Posted on

Multi-Cloud Is a Trap

It comes up in a lot of conversations with clients. We want to be cloud-agnostic. We need to avoid vendor lock-in. We want to be able to shift workloads seamlessly between cloud providers. Let me say it again: multi-cloud is a trap. Outside of appeasing a few major retailers who might not be too keen on stuff running in Amazon data centers, I can think of few reasons why multi-cloud should be a priority for organizations of any scale.

A multi-cloud strategy looks great on paper, but it creates unneeded constraints and results in a wild-goose chase. For most, it ends up being a distraction, creating more problems than it solves and costing more money than it’s worth. I’m going to caveat that claim in just a bit because it’s a bold blanket statement, but bear with me. For now, just know that when I say “multi-cloud,” I’m referring to the idea of running the same services across vendors or designing applications in a way that allows them to move between providers effortlessly. I’m not speaking to the notion of leveraging the best parts of each cloud provider or using higher-level, value-added services across vendors.

Multi-cloud rears its head for a number of reasons, but they can largely be grouped into the following points: disaster recovery (DR), vendor lock-in, and pricing. I’m going to speak to each of these and then discuss where multi-cloud actually does come into play.

Disaster Recovery

Multi-cloud gets pushed as a means to implement DR. When discussing DR, it’s important to have a clear understanding of how cloud providers work. Public cloud providers like AWS, GCP, and Azure have a concept of regions and availability zones (n.b. Azure only recently launched availability zones in select regions, which they’ve learned the hard way is a good idea). A region is a collection of data centers within a specific geographic area. An availability zone (AZ) is one or more data centers within a region. Each AZ is isolated with dedicated network connections and power backups, and AZs in a region are connected by low-latency links. AZs might be located in the same building (with independent compute, power, cooling, etc.) or completely separated, potentially by hundreds of miles.

Region-wide outages are highly unusual. When they happen, it’s a high-profile event since it usually means half the Internet is broken. Since AZs themselves are geographically isolated to an extent, a natural disaster taking down an entire region would basically be the equivalent of a meteorite wiping out the state of Virginia. The more common cause of region failures are misconfigurations and other operator mistakes. While rare, they do happen. However, regions are highly isolated, and providers perform maintenance on them in staggered windows to avoid multi-region failures.

That’s not to say a multi-region failure is out of the realm of possibility (any more than a meteorite wiping out half the continental United States or some bizarre cascading failure). Some backbone infrastructure services might span regions, which can lead to larger-scale incidents. But while having a presence in multiple cloud providers is obviously safer than a multi-region strategy within a single provider, there are significant costs to this. DR is an incredibly nuanced topic that I think goes underappreciated, and I think cloud portability does little to minimize those costs in practice. You don’t need to be multi-cloud to have a robust DR strategy—unless, perhaps, you’re operating at Google or Amazon scale. After all, Amazon.com is one of the world’s largest retailers, so if your DR strategy can match theirs, you’re probably in pretty good shape.

Vendor Lock-In

Vendor lock-in and the related fear, uncertainty, and doubt therein is another frequently cited reason for a multi-cloud strategy. Beau hits on this in Stop Wasting Your Beer Money:

The cloud. DevOps. Serverless. These are all movements and markets created to commoditize the common needs. They may not be the perfect solution. And yes, you may end up “locked in.” But I believe that’s a risk worth taking. It’s not as bad as it sounds. Tim O’Reilly has a quote that sums this up:

“Lock-in” comes because others depend on the benefit from your services, not because you’re completely in control.

We are locked-in because we benefit from this service. First off, this means that we’re leveraging the full value from this service. And, as a group of consumers, we have more leverage than we realize. Those providers are going to do what is necessary to continue to provide value that we benefit from. That is what drives their revenue. As O’Reilly points out, the provider actually has less control than you think. They’re going to build the system they believe benefits the largest portion of their market. They will focus on what we, a player in the market, value.

