In a move announced on March 20th, 2024, Redis, the ubiquitous in-memory data store, sent shockwaves through the tech world with a significant shift in its licensing model. Previously boasting a permissive BSD license, Redis transitioned to a dual-license approach, combining the Redis Source Available License (RSAL) and the Server Side Public License (SSPL). This move, while strategic for Redis Labs, has created ripples of concern in the SAAS ecosystem and the open-source community at large.
The Split: From Open to Source-Available
At its core, the change restricts how users, particularly cloud providers offering managed Redis services, can leverage the software commercially. The SSPL, outlined in the March 24th press release, stipulates that any derivative work offering the “same functionality as Redis” as a service must also be open-sourced. This directly impacts companies like Amazon (ElastiCache) and DigitalOcean, forcing them to potentially alter their service models or acquire commercial licenses from Redis Labs.
A History of Licensing Shifts
This isn’t the first time Redis Labs has ruffled feathers with licensing changes. As a 2019 TechCrunch article [1] highlights, Redis Labs has a history of tweaking its open-source license, sparking similar controversies. Back then, the company argued that cloud providers were profiting from Redis without giving back to the open-source community. The new SSPL appears to be an extension of this philosophy, aiming to compel greater contribution from commercial users.
SAAS Providers in a Squeeze
For SAAS providers, the new licensing throws a wrench into established business models. Modifying core functionality to comply with the SSPL might not be feasible, and open-sourcing their entire platform could expose proprietary code. This could lead to increased costs for SAAS companies, potentially impacting end-user pricing.
Open Source Community Divided
The open-source world is also grappling with the implications. While the core Redis functionality remains open-source under RSAL, the philosophical shift towards a more restrictive model has some worried. The Linux Foundation even announced a fork, Valkey, as an alternative, backed by tech giants like Google and Oracle. This fragmentation could create confusion and slow down innovation within the open-source Redis ecosystem.
The Road Ahead: Uncertainty and Innovation
The long-term effects of Redis’s licensing change remain to be seen. It might pave the way for a new model for open-source software sustainability, where companies can balance community development with commercial viability. However, it also raises concerns about control and potential fragmentation within open-source projects.
In conclusion, Redis’s licensing shift presents a complex scenario. While it aims to secure Redis Labs’ financial future, it disrupts the SAAS landscape and creates uncertainty in the open-source world. Only time will tell if this is a necessary evolution or a roadblock to future innovation.
Nobody plans to leave AWS in the startup world, but as they say, “sh** happens.”
As engineers, when we write software, we’re taught to keep it elegant by never depending directly on external systems. We write wrappers for external resources, we encapsulate data and behaviour and standardise functions with libraries.
But, When it comes to the cloud… “eerie silence”
Companies have died because they needed to move off AWS or GCP but couldn’t do it in a reasonable and cost-effective timeline.
We (at Itilite) had a close call with GCP, which served as our brush with the fire. Google had arguably one of the best Distance Matrix capabilities out there. It was used in one of our core logic and ML models. And on one fine Monday afternoon, I have to set up a meeting with my CEO to communicate that we will have to spend ~250% more on our cloud service bill in about 60 days.
Actually, google increased the pricing by 1400% and gave 60 days to rewrite, migrate, move out or perish!
The closest competitor in terms of capability was DistanceMatrix and a reliable “Large” player was Bing. But, both left a lot for in the “Accuracy”. So, for us, the business decision was simple: make the entire product work in “Reduced Functionality” mode for all or start differential pricing for better accuracy! In either case, those APIs must be rewritten with a new adaptor.
It is not an enigma why we do this. It’s simple: there are no alternatives, there is no time to GTM, But maybe there is. I’ll explain why you should take cloud-agnostic architecture seriously and then show you what I do to keep my projects cloud-agnostic.
Cloud Service Rationalisation
The prime reason you should consider the ability to switch clouds and cloud services is so you can choose to use the cloud service that is price and performance-optimized for your use case.
When I first got into serverless, we wrote a transformative API on Oracle Cloud (Bcoz we were part of their Accelerator Program and had a huge credit.) but it fed part of the data that the customer-facing API relied on.
No prize for guessing what happened?
It was a horrible mistake. Our API had an insane latency problem. Cold start requests added additional latency of at least 2 seconds per request. The AWS team has worked hard to build a service that can do things that GCP’s Cloud Functions simply can’t, specifically around cold starts and latency.
I had to move my infrastructure to a different service and a revised network topology.
Guess we would have learned the problem by now, but as we will find out, we did not.
This time it was a combination of Kafka and the AWS Lambda that created an issue. We had relied on Confluent’s connectors for much of the workload interfaces and had to shell out almost $1000 per month per connector!
