Engineering is going through a stage of maturity: the market is becoming more precise, requirements stricter, and responsibility higher. Today the profession values not only technical skill but also maturity, the ability to think systematically, negotiate, and keep up with the pace of change. We spoke with Illia Kovalov, a QA Engineer and IT entrepreneur who went from specialist to team leader, to understand what is happening in the industry and what the engineer of the future will be like.
Illia, today people often talk about an “overheating” of the IT market. In your view, is the industry really reaching a saturation point, or is it more of a natural stage of maturity?
In my opinion, it is not about overheating, but about a transition to a more mature model. When the market grows faster than strong specialists are formed, an illusion of endless demand appears. Now companies are returning to rationality: they hire selectively, formulate clear requirements, and evaluate real contribution rather than loud words in a résumé. This is not a decline, but a filtration. The industry is becoming calmer but more precise. And in the long term, this is beneficial: those who can truly solve problems remain, not just those who are “in the topic.”
In one of your past interviews, you talked about the importance of “professional honesty.” What does that mean to you today?
For me, professional honesty is the ability not to deceive yourself or the team. It is the ability to say that you don’t know something, not out of weakness but out of respect for the common cause. It is also about keeping your word: if you take a task, you do it as if it were your personal project. In large companies, there is sometimes a feeling of depersonalization, that your contribution dissolves. But it is in such moments that honesty is tested: do you do the work for quality, or just “so they leave you alone”?
How has your attitude toward leadership changed over the past few years?
With age, I have become calmer and softer in distributing responsibility, but more demanding about standards. Before, I tried to cover any gaps myself: double-checking, helping everyone, taking on extra work. Now I understand that this only weakens the team. A good leader does not rescue, but creates a system in which people grow. This requires time and patience, but the return is much higher. A strong team is the result not of rigidity, but of predictability and clear rules.
Which professional mistakes taught you the most?
I remember most the moments when I underestimated communication. Technically everything worked, but people were not synchronized. It turned out that even the perfect solution makes no sense if the team does not understand why it is needed or what consequences it brings. Since then, I try to articulate everything in detail, even if it seems obvious. It’s simple, but it saves weeks.
Is there a project in your practice that became a point of professional growth for you?
Yes, there was a major project involving the integration of several systems that historically developed chaotically. The team was tired, there was almost no documentation, and deadlines were strict. It was the first time I worked in a mode of complete uncertainty, when no step could be predicted in advance. I had to build structure literally from nothing: asking, listening, documenting, negotiating rules. It was a very exhausting but key project. I came out of it a different person — more collected, patient, and strategic.
Many specialists complain about burnout. What helps you maintain internal stability?
I came to a simple conclusion: you cannot live all the time in a mode of excessive responsibility. If you constantly keep tasks, risks, and deadlines in your head, the brain stops distinguishing work from personal life. Rhythm helps me: I consciously set strict boundaries between projects and time without work. I am learning to rest not through shutting down, but through switching: sports, walks, reading. It’s not about trendy “balance,” but about the ability to return to work alive.
How do you assess that a specialist is ready for the next career level?
I look for three indicators:
1) They not only solve tasks but understand the context — they see the consequences of their decisions.
2) They can explain complex things in simple language.
3) They can replace themselves — transfer knowledge, build processes so that their contribution does not depend on their personal time.
If all three points are present, the person is ready to grow.
What do you think about the future of the engineering profession over the next five to ten years?
Engineering will move toward greater responsibility and greater automation at the same time. There will be less routine, but the value of those who can think systematically will increase. Machines can optimize code, but they cannot assess the impact of a solution on the business or the team. Therefore, development will go toward hybrid specialists — those who understand both technology and product logic. This is more difficult, but also more interesting.
What gives you a sense of professional freedom today?
Freedom appears when you can choose not only the projects but also the principles by which you work. For example, it is important for me to see transparency in the process: who is responsible for what, how decisions are made, what is considered a success. If a company has this, you feel confident and can focus on what truly affects the result. For me, freedom is not the absence of control, but the absence of chaos.
What advice would you give to young specialists who are just starting their path in engineering?
The main advice is not to rush to appear smarter than you are. The world of IT is huge, and it is impossible to know everything at once. It is much more valuable to honestly acknowledge your gaps and close them gradually. Learn to bring work to completion. Today many people easily take on tasks but struggle to finish them. And the ability to finish is already half of professionalism. And third: learn to talk. Technical skills are important, but they stop working without communication.