Competition is the other key piece of leverage. As strong as a provider like AWS is, there are plenty of competing cloud providers. And while competitors attempt to provide differentiated solutions to what they view as gaps in the market they also need to meet the basic needs. This is why we see so many common services across these providers. This is all for our benefit. We should take advantage of this leverage being provided to us. And yes, there will still be costs to move from one provider to another but I believe those costs are actually significantly less than the costs of going from on-premise to the cloud in the first place. Once you’re actually on the cloud you gain agility.

The mental gymnastics I see companies go through to avoid vendor lock-in and “reasons” for multi-cloud always astound me. It’s baffling the amount of money companies are willing to spend on things that do not differentiate them in any way whatsoever and, in fact, forces them to divert resources from business-differentiating things.

I think there are a couple reasons for this. First, as Beau points out, we have a tendency to overvalue our own abilities and undervalue our costs. This causes us to miscalculate the build versus buy decision. This is also closely related to the IKEA effect, in which consumers place a disproportionately high value on products they partially created. Second, as the power and influence in organizations has shifted from IT to the business—and especially with the adoption of product mindset—it strikes me as another attempt by IT operations to retain control and relevance.

Being cloud-agnostic should not be an important enough goal that it drives key decisions. If that’s your starting point, you’re severely limiting your ability to fully reap the benefits of cloud. You’re just renting compute. Platforms like Pivotal Cloud Foundry and Red Hat OpenShift tout the ability to run on every major private and public cloud, but doing so—by definition—necessitates an abstraction layer that abstracts away all the differentiating features of each cloud platform. When you abstract away the differentiating features to avoid lock-in, you also abstract away the value. You end up with vendor “lock-out,” which basically means you aren’t leveraging the full value of services. Either the abstraction reduces things to a common interface or it doesn’t. If it does, it’s unclear how it can leverage differentiated provider features and remain cloud-agnostic. If it doesn’t, it’s unclear what the value of it is or how it can be truly multi-cloud.

Not to pick on PCF or Red Hat too much, but as the major cloud providers continue to unbundle their own platforms and rebundle them in a more democratized way, the value proposition of these multi-cloud platforms begins to diminish. In the pre-Kubernetes and containers era—aka the heyday of Platform as a Service (PaaS)—there was a compelling story. Now, with the prevalence of containers, Kubernetes, and especially things like Google’s GKE and GKE On-Prem (and equivalents in other providers), that story is getting harder to tell. Interestingly, the recently announced Knative was built in close partnership with, among others, both Pivotal and Red Hat, which seems to be a play to capture some of the value from enterprise adoption of serverless computing using the momentum of Kubernetes.

But someone needs to run these multi-cloud platforms as a service, and therein lies the rub. That responsibility is usually dumped on an operations or shared-services team who now needs to run it in multiple clouds—and probably subscribe to a services contract with the vendor.

A multi-cloud deployment requires expertise for multiple cloud platforms. A PaaS might abstract that away from developers, but it’s pushed down onto operations staff. And we’re not even getting in to the security and compliance implications of certifying multiple platforms. For some companies who are just now looking to move to the cloud, this will seriously derail things. Once we get past the airy-fairy marketing speak, we really get into the hairy details of what it means to be multi-cloud.

There’s just less room today for running a PaaS that is not managed for you. It’s simply not strategic to any business. I also like to point out that revenues for companies like Pivotal and Red Hat are largely driven by services. These platforms act as a way to drive professional services revenue.

Generally speaking, the risk posed to businesses by vendor lock-in of non-strategic systems is low. For example, a database stores data. Whether it’s Amazon DynamoDB, Google Cloud Datastore, or Azure Cosmos DB—there might be technical differences like NoSQL, relational, ANSI-compliant SQL, proprietary, and so on—fundamentally, they just put data in and get data out. There may be engineering effort involved in moving between them, but it’s not insurmountable and that cost is often far outweighed by the benefits we get using them. Where vendor lock-in can become a problem is when relying on core strategic systems. These might be systems which perform actual business logic or are otherwise key enablers of a company’s business. As Joel Spolsky says, “If it’s a core business function—do it yourself, no matter what. Pick your core business competencies and goals, and do those in house.”