Avoiding the Cloud Provider Killswitch
Protect Your Business from Unexpected Termination
As a CXO, you may not be aware that cloud providers like AWS, GCP, and Azure reserve the right to terminate your account and destroy your infrastructure at any time, effectively shutting down your business operations. While this may seem like an extreme measure, it’s important to understand that cloud providers have strict terms of service that can lead to account termination for a variety of reasons, even if you’re not engaged in illegal or harmful activities.
A Chilling Example
I recently spoke with a friend who is the founder of a fintech platform. He shared a chilling incident that highlights the risks of relying on cloud providers. His team was using GCP’s Cloud Run, a container service, to host their API. They had a unique use case that required them to call back to their own API to trigger additional work and keep the service active. Unfortunately, GCP monitors this type of behaviour and flags it as potential crypto-mining activity.
On an ordinary Sunday, their infrastructure vanished, and their account was locked. It took them six days of nonstop effort to migrate to AWS.
Protect Your Business
This incident serves as a stark reminder that any business operating on cloud infrastructure is vulnerable to unexpected termination. While you may not be intentionally engaging in activities that violate cloud provider terms of service, it’s crucial to build your infrastructure with the possibility of termination in mind.
Here are some key steps you can take to protect your business from the cloud provider killswitch:
Read and understand the terms of service for each cloud provider you use.
Choose a cloud provider that aligns with your industry and business model.
Avoid relying on a single cloud provider.
Have a backup plan in place.
Regularly review your cloud usage and ensure compliance with cloud provider terms of service.
By taking these proactive measures, you can significantly reduce the risk of your business being disrupted by cloud provider termination and ensure the continuity of your operations.
Unleash the Power of Free Cloud Credits
For early-stage startups operating on a shoestring budget, free cloud credits can be a lifeline, shielding your runway from the scorching heat of cloud infrastructure costs. Acquiring these credits is a breeze, but the way most startups build their infrastructure – akin to an unbreakable blood oath with their cloud provider – restricts them to the credits granted by that single provider.
Why limit yourself to the generosity of one cloud provider when you could seamlessly switch between them to optimize your resource allocation? Imagine the possibilities:
AWS to GCP: Upon depleting your AWS credits, you could effortlessly migrate your infrastructure to GCP, taking advantage of their generous $200,000 credit offer.
Y Combinator: As a Y Combinator startup, you’re entitled to a staggering $150,000 in AWS credits and a mind-boggling $200,000 on GCP.
AI-Powered Startups: If you’re developing AI solutions, Azure welcomes you with open arms, offering $300,000 in free credits to fuel your AI models on their cloud.
By embracing cloud-agnostic architecture, you unlock the freedom to switch between cloud providers, potentially saving you a significant $200,000 upfront. Why constrain yourself to a single cloud provider when cloud-agnosticism empowers you to navigate the cloud landscape with flexibility and cost-efficiency?
Building Resilience: The Importance of Cloud Redundancy
In the ever-evolving world of technology, no system is immune to failure. Even industry giants like Silicon Valley Bank can outright disappear over a weekend or AWS’ main Datacenter can go offline due to a power fluctuation, highlighting the importance of proactively safeguarding your business operations.
Imagine the potential financial impact of a 12-hour outage on AWS for your company. The costs could be staggering, not only in lost revenue but also in reputational damage and customer dissatisfaction or even potential churn.
This is where cloud redundancy comes into play. By running parallel segments of your platform on multiple cloud providers, such as AWS and GCP, you’re essentially creating a fail-safe mechanism.
In the event of an outage on one cloud platform, the other can seamlessly pick up the slack, ensuring uninterrupted service for your customers and minimizing the impact on your business. Cloud redundancy is not just about disaster preparedness; it’s also about optimizing performance and scalability. By distributing your workload across multiple cloud providers, you can tap into the unique strengths and resources of each platform, maximizing efficiency and responsiveness.
In our case, we run the OCR packages, SAML, and Accounts service on Azure, our core “Recommendation engine” and “Booking Engine” on AWS. Yes, having a multi-cloud will involve initial costs that might be prohibitive, but in the long run, the benefits will far outweigh the costs.
Cloud Cost Negotiation: A Matter of Leverage
In the realm of business negotiations, the ultimate power lies in the ability to walk away. If the other party senses your lack of alternatives, they gain a significant advantage, effectively holding you hostage. Cloud cost negotiations are no exception.
Imagine you’ve built a substantial $10 million infrastructure on AWS, heavily reliant on their proprietary APIs like S3, Cognito, and SQS. In such a scenario, walking away from AWS becomes an unrealistic option. You’re essentially at their mercy, accepting whatever cloud costs they dictate.
