Choosing a Programming Software: Three Considerations That Matter Most

"Technology alone is not enough." - Steve Jobs

---

Introduction

What should you look for when choosing a programming software?

As someone who has worked in a few different roles across strength and conditioning, sport science, and research and development, I’ve come to realize that selecting training software is far more than a tech decision. It’s a cultural one. One that directly impacts how coaches coach, how athletes train, and how staff collaborate.

Yet, too often the choice comes down to marketing promises or flashy dashboards. What gets missed are the core questions; Will this help us coach better or just differently? And will this scale with us or force us to scale around it?

Through a mix of curiosity and hard-earned friction, I’ve come to believe that there are three categories that matter more than any others when selecting a programming software:

1. Performance Features — how well the tool helps you coach

2. Administrative Suitability — how the tool needs to be managed

3. Adaptability and integration — how the tool enhances your system

If either of these breaks down, so does your workflow. What started as a solution can quickly become a burden. Let’s unpack.

1. Performance Features: Design and Delivery

A programming software should serve as an extension of your process not a replacement, and certainly not a barrier to it. Whether you’re writing 1-on-1 programs or managing a multi-coach environment with 300+ athletes, the software must make it easier to design training and deliver it intuitively. This is where many platforms live or die.

Beyond aesthetics or basic usability, the platform must support the coach’s systematic approach by enhancing program design rather than restricting it. The ideal software allows for flexible program structures, seamless integration with sport science, and quick iteration, ensuring that training design remains sound yet adaptable to the constantly evolving needs of athletes, professionals, and teams.

The best platforms translate complex training plans into clear, actionable sessions that individuals can easily follow. This is in addition to enabling real-time tracking of performance and compliance. Further, built-in communication tools and data sharing features can ensure that all members of the performance team, from strength coaches to physiotherapists, stay connected and aligned.

✅ What to Look for in Performance Features

A. Workflow Efficiency

The amount of clicking, dragging, editing, and toggling adds up fast. If changing an exercise in a session requires diving into five nested menus, the tool creates friction instead of flow. You want something that mirrors the reactiveness of your session-to-session decisions.

B. Customization That Matches Your Model

Some tools are coach-centric, others are built for the athlete interface. You need to know which matters most in your environment. An intuitive front-end or backend data control and bulk edit capabilities don’t always come together. A suitable software fits or bends to your methodology.

C. Practical Exercise Library Functionality

Your exercise database should speak your language. The ability to upload your own demos, tag by movement pattern, assign cues, and link alternatives makes a huge difference. Especially across teams, sports, and coaching styles. You should never feel boxed inside the software’s format. That means custom exercise libraries, adaptable phase/block structures, tagging systems that match your movement classifications, and the ability to evolve programming style over time.

If the platform struggles in any of these areas, that’s a red flag. Your time is better spent coaching athletes than wrestling with clunky UX or workarounds.

2. Administrative Suitability: Cost, Lifecycle, and Privacy

Here’s the part that often gets overlooked until it’s too late. Even if a software performs well on the surface, it still has to fit your administrative needs. That includes how it’s priced, how it handles your data, and even how it interacts with your other tools.

While performance features drive daily effectiveness, the administrative suitability of a programming software ultimately determines its long-term value and sustainability. For elite organizations managing multiple athletes and departments, a platform that delivers consistent performance without excessive maintenance or hidden fees ensures better return on investment. Equally important is understanding how pricing scales with team size and functionality, as costs can quickly escalate if the software doesn’t match the organization’s growth model.

Lifecycle management is another key administrative consideration. The software should be built to evolve alongside both technology and organizational needs. This includes regular updates, responsive customer support, and a clear roadmap for future development. In high-performance environments, outdated or unsupported systems can compromise data integrity and workflow efficiency. A platform that demonstrates long-term viability and active innovation ensures stability and continuity, allowing staff to focus on athlete performance rather than troubleshooting.

Administrative suitability, therefore, isn’t just about cost control. It’s about ensuring that the software enhances organizational efficiency and aligns with the broader performance ecosystem. When cost, lifecycle, and data privacy are in harmony, the technology becomes an asset.