Pricing

Price competitiveness might be the weakest argument of all for multi-cloud. The reality is, as they commoditize more and more, all providers are in a race to the bottom when it comes to cost. Between providers, you will end up spending more in some areas and less in others. Multi-cloud price arbitrage is not a thing, it’s just something people pretend is a thing. For one, it’s wildly impractical. For another, it fails to account for volume discounts. As I mentioned in my comparison of AWS and GCP, it really comes down more to where you want to invest your resources when picking a cloud provider due to their differing philosophies.

And to Beau’s point earlier, the lock-in angle on pricing, i.e. a vendor locking you in and then driving up prices, just doesn’t make sense. First, that’s not how economies of scale work. And once you’re in the cloud, the cost of moving from one provider to another is dramatically less than when you were on-premise, so this simply would not be in providers’ best interest. They will do what’s necessary to capture the largest portion of the market and competitive forces will drive Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) costs down. Because of the competitive environment and desire to capture market share, pricing is likely to converge.  For cloud providers to increase margins, they will need to move further up the stack toward Software as a Service (SaaS) and value-added services.

Additionally, most public cloud providers offer volume discounts. For instance, AWS offers Reserved Instances with significant discounts up to 75% for EC2. Other AWS services also have volume discounts, and Amazon uses consolidated billing to combine usage from all the accounts in an organization to give you a lower overall price when possible. GCP offers sustained use discounts, which are automatic discounts that get applied when running GCE instances for a significant portion of the billing month. They also implement what they call inferred instances, which is bin-packing partial instance usage into a single instance to prevent you from losing your discount if you replace instances. Finally, GCP likewise has an equivalent to Amazon’s Reserved Instances called committed use discounts. If resources are spread across multiple cloud providers, it becomes more difficult to qualify for many of these discounts.

Where Multi-Cloud Makes Sense

I said I would caveat my claim and here it is. Yes, multi-cloud can be—and usually is—a distraction for most organizations. If you are a company that is just now starting to look at cloud, it will serve no purpose but to divert you from what’s really important. It will slow things down and plant seeds of FUD.

Some companies try to do build-outs on multiple providers at the same time in an attempt to hedge the risk of going all in on one. I think this is counterproductive and actually increases the risk of an unsuccessful outcome. For smaller shops, pick a provider and focus efforts on productionizing it. Leverage managed services where you can, and don’t use multi-cloud as a reason not to. For larger companies, it’s not unreasonable to have build-outs on multiple providers, but it should be done through controlled experimentation. And that’s one of the benefits of cloud, we can make limited investments and experiment without big up-front expenditures—watch out for that with the multi-cloud PaaS offerings and service contracts.

But no, that doesn’t mean multi-cloud doesn’t have a place. Things are never that cut and dry. For large enterprises with multiple business units, multi-cloud is an inevitability. This can be a result of product teams at varying levels of maturity, corporate IT infrastructure, and certainly through mergers and acquisitions. The main value of multi-cloud, and I think one of the few arguments for it, is leveraging the strengths of each cloud where they make sense. This gets back to providers moving up the stack. As they attempt to differentiate with value-added services, multi-cloud starts to become a lot more meaningful. Secondarily, there might be a case for multi-cloud due to data-sovereignty reasons, but I think this is becoming less and less of a concern with the prevalence of regions and availability zones. However, some services, such as Google’s Cloud Spanner, might forgo AZ-granularity due to being “globally available” services, so this is something to be aware of when dealing with regulations like GDPR. Finally, for enterprises with colocation facilities, hybrid cloud will always be a reality, though this gets complicated when extending those out to multiple cloud providers.

If you’re just beginning to dip your toe into cloud, a multi-cloud strategy should not be at the forefront of your mind. It definitely should not be your guiding objective and something that drives core decisions or strategic items for the business. It has a time and place, but outside of that, it’s just a fool’s errand—a distraction from what’s truly important.

