
We found in this approach a mechanism that tackles the complexity of adopting something as disruptive as AI, promotes experimentation, responsible use, and is quite compatible with our culture and organizational structure. A key characteristic is that it is bottom-up and top-down approach, seeking to viralize adoption through demonstrations of what can be done while making formal mechanisms available to make time and tools available to learn how to use it.
What's Next?
Generative artificial intelligence is transforming the software industry, and at Kaizen we are not passive spectators: we are actively exploring how to apply it in concrete, useful, and responsible ways.
As a client, this means that:
We won't make false promises or create expectations we can't meet.
We will test, validate, and transparently share our successes and failures.
You'll be able to benefit from greater efficiency and new capabilities in projects, always with a pragmatic approach.
We will create spaces for dialogue to discover together how GenAI can bring real value to your business. The future is inevitable, but we can choose how to build it. And at Kaizen, we want to build it together with you.
Applying changes across microservices is difficult because business logic is distributed across multiple services, each with its own data, contracts, and responsibilities.
In our experiment at Kaizen Softworks, we tested whether an AI system could safely apply coordinated changes across a microservices architecture using only minimal input.
Short answer: Yes, but only when the AI has enough architectural context.
Why are coordinated changes in microservices so hard?
In distributed systems, a single business change rarely affects just one service.
It often requires:
Updating multiple microservices
Modifying message contracts
Keeping DTOs (Data Transfer Objects) consistent
Respecting domain boundaries defined by Domain-Driven Design (DDD)
Key entities in this system:
Microservice: An independently deployable service responsible for a specific domain
Aggregate (DDD): A cluster of domain objects treated as a single unit
DTO (Data Transfer Object): A structured format used to transfer data between services
Message/Event: A communication mechanism between services
The complexity is not in the code, it’s in the relationships between components.
The experiment: Can AI reason across services with minimal input?
We designed a controlled experiment to test whether an AI model could apply system-wide changes with limited information.
Input given to the AI:
Message definitions (events between services)
DTOs (data contracts)
Tasks the AI had to perform:
Identify affected aggregates
Determine service ownership
Apply coordinated changes across services
Maintain consistency in messages and DTOs
In other words, the AI had to behave like a software architect, not just a code generator.
What was the biggest obstacle?
The biggest challenge was not technical, it was contextual.
Problem: unclear service naming
Instead of descriptive names like:
order-service
billing-service
Our services were named:
john
sally
roger
This removed any semantic clues about responsibility.
Result: The AI could not infer which service owned which domain logic.
The missing piece: aggregate ownership mapping
To solve this, we introduced a simple but powerful structure:
Aggregate → Service mapping
Order → john
Shipment → sally
Invoice → roger
This created a clear relationship between domain concepts and system components.
Once ownership was explicit, the architecture became understandable.
How we used AI to generate architectural context
Instead of building this mapping manually, we used AI to analyze the codebase and extract:
Where each aggregate was defined
Which microservice implemented it
The relationship between domain and infrastructure
The result was a machine-readable architecture map.
In practice, we used AI to generate the context that AI itself needed.
Results: Can AI safely apply distributed changes?
With the architecture map in place, the AI was able to:
Trace message flows across services
Identify affected aggregates
Locate the correct microservices
Apply coordinated updates
Maintain consistency between DTOs and messages
While not perfect, the system worked reliably as a proof of concept.
What is the real limitation of AI in microservices?
The main limitation of AI is not code generation, it’s architectural understanding.
Without knowing:
Which components exist
How they relate
Who owns what
AI cannot safely modify a distributed system.
AI performance depends more on context quality than model capability.
When can AI safely modify microservices?
AI works well when:
Aggregate ownership is clearly defined
Message contracts are explicit
Architecture is structured and consistent
AI struggles when:
Naming is ambiguous
Relationships are implicit
Context is incomplete
Simple rule: If the architecture is clear, AI can reason. If not, it guesses.
Final thoughts
This experiment revealed something important:
AI doesn’t fail because it can’t write code. It fails because it can’t see the system.
As teams move toward AI-assisted development, the focus will likely shift from:
Writing better code to Designing better systems for machines to understand
At Kaizen Softworks, we see this as a foundational shift.
Because when AI can understand architecture, it doesn’t just generate code, it helps evolve systems.
There's a myth that in flat organizations, everyone decides on everything.
That's not how it works. At least not at Kaizen.
When people hear "no managers," they often picture one of two extremes: either total chaos where nobody is accountable, or endless meetings where 80 people vote on which coffee to buy. The reality is neither.
Not everyone decides on everything. Not everyone votes. What we do have is a clear set of decision-making methods that we choose based on context.
