> First, you've got to plan everything, using whatever Agile or Waterfall planning ritual your company uses, get the task breakdown, file the JIRA tickets, decide who's doing the work. That all can take days or even weeks. Then you need to write a design doc with your proposed design, and get that reviewed by your peers/teammates. Again, another week for any substantial feature. If there are multiple teams involved, you need to get buy-in and design agreement among those multiple teams, let's add another week. At some places, you need approval to commence work, which can take multiple days, depending on the approver's schedule and availability.

All the process you described exists to maximise the amount of time your software engineers spend writing code[0]. You put this process in place because software engineers are among the most expensive employees in the business. Their time being wasted is meaningful to the bottom line.

Make the software engineers cheap enough and the need for a lot of this process evaporates. Companies that already _have_ these processes in place will be SOL because it's incredibly challenging to break a bureaucracy like that, but companies that either don't have these processes or manage to eliminate them will have a significant competitive advantage.

Which shouldn't be news. Startups have always competed with established businesses via speed of execution. What's new is the ability to maintain that speed for longer.

> At bigger companies, you're going to need to pass all sorts of reviews from other departments, like legal, privacy, performance, accessibility, QA...

These are all in the firing line. If the company could outsource their legal liability to an external provider of these reviews, they would.

[0] We'll just ignore the irony that much of this process ends up being foisted on the employees whose time you're hoping to save.