Posted on

Software Is About Storytelling

Software engineering is more a practice in archeology than it is in building. As an industry, we undervalue storytelling and focus too much on artifacts and tools and deliverables. How many times have you been left scratching your head while looking at a piece of code, system, or process? It’s the story, the legacy left behind by that artifact, that is just as important—if not more—than the artifact itself.

And I don’t mean what’s in the version control history—that’s often useless. I mean the real, human story behind something. Artifacts, whether that’s code or tools or something else entirely, are not just snapshots in time. They’re the result of a series of decisions, discussions, mistakes, corrections, problems, constraints, and so on.  They’re the product of the engineering process, but the problem is they usually don’t capture that process in its entirety. They rarely capture it at all. They commonly end up being nothing but a snapshot in time.

It’s often the sign of an inexperienced engineer when someone looks at something and says, “this is stupid” or “why are they using X instead of Y?” They’re ignoring the context, the fact that circumstances may have been different. There is a story that led up to that point, a reason for why things are the way they are. If you’re lucky, the people involved are still around. Unfortunately, this is not typically the case. And so it’s not necessarily the poor engineer’s fault for wondering these things. Their predecessors haven’t done enough to make that story discoverable and share that context.

I worked at a company that built a homegrown container PaaS on ECS. Doing that today would be insane with the plethora of container solutions available now. “Why aren’t you using Kubernetes?” Well, four years ago when we started, Kubernetes didn’t exist. Even Docker was just in its infancy. And it’s not exactly a flick of a switch to move multiple production environments to a new container runtime, not to mention the politicking with leadership to convince them it’s worth it to not ship any new code for the next quarter as we rearchitect our entire platform. Oh, and now the people behind the original solution are no longer with the company. Good luck! And this is on the timescale of about five years. That’s maybe like one generation of engineers at the company at most—nothing compared to the decades or more software usually lives (an interesting observation is that timescale, I think, is proportional to the size of an organization). Don’t underestimate momentum, but also don’t underestimate changing circumstances, even on a small time horizon.

The point is, stop looking at technology in a vacuum. There are many facets to consider. Likewise, decisions are not made in a vacuum. Part of this is just being an empathetic engineer. The corollary to this is you don’t need to adopt every bleeding-edge tech that comes out to be successful, but the bigger point is software is about storytelling. The question you should be asking is how does your organization tell those stories? Are you deliberate or is it left to tribal knowledge and hearsay? Is it something you truly value and prioritize or simply a byproduct?

Documentation is good, but the trouble with documentation is it’s usually haphazard and stagnant. It’s also usually documentation of how and not why. Documenting intent can go a long way, and understanding the why is a good way to develop empathy. Code survives us. There’s a fantastic talk by Bryan Cantrill on oral tradition in software engineering where he talks about this. People care about intent. Specifically, when you write software, people care what you think. As Bryan puts it, future generations of programmers want to understand your intent so they can abide by it, so we need to tell them what our intent was. We need to broadcast it. Good code comments are an example of this. They give you a narrative of not only what’s going on, but why. When we write software, we write it for future generations, and that’s the most underestimated thing in all of software. Documenting intent also allows you to document your values, and that allows the people who come after you to continue to uphold them.

Storytelling in software is important. Without it, software archeology is simply the study of puzzles created by time and neglect. When an organization doesn’t record its history, it’s bound to repeat the same mistakes. A company’s memory is comprised of its people, but the fact is people churn. Knowing how you got here often helps you with getting to where you want to be. Storytelling is how we transcend generational gaps and the inevitable changing of the old guard to the new guard in a maturing engineering organization. The same is true when we expand that to the entire industry. We’re too memoryless—shipping code and not looking back, discovering everything old that is new again, and simply not appreciating our lineage.

Posted on

The Future of Ops

Traditional Operations isn’t going away, it’s just retooling. The move from on-premise to cloud means Ops, in the classical sense, is largely being outsourced to cloud providers. This is the buzzword-compliant NoOps movement, of which many call the “successor” to DevOps, though that word has become pretty diluted these days. What this leaves is a thin but crucial slice between Amazon and the products built by development teams, encompassing infrastructure automation, deployment automation, configuration management, log management, and monitoring and instrumentation.