It depends on who's affected and how deep the impact goes
Before choosing how to decide, we ask ourselves a few questions:
Who is affected? A decision that only impacts one team doesn't need the whole company involved. A decision that affects everyone's daily work does.
How deep is the impact? Changing the office furniture is wide but shallow. Changing the salary model is deep and lasting.
Is it reversible? If we can easily undo it, we can move fast and just inform. If it's hard to reverse, we slow down and include more people.
How urgent is it? And here we're careful to distinguish real urgency from anxiety, the pressure to decide quickly because someone already has "the answer" in mind.
These dimensions help us pick the right method. Not every decision deserves the same process.
Our decision-making toolkit
Over the years, we've landed on a few methods that we use depending on the situation:
1. Role-based decisions
Some decisions belong to a specific role. If someone owns a responsibility, say, office logistics or hiring for a team, they decide within that domain. No committee needed. The key is that roles are transparent: everyone knows who owns what, and the scope of each role's authority is clear.
2. Advice Process
When a decision doesn't clearly belong to one role, or when it crosses boundaries, we use the advice process. Here's how it works:
Someone takes the initiative. They identify the problem and own the process.
They gather input from people who are affected and people with expertise.
They seek advice, real conversations, not rubber-stamping.
They make the decision and communicate it, including what advice they incorporated and what they didn't (and why).
The decision-maker is not a committee. It's one person (or a small group) who takes responsibility. But they don't decide in isolation, they bring in the perspectives that matter.
We sometimes call this "Team Advice" when a working group forms around an issue that doesn't naturally fall into anyone's area, and "Area Advice" when a team opens up a topic that exceeds their own scope.
3. Consent (not consensus)
Consent is not "everyone agrees." Consent means "no one has a strong enough objection to block this." We do use a poll, but not to count votes — we use a 1-to-5 scale to measure the level of agreement and surface objections, not to let the majority rule.
We use it in two flavors:
High-participation consent: For decisions with deep, company-wide impact. This is our most expensive and slowest method, which is exactly why we reserve it for high-impact decisions that affect many people. The Board sets the boundaries, for example, when we moved offices, they defined the monthly budget. Then a working group produced proposals, collected feedback, evolved them, and the whole company expressed their position for the final decision. Silence is not approval; we explicitly ask people to weigh in, even if it's just "I have no objection."
Lightweight consent: For decisions that are broad but not deep. Participation is optional, anyone who's interested can jump in. We share the proposal, open a window for objections, and if nobody opposes, we move forward. This gives us speed without sacrificing transparency. If nobody engages, that's a signal too, maybe the proposal doesn't add enough value, or we're using the wrong channel.
4. Inform, don't fake-consult
Not everything needs participation. When a decision has already been made through a legitimate process, the right move is to inform, not to fake-consult. One of the fastest ways to kill self-management is to ask for feedback and then ignore it. If you're not going to change course based on input, don't ask for it, just be transparent about the decision and the reasons behind it.
What we explicitly avoid
Decision by Voting. In a company context, majority rule creates losers. And losers become detractors, often generating more resistance than an autocratic decision would have. Instead of voting, we prefer to evolve a proposal through feedback until it's "good enough for now," and then introduce a review point to adjust later. If voting happens at all, it's the cherry on top, not the main course.
The "surprise" approach. Working behind closed doors and then unveiling a finished decision is a recipe for frustration. Adults don't need surprises. Adults need to feel like they're part of the process. The complaints that follow a surprise aren't about the decision itself, they're about not being included.
Why we work this way
We didn't adopt these methods because they're trendy. We adopted them because they solve real problems:
Better decisions. When you include affected people, you get information you wouldn't have had otherwise. Ideas emerge that no single person would have come up with alone.
Less resistance. A person who feels heard is far less likely to resist a decision, even one they wouldn't have made themselves.
Faster execution. It sounds counterintuitive, but participative decisions often execute faster because people already understand and support them. The time you "save" by deciding alone, you spend later managing pushback.
Distributed authority. When people can make decisions within their domain without escalating everything to a founder, the organization scales. The bottleneck disappears.
Resilience. If a shared decision fails, the group adjusts together. If a top-down decision fails, the blame falls on one person and the chances of proactive correction drop.
The real principle behind all of this
Transparency is the foundation. Every method we use, from role-based decisions to high-participation consent, works because information flows openly. People know what's being decided, who's deciding it, and how they can participate.
Horizontal doesn't mean structureless. It means fewer hierarchical levels, clearer roles, and intentional decision-making processes that match the weight of each decision.
Not everyone decides on everything. But everyone knows how things get decided.
.png)
