Julie Yack

Every few years, technology gives us a new label.

Client/server. Cloud. Mobile. Low code. AI.

We spend years debating what each one means, who it’s for, and whether it’s going to replace whatever came before it. Then enough time passes that we can finally step back and see where it fits in the bigger story.

I think we’re finally at that point with low code.

For years, low code was treated as the breakthrough. The idea that people could build business solutions without being professional programmers felt like a dramatic shift.

It was.

Just maybe not in the way we thought.

Looking back, I don’t think low code was the revolution. It was the evolution.

For as long as developers have been writing software, other people have been solving business problems. They’ve been improving customer experiences, redesigning processes, resolving conflicts, making decisions, managing risk, building teams, and helping organizations change. Sometimes technology was part of the solution. Sometimes it wasn’t. But the work itself—the problem solving—has never belonged exclusively to people who write code.

People solve problems.

Technology helps.

That has always been true.

The challenge was that implementation was expensive. Turning an idea into working software required specialized skills, specialized tools, and specialized people. Low code changed that equation. It removed friction. It invited more people into the process.

It shortened the distance between the person who understood the problem and the person who could implement it.

That wasn’t a small achievement. It changed who could participate.

Now AI is changing the equation again.

The conversations I’ve been having aren’t about code. They’re about reasoning. Judgment. Context. Communication. Desired outcomes.

Prompting is a good example.

People talk about prompting as though it’s an entirely new skill. I don’t see it that way.

For decades we’ve been communicating intent through conversations, whiteboards, requirements documents, emails, user stories, workshops, and design sessions. A prompt is another way to do that. The medium is different. The goal isn’t.

That’s why I think we’re asking the wrong questions. We spend a lot of time asking what AI can do.

Can it write code?

Can it build an agent?

Can it summarize meetings?

Those are interesting capabilities. They’re just not the outcome anyone is ultimately trying to achieve.

Nobody wakes up wanting a meeting summary. They want faster decisions.

Nobody wants an AI-generated email. They want better communication with customers.

Nobody wants an agent. They want fewer repetitive tasks, more time for meaningful work, and better business results.

(***ok, so maybe we want an agent because it can be cool to have an agent, but that’s a whole other blog post***)

The capability isn’t the point. The outcome is. Maybe that’s why I’ve never really thought of myself as a low-code person.

I’ve spent my career helping organizations solve business problems. Sometimes that meant implementing software. Sometimes it meant facilitating a workshop. Sometimes it meant helping people adopt change. Sometimes it meant asking uncomfortable questions before anyone started building anything.

The technology changed. The work didn’t.

AI is revolutionary. Whether it’s the revolution or simply the next step in a longer story, none of us can know yet.

What I do know is this. The organizations that succeed won’t be the ones that can demonstrate the most AI capabilities. They’ll be the ones that consistently create the best outcomes.

I’d bet THE revolution is what happens once AI is no longer a novelty.