Why I stopped calling it "low code"

I have been using the term "low code" for years. At some point in the past twelve months, I quietly stopped.

The platform did not change. My opinion of its capabilities did not change — if anything, I think Power Platform is more capable today than it has ever been. What changed was my understanding of what the term communicates to the decision-makers who control whether these projects get funded and supported.

What business leaders hear

When I say "low code" to a CFO or a VP of Operations, I have started to notice what registers. Not "productive" or "fast" or "enterprise-grade." What registers is the modifier: low.

Low cost. Low effort. Low skill requirement. And by implication: low quality, low rigour, low reliability.

This is not what the platform delivers at its best. But the word primes the expectation. And expectations that start low are hard to reset when the platform is actually doing sophisticated automation at enterprise scale.

The "citizen developer" problem

The "citizen developer" framing compounds this. The idea that business users with no technical background can build enterprise-grade automation unsupported is both true in a narrow sense and damaging in a broader one.

Yes, business users can build useful automation in Power Platform. They do it all the time. But the most successful Power Platform practices I have seen are not citizen developer free-for-alls. They are structured environments with professional governance, IT partnership, and CoE support — where citizen developers build within guardrails that professionals designed.

When leadership hears "citizen developer," they sometimes hear "we do not need IT to be involved." The opposite is true for sustainable enterprise deployment.

What I say instead

I have started describing Power Platform as "Microsoft's enterprise automation platform." Not low code. Not citizen developer. Automation platform — the same framing I would apply to any serious enterprise software category.

When I am talking about maker programmes: "structured maker enablement" rather than "citizen development."

When I am talking about solutions: "automation" or "business applications" rather than "apps."

Language shapes expectation. If you want Power Platform to be taken seriously at the leadership level, talk about it the way you would talk about any enterprise software investment: in terms of business outcomes, governance rigour, and professional practice.

The honest trade-off

I recognise I am giving up something by dropping the "low code" label. It communicates genuine benefits: faster development, business involvement, accessible tooling. These are real.

But I think the cost of the associations it carries — especially in organisations where Power Platform is still fighting for legitimacy as an enterprise tool — outweighs the benefit of the shorthand.