The future of Operations is actually, in many ways, much like the future of QA. Traditional QA roles are shifting away from test-focused to tools-focused. Engineers write code, unit tests, and integration tests. The tests run in CI and the code moves to production through a CD pipeline and canary rollouts. QA teams are shrinking, but what’s growing are the teams building the tools—the test frameworks, the CI environments, the CD pipelines. QA capabilities are now embedded within development teams. The SDET (Software Development Engineer in Test) model, popularized by companies like Microsoft and Amazon, was the first step in this direction. In 2014, Microsoft moved to a Combined Engineering model, merging SDET and SDE (Software Development Engineer) into one role, Software Engineer, who is responsible for product code, test code, and tools code.

The same is quickly becoming true for Ops. In my time with Workiva’s Infrastructure and Reliability group, we combined our Operations and Infrastructure Engineering teams into a single team effectively consisting of Site Reliability Engineers. This team is responsible for building and maintaining infrastructure services, configuration management, log management, container management, monitoring, etc.

I am a big proponent of leadership through vision. A compelling vision is what enables alignment between teams, minimizes the effects of functional and organizational silos, and intrinsically motivates and mobilizes people. It enables highly aligned and loosely coupled teams. It enables decision making. My vision for the future of Operations as an organizational competency is essentially taking Combined Engineering to its logical conclusion. Just as with QA, Ops capabilities should be embedded within development teams. The fact is, you can’t be an effective software engineer in a modern organization without Ops skills. Ops teams, as they exist today, should be redefining their vision.

The future of Ops is enabling developers to self-service through tooling, automation, and processes and empowering them to deploy and operate their services with minimal Ops intervention. Every role should be working towards automating itself out of a job.

If you asked an old-school Ops person to draw out the entire stack, from bare metal to customer, and circle what they care about, they would draw a circle around the entire thing. Then they would complain about the shitty products dev teams are shipping for which they get paged in the middle of the night. This is broadly an outdated and broken way of thinking that leads to the self-loathing, chainsmoking Ops stereotype. It’s a cop out and a bitterness resulting from a lack of empathy. If a service is throwing out-of-memory exceptions at 2AM, does it make sense to alert the Ops folks who have no insight or power to fix the problem? Or should we alert the developers who are intimately familiar with the system? The latter seems obvious, but the key is they need to be empowered to be notified of the situation, debug it, and resolve it autonomously.

The NewOps model instead should essentially treat Ops like a product team whose product is the infrastructure. Much like the way developers provide APIs for their services, Ops provide APIs for their infrastructure in the form of tools, UIs, automation, infrastructure as code, observability and alerting, etc.

In many ways, DevOps was about getting developers to empathize with Ops. NewOps is the opposite. Overly martyrlike and self-righteous Ops teams simply haven’t done enough to empower and offload responsibility onto dev teams. With this new Combined Engineering approach, we force developers to apply systems thinking in a holistic fashion. It’s often said: the only way engineers will build truly reliable systems is when they are directly accountable for them—meaning they are on call, not some other operator.

With this move, the old-school, wild-west-style of Operations needs to die. Ops is commonly the gatekeeper, and they view themselves as such. Old-school Ops is building in as much process as possible, slowing down development so that when they reach production, the developers have a near-perfectly reliable system. Old-school Ops then takes responsibility for operating that system once it’s run the gauntlet and reached production through painstaking effort.

Old-school Ops are often hypocrites. They advocate for rigorous SDLC and then bypass the same SDLC when it comes to maintaining infrastructure. NewOps means infrastructure is code. Config changes are code. Neither of which are exempt from the same SDLC to which developers must adhere. We codify change requests. We use immutable infrastructure and AMIs. We don’t push changes to a live environment without going through the process. Similarly, we need to encode compliance and other SDLC requirements which developers will not empathize with into tooling and process. Processes document and codify values.

