Your dev team comes to you and says they need to rebuild the backend in a new framework. It'll take eight weeks. It's important. You nod, ask a couple of questions, get answers full of acronyms, and approve it because what else are you going to do? You hired them to make these calls.

Three months and $80,000 later, you're still waiting on that rebuild. The old system is held together with duct tape. And you're wondering if the whole thing was necessary in the first place.

This happens constantly. Not because founders are careless, but because most advice for non-technical leaders boils down to "trust your team" or "learn to code." Neither is useful. You don't need to amass raw technical knowledge to evaluate technical decisions well. What you need are frameworks that expose the quality of the thinking, regardless of the technology involved.

Here are three that I use with every client.

The single biggest red flag in any technical recommendation is when your team presents one option. "We need to switch to React." "We should move to AWS." "We have to rewrite this module."

Good technical thinking always involves tradeoffs. If someone is recommending an approach without explaining what they considered and rejected, one of two things is happening: they haven't done the analysis, or they're steering you toward a preference without showing their work.

When a developer or CTO brings you a recommendation, ask three questions. What other approaches did you consider? What are the downsides of the approach you're recommending? Under what circumstances would you recommend something different?

You don't need to understand the technical details of each option. You're evaluating the rigor of the process. A strong engineer will have a clear, concise answer for all three. They'll say something like, "We looked at keeping the current system and patching it, but the auth module can't support multi-tenant access without a rewrite either way. We also considered migrating just the API layer, but that creates two systems to maintain for six months. The full rebuild costs more upfront but gets us to a single system faster."

That's a decision you can evaluate. Compare it to: "We just really need to move to microservices." That's not a recommendation, that's a preference presented as a conclusion.

Every technical decision carries risk, and your team should be able to articulate it without you dragging it out of them. If they can't clearly explain what could go wrong, they probably haven't thought about it carefully enough.

This matters more than most founders realize. I worked with a company that approved a migration from Heroku to a self-managed Kubernetes setup. The team estimated four weeks in engineering time. What they didn't surface was the ongoing operational complexity. Six months later, the company was still spending on a DevOps contractor just to keep the infrastructure stable.

The founder wasn't technical. But if she'd asked "what's the ongoing cost of maintaining this after we ship it?" she would have gotten a very different picture. Or she would have gotten a blank stare, which is also useful information.

Here's the framework. For any significant technical decision, ask your team to answer three things: what's the worst realistic outcome if this goes wrong, what does this cost us beyond the initial build (in time, money, or complexity), and what are we giving up by choosing this path?

If your team treats these questions as annoying or unnecessary, that's a problem. Engineers who've been burned by bad decisions in the past welcome these questions. They know that the projects that blow up are usually the ones where nobody asked what could go wrong.

This is the one that catches the most issues. Ask your team to explain the decision in terms of what it means for the business, not the technology.

"We need to refactor the data layer" means nothing to you. But "right now, generating a single client report takes 45 seconds because of how our data is structured. After this refactor, it'll take under two seconds. That matters because three enterprise prospects told us in demos that the report speed was a dealbreaker" is a decision you can evaluate, prioritize, and fund with confidence.

If your team can't connect a technical decision to a business outcome, one of two things is true: the work isn't actually important, or the team doesn't understand why it's important. Both are problems.

I'm not saying every piece of engineering work needs a revenue justification. Some work is genuinely about system health, security, or reducing the chance of a future outage. But even those should be explainable. "If we don't fix this, we have a 30% chance of a full outage during peak traffic in Q4" is a business case. "We should fix this because it's messy" is not.

The strongest technical leaders I've worked with do this translation naturally. They think in terms of business risk and customer impact, not just code quality. When you find someone who can do that, hold onto them.

You don't need to run these frameworks as formal interrogations. Just make them part of how you engage with technical decisions. When someone brings a recommendation, ask what else they considered. When they describe a plan, ask what could go wrong. When they explain the work, ask them to connect it to something the business cares about.

Over time, you'll develop a sense for which decisions have been thought through and which ones haven't. You'll notice when estimates are suspiciously precise (real estimates have ranges) and when timelines keep growing without clear explanations. You'll get better at distinguishing "we need to do this" from "we want to do this."

None of this requires you to learn a programming language or sit in on code reviews. It requires you to do what you're already good at: asking sharp questions, reading people, and making judgment calls with incomplete information. That's what running a business is. Technical decisions are just another category of business decisions, and you already have most of the skills you need to evaluate them well.

The VantaSoft Tech Blog

How to Evaluate Technical Decisions When You're Not Technical

The
Non-Technical
Founder's Guide

Evaluating a Dev Partner?

The VantaSoft Tech Blog

How to Evaluate Technical Decisions When You're Not Technical

TheNon-TechnicalFounder's Guide

Evaluating a Dev Partner?

The
Non-Technical
Founder's Guide