| ▲ | poemxo 10 hours ago |
| I'm swimming against the current with this, but I think the role is really cool. Blessed by your own company to wear the vestments of an expert, and expected by the customer to deliver the sort of advice that will get a team "unstuck", a forward deployed engineer is in the perfect spot to prove just how much of a hotshot he or she is. Especially in fields like defense where the customer is staffed with teams that are highly risk averse. It's one of the few careers I get a bit jealous of, even though the burnout rate is probably pretty high. |
|
| ▲ | superfrank 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I agree that the idea is cool, but from what I've heard from people in the role at most companies it's essentially a solutions architect role by another name. Funny enough, the Pragmatic Engineer (author of the post linked) had a follow up from about a year after the post above and he reports the same thing. https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/the-pulse-forward-deploye... |
| |
| ▲ | lolinder 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Looking at the official description of a Forward Deployed Engineer I'm uncertain what even the nominal difference between this and a Solutions Architect is. Is the nominal difference between an archetypal FDE and an archetypal SA greater than the difference in the SA role from company to company? | | |
| ▲ | trollbridge 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s an SA, except too many places started using SA for sales roles, so now we have the FDE role which… is starting to get polluted by sales, too. | |
| ▲ | superfrank 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Based on what I first heard it described as, yeah, I think so. In most places I've worked SAs are generally just connecting existing pieces of a system together to meet a customers needs. They may write code, but it's often just glue to connect two bits of the system together or transform some data or something like that. They're not really contributing to the underlying product, they're just using the product and some custom code to meet a specific customer's needs. An FDE is supposed to be closer to a regular software engineer on a product or platform team in that their goal is to solve a specific customers problem, but they're supposed to be more focused on the big picture and using their learnings to build a better product. They're still using existing systems to solve problems and writing plenty of glue code, but they're also supposed to have the leeway to contribute to the underlying product to make it better for all customers. The simplest example I can think of would be something like a customer saying something like they need a way to convert a bunch of their data to a CSV and then send that to a certain email address every Friday. A more traditional SA mindset may be to write a Python script that runs on a cron that connects to that customers DB pulls the data, converts it to CSV, and then emails that specific email address. Even if the SA knows that's not the best way to do it, it's the tools they've been given to work work. A FDE should have the leeway and skills to go talk to a PM and their engineering team and just build an in product, self serve tool to do that (assuming everyone is aligned that that is good for the product). Again though, what I've heard is that most FDEs at most companies are just SAs by another name. | |
| ▲ | procarch2019 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think it is. I work for a (relatively) small company. I naturally grew from project engineer to senior/lead/sme (including pioneering tech _for my industry_) to SA. I had also stuck with my company for many years, so I have the industry connections and got to be known as a heavy hitter. That trust relationship with the customers mixed with technical know how = sales and consulting. Again, because of the size of my company I can make my role fluid (including a good way), but call it what you will I engineer, I sell, I consult. | |
| ▲ | colechristensen 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's looking like the answer is no. They're the same within the bounds of ordinary differences in the role between companies. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | paxys 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you hear a pitch from McKinsey about being a consultant it will also sound like the coolest job in the world. |
|
| ▲ | 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | draw_down 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | Schiendelman 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| This job is really the stepping stone to product management - and it's the role that's going to really grow with LLMs. A mini-PM with Fable can solve tons of customer needs. Edit: I guess I'm not surprised to see the downvotes on this; I get that a lot of people on HN don't really understand product management, or don't value it. The path from engineering to product management can really start with getting closer to the customer - putting more time into understanding their needs. The reason this shifts a lot with LLMs is that a sales engineer / forward deployed engineer can tackle customer needs much more quickly with Claude Code than they could have themselves, which means these feedback loops can become a crash course in customer experimentation and understanding. Teresa Torres wrote an amazing book about continuous discovery that I use with my teams (https://www.producttalk.org/continuous-discovery-habits/), and a third of the book is about talking to your customers every week if you can. Someone in a customer facing role who can also build code has a huge leg up compared to someone coming at product from an academic setting. Case studies in an MBA are great for strategy, but they're usually fixed points in time. Getting that nimble feedback to hone your product sense is the hardest part of getting good. |
| |
| ▲ | majormajor 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | At that point what's the value add of the PM (and maybe even the consulting company entirely), if the PM is just doing doing custom stuff? How many of those can the customer solve themselves with Fable? OR the support agent at the vendor without needing to take it to a PM? PM in this sort of company—where there's no grand unifying vision vs just responding to customer requests—is the sort of almost-entirely-paperwork role that starts looking less necessary when you can have LLMs summarize all those comms and "analysis." | | |
| ▲ | Schiendelman 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I edited my comment to make my point more clear, since I think a lot of folks don't know what a PM does. If your PM isn't defining a clear strategy, your PM is probably inexperienced and/or overloaded. It sounds like you might have experiences like that. I think a good PM needs three big skillsets: Customer discovery, Strategic planning, and leadership alignment. The second and third are easier to learn academically. This kind of role is ideal for learning the first. |
| |
| ▲ | paxys 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If fable can solve the customer’s needs then why is the PM needed at all? | | | |
| ▲ | indoorfish 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Pressing needs like AI responses to questions on HN to promote themselves. | | | |
| ▲ | stingraycharles 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | LLMs don't really have anything to do with this, other than LLMs being useful for pretty much any (tech) role. | | |
| ▲ | Schiendelman 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | What makes you say that? | | |
| ▲ | stingraycharles 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well for full disclosure, I lead a team of forward deployed engineers at a database company. The role typically means that our engineers are embedded within the customer for extended period of times, and they work on basically devops, software engineering + some more traditional solution architecting, which is basically what the article describes. They use LLMs in similar ways that regular engineers use. This is an engineering role, not a product / project management role. I don’t think this role is anything super special that will be revolutionized in any different way than that other engineering roles are affected. In the end their value add is that they’re both embedded within the customer’s and our company, they’re our eyes and ears within the customer. Their purpose is not to make sales demos, their purpose is to make our software actually work properly for the customer’s needs. |
|
| |
| ▲ | tclancy 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What’s a mini-PM? Something Apple offers? | |
| ▲ | jdw64 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't understand why you're getting downvoted. In East Asia, 'SI' is looked down upon, but one of the strengths often mentioned about SI is understanding the client's business, that is, the domain. It's true that in the industry, which is based on job-hopping and career building, it gets a lot of criticism. But from a startup perspective, it's often evaluated positively as having strong business insight. So I think your opinion is valid. In fact, from what I've observed on HN, most people seem to be obsessed with 'programming purity' rather than 'product cycles.' When you're doing product-focused or delivery-oriented development, there are inevitably black boxes you don't understand, points you can't control, and product management isn't about 'perfection.' It's about whether you can get fast feedback from customers and iterate. But here, it seems like most people assume that everything should be ideally perfect. I agree with your opinion. Because if you go to the field rather than just dealing with services, you can clearly see how imperfect domain modeling really is. If a business is large enough, you can reshape the domain with capital power to fit your service, but as you know, most of the time when you go on-site, there's a conflict between an imperfect domain, most clients don't really know their own requirements, and implementation capabilities. Actually, I think your post is more high-level. Don't worry too much about the downvotes. |
|