Old-school Ops is constantly at odds with the Lean mentality. It’s purely interrupt-driven—putting out fires and fixing one problem after another. At the same time, it’s important to have balance. Will enabling dev teams to SSH into boxes or attach debuggers to containers in integration environments discourage them from properly instrumenting their applications? Will it promote pain displacement? It’s imperative to balance the Ops mentality with the Dev mentality.

Development teams often hold Ops responsible for being an innovation or delivery bottleneck. There needs to be empathy in both directions. It’s easy to vilify Ops but oftentimes they are just trying to keep up. You can innovate without having to adopt every bleeding-edge technology that hits Hacker News. On the other hand, modern Ops organizations need to realize they will almost never be able to meet the demand placed upon them. The sustainable approach—and the approach that instills empathy—is to break down the silos and share the responsibility. This is the future of Ops. With the move to cloud, Ops needs to reinvent itself by empowering and entrusting development teams, not trying to protect them from themselves.

Ops is dead, long live Ops!

Posted on

Pain-Driven Development: Why Greedy Algorithms Are Bad for Engineering Orgs

I recently wrote about the importance of understanding decision impact and why it’s important for building an empathetic engineering culture. I presented the distinction between pain displacement and pain deferral, and this was something I wanted to expand on a bit.

When you distill it down, I think what’s at the heart of a lot of engineering orgs is this idea of “pain-driven development.” When a company grows to a certain size, it develops limbs, and each of these limbs has its own pain receptors. This is when empathy becomes important because it becomes harder and less natural. These limbs of course are teams or, more generally speaking, silos. Teams have a natural tendency to operate in a way that minimizes the amount of pain they feel.

It’s time for some game theory: pain is a zero-sum game. By always following the path of least resistance, we end up displacing pain instead of feeling it. This is literally just instinct. In other words, by making locally optimal choices, we run the risk of losing out on a globally optimal solution. Sometimes this is an explicit business decision, but many times it’s not.

Tech debt is a common example of when pain displacement is a deliberate business decision. It’s pain deferral—there’s pain we need to feel, but we can choose to feel it later and in the meantime provide incremental value to the business. This is usually a team choosing to apply a bandaid and coming back to fix it later. “We have this large batch job that has a five-minute timeout, and we’re sporadically seeing this timeout getting hit. Why don’t we just bump up the timeout to 10 minutes?” This is a bandaid, and a particularly poor one at that because, by Parkinson’s law, as soon as you bump up the timeout to 10 minutes, you’ll start seeing 11-minute jobs, and we’ll be having the same discussion over again. I see the exact same types of discussions happening with resource provisioning: “we’re hitting memory limits—can we just provision our instances with more RAM?” “We’re pegging CPU. Obviously we just need more cores.” Throwing hardware at the problem is the path of least resistance for the developers. They have a deliverable in front of them, they have a lot of pressure to ship, this is how they do it. It’s a greedy algorithm. It minimizes pain.

Where things become really problematic is when the pain displacement involves multiple teams. This is why understanding decision impact is so key. Pain displacement doesn’t just involve engineering teams, it also involves customers and other stakeholders in the organization. This is something I see quite a bit: displacing pain away from customers onto various teams within the org by setting unrealistic expectations up front.

For example, we build a product MVP and run it on a single, high-memory instance, and we don’t actually write data out to disk to keep it fast. We then put this product in front of sales folks, marketing, or even customers and say “hey, look at this cool thing we built.” Then the customers say “wow, this is great! I don’t feel any pain at all using this!” That’s because the pain has been moved elsewhere.

This MVP isn’t fault tolerant because it’s running on a single machine. This MVP isn’t horizontally scalable because we keep all the state in memory on one instance. This MVP isn’t safe because the data isn’t durably stored to disk. The problem is we weren’t testing at scale, so we never felt any pain until it was too late. So we start working backward to address these issues after the fact. We need to run multiple instances so we can have failover. But wait, now we need stateful request routing to maintain our performance expectations. Does our infrastructure support that? We need a mechanism to split and merge units of work that plays nicely with our autoscaling system to give us a better scale story, avoid hot instances, and reduce excess capacity. But wait, how long will that take to build? We need to attach persistent disks so we can durably store data and keep things fast. But wait, does our cluster provisioning allow for that? Does that even meet our compliance requirements?