✅ What to Look for in Administrative Suitability

A. Business Model Transparency

Most platforms are subscription-based, but how they scale matters. Are you charged per athlete? Per coach? Do you pay more for advanced features? Know exactly what you’re buying now and what it might cost in two years as your team grows.

B. Lifecycle Flexibility

Onboarding takes effort, so does offboarding. Can you easily transfer ownership between coaches if someone leaves? Can you export athlete history and exercise libraries if you change providers? You don’t want to be stuck with a “legacy system” after only two years.

C. Data Privacy and Ownership

A hidden giant in determining system fit. Data is rightfully sensitive for athletes, tactical professionals, and government employees. You need clarity on where it’s stored, who owns it, and whether it’s encrypted. If your org follows HIPAA, GDPR, FOIP, or similar protocols, this isn’t optional.

If your software creates duplication, stalls collaboration, breaches privacy, or can’t scale without incurring high costs, it’s not a long-term solution. It’s tech debt in disguise.

"A platform that demonstrates long-term viability and active innovation ensures stability and continuity, allowing staff to focus on athlete performance rather than troubleshooting."

3. Adaptability and Integration

Adaptability is what allows technology to thrive in dynamic unpredictable environments. Elite ecosystems demand frequent adjustments due to travel, injuries, and changing performance priorities. A programming software that integrates with your AMS by automatically syncing monitoring data or supporting scenario-based planning, and scales across individuals or full squads may or may not provide what is needed to maintain program integrity. Ultimately, the most valuable S&C platforms don’t just store training data— they elevate the entire performance ecosystem.

These ecosystems rely heavily on data-driven decision-making, and your selected software must cater to your needs. This could be seamless collection, analysis, and/or visualization of diverse data streams from GPS and force platforms to wellness and readiness metrics when connected to an AMS or acting as a quasi-AMS.

If applicable, a software’s ability to integrate with other systems through robust APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) should be considered. Multiple positions or even departments depend on interoperable data. A strong API framework allows for real-time synchronization between platforms, reducing manual entry or cleaning, minimizing data errors, and ensuring that performance insights are consolidated. This level of integration enables staff to move beyond isolated data silos toward a more holistic understanding of athlete readiness, workload, and performance trends. Not a necessity, but potentially relevant.

✅ What to Look for in adaptability

A. Room to Grow

Most programs start basic—set, rep, tempo. But what happens when you want to embed load-velocity profiling or test-driven block adjustments? Select software with a utilization ceiling you can grow into, rather than out of.

B. Import-Export Capabilities

You should never feel trapped inside the software. A strong tool allows clean import from spreadsheets and clean export for reporting. Integration potential; the best software doesn’t try to do everything. It connects with tools that do. Can it talk to your AMS, force plate dashboards, or wellness tools? Does it support API integrations?

C. Feature Manipulation and Company Support

organizations often require unique configurations, custom modules, or new analytical features. A responsive company that offers technical support, open dialogue, and timely feature development fosters trust and long-term collaboration. The most valuable partnerships are those where the vendor listens to practitioners, understands the realities of high-performance sport, and continually adapts the product to emerging needs.

Conclusion: Technology Alone is not Enough

There is no perfect platform. But there is the right fit. That’s the mindset I’ve learned to adopt—not chasing features for their own sake, but asking; does this improve our coaching workflow? And does this scale with the complexity of our users and staff?

If a tool allows you to program more efficiently, communicate with clarity, and adapt without friction, it’s probably worth the investment.

If it’s bloated, rigid, or incompatible with other tools being used—it’s not worth the branding or the buzzwords.

Your system, your staff, and your users deserve tech that amplifies, not interrupts, the pursuit.

-

Disclaimer

Area 13 Training Systems, more specifically The Learning Ground, provides content for informational and educational purposes only which may contain copyrighted material. Although credit is always attempted to be given, such content available may not be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. A13 and TLG believes this constitutes fair use due to there being no known copyright or infringement intended. A13 and TLG encourages the exchange of said content to provide those interested with accessible research and educational information, so long as credit is appropriately given. Furthermore, A13 and TLG assumes no responsibility for any statements made or materials used by guest authors/presenters, which may not always represent our opinion. We also do not endorse any products or services that may be mentioned.