The only way you reach this point is by making local decisions without thinking about the trade-offs involved or the fact that what you’ve actually done is simply displaced the pain.

If someone doesn’t feel pain, they have a harder time developing a sense of empathy. For instance, the goal of any good operations team is to effectively put itself out of a job by empowering developers to self-service through tooling and automation. One example of this is infrastructure as code, so an ops team adds a process requiring developers to provision their own infrastructure using CloudFormation scripts. For the ops folks, this is a boon—now they no longer have to labor through countless UIs and AWS consoles to provision databases, queues, and the like for each environment. Developers, on the other hand, were never exposed to that pain, so to them, writing CloudFormation scripts is a new hoop to jump through—setting up infrastructure is ops’ job! They might feel pain now, but they don’t necessarily see the immediate payoff.

A coworker of mine recently posed an interesting question: why do product teams often overlook the need for tools required to support their product in production until after they’ve deployed to production? And while the answer he posits is good, and one I very much agree with—solving a problem and solving the problem of solving problems are two very different problems—my answer is this: pain-driven development. In this case, you’re deferring the pain by hooking up debuggers or SSHing into the box and poking about instead of relying on instrumentation which is what we’re limited to in the field. As long as you’re cognizant of this and know that at some point you will have to feel some pain, it can be okay. But if you’re just displacing pain thinking it’s actually disappearing, you’ll be in for a rude awakening. Remember, it’s a zero-sum game.

I’m looking at this through an infrastructure or operations lens, but this applies everywhere and it cuts both ways. Understanding the why behind something rather than just the how is critical to building empathy. It’s being able to look at a problem through someone else’s perspective and applying that to your own work. Changing your perspective is a powerful way to deepen your relationships. Pain-driven development is intoxicating because it allows us to move fast. It’s a greedy algorithm, but it provides a poor global approximation for large engineering organizations. Thinking holistically is important.

Posted on

Decision Impact

I think a critical part of building an empathetic engineering culture is understanding decision impact. This is a blindspot that I see happening a lot: a deliberate effort to understand the effects caused by a decision. How does adopting X affect operations? Does our dev tooling support this? Is this architecture supported by our current infrastructure? What are the compliance or security implications of this? Will this scale in production? A particular decision might save you time, but does it create work or slow others down? Are we just displacing pain somewhere else?

What’s needed is a broad understanding of the net effects. Pain displacement is an indication that we’re not thinking beyond the path of least resistance. The problem is if we lack a certain empathy, we aren’t aware the pain displacement is occurring in the first place. It’s important we widen our vision beyond the deliverable in front of us. We have to think holistically—like a systems person—and think deeply about the interactions between decisions. Part of this is having an organizational awareness.

Tech debt is the one exception to this because it’s pain displacement we feel ourselves—it’s pain deferral. This is usually a decision we can make ourselves, but when we’re dealing with pain displacement involving multiple teams, that’s when problems start happening. And that’s where empathy becomes critical because software engineering is more about collaboration than code and shit has this natural tendency to roll downhill.

The first sentence of The Five Dysfunctions of a Team captures this idea really well: “Not finance. Not strategy. Not technology. It is teamwork that remains the ultimate competitive advantage, both because it is so powerful and so rare.” The powerful part is obvious, but the bit about rarity is interesting when we think about teams holistically. The cause, I think, is deeply rooted in the silos or fiefdoms that naturally form around teams. The difficulty comes as an organization scales. What I see happening frequently are goals that diverge or conflict. The fix is rallying teams around a shared cause—a single, compelling vision. Likewise, it’s thinking holistically and having empathy. Understanding decision impact and pain displacement is one step to developing that empathy. This is what unlocks the rarity part of teamwork.