While negotiating cloud costs may seem insignificant to a small company, for an organization with $10 million of AWS infrastructure, even a 3% discount translates into substantial savings.
To gain leverage in cloud cost negotiations, you need to establish a credible threat of walking away. This requires careful planning and strategic implementation of cloud-agnostic architecture, enabling you to seamlessly switch between cloud providers without disrupting your operations.
Cloud Agnosticism: Your Negotiating Edge
Cloud-agnostic architecture empowers you to:
Diversify your infrastructure: Run your applications on multiple cloud platforms, reducing reliance on a single provider.
Reduce switching costs: Design your infrastructure to minimize the effort and cost of migrating to a new cloud provider.
Strengthen your negotiating position: Demonstrate to cloud providers that you have alternative options, giving you more bargaining power.
By embracing cloud-agnosticism, you transform from a captive customer to a savvy negotiator, capable of securing favorable cloud cost terms.
Unforeseen Challenges: The Importance of Cloud Agnosticism
In the dynamic world of business, unforeseen challenges (and opportunities) can arise at any moment. We often operate with limited visibility, unable to predict every possible scenario that could impact our success. Here’s an actual scenario that highlights the importance of cloud-agnostic architecture:
Acquisition Deal Goes Through
This happened with One of my previous organisations, we tirelessly built this company from the ground up. Our hard work and dedication paid off when a large SaaS Unicorn approached us with an acquisition proposal.
However, during the due diligence, a critical issue emerged: Our company’s infrastructure was entirely reliant on AWS. The Acquiring company had a multi-year multi-million dollar deal with Azure and the M&A team made it clear that unless our platform can operate on Azure, the deal is off the table!
Our team faced the daunting task of migrating the entire infrastructure to Azure within a limited timeframe and budget. Unfortunately, the complexities of the migration proved time-consuming and the merger took 5 months to complete and the offer was reduced by $2 million!
The Power of Cloud Agnosticism
This story serves as a stark reminder of the risks associated with a single-cloud strategy. Had our company embraced cloud-agnostic architecture, we would have possessed the flexibility to seamlessly switch between cloud providers, potentially leading to a bigger exit for all of us!
Cloud-agnostic architecture offers several benefits:
Reduced Vendor Lock-in: Avoids dependence on a single cloud provider, empowering you to switch to more favourable options based on your needs.
Improved Negotiation Power: Gains leverage in cloud cost negotiations by demonstrating the ability to switch providers.
Increased Resilience: Protects your business from disruptions caused by cloud provider outages or policy changes.
Enhanced Scalability: Enables seamless expansion of your infrastructure across multiple cloud platforms as your business grows.
Embrace Cloud Agnosticism for Business Continuity
In today’s ever-changing technological landscape, cloud-agnostic architecture is not just a benefit; it’s a necessity for businesses seeking long-term success and resilience. By adopting a cloud-agnostic approach, you empower your company to navigate the complexities of the cloud landscape with agility, adaptability, and cost-efficiency, ensuring that unforeseen challenges don’t derail your journey.
My Solution
Here’s what I do about it, now after the lessons learnt. I use Multy. Multy is an open-source tool that simplifies cloud infrastructure management by providing a cloud-agnostic API. This means that developers can define their infrastructure configurations once and deploy them to any cloud provider without having to worry about the specific syntax or nuances of each cloud platform. While Multy provides an abstraction layer for deploying cross-cloud environments, you will also need to incorporate cloud-environment agnostic libraries to really make a difference.
Disclaimer: I have been an enormous proponent of Developer Productivity and have tried to implement automated metrics collection in 3 orgs with varied success. In my Mentoring sessions with early-stage startup leaders as well, I (re)enforce the importance of being aware of Dev Productivity. So much so, that I have written a 2-part article on the same here, here and here. I have also been a huge fan of McKinsey and how they seem to get answers which eluded the attention and resources of mega-corporations or governments alike. However, this article is written to communicate an entirely different perspective. In my opinion, McKinsey has got this entire “framework” thing about “dev productivity” wrong.
Introduction:
About a month back, McKinsey published an article claiming that they have developed a framework to measure productivity. They also acknowledged the fact that they were simply rehashing some of the existing metrics (like DORA and SPACE), which were used by Engineering Leaders and have simplified it (without the context) and are pitching it to their traditional buyers, the C-Suite executives in Mega corporations. Actually, some of these metrics can be useful tools if used correctly -One example is Hand-offs. But, the main reason I have chosen to write this article is their central focus seems to be “Coders should code”. It also appears to have A) missed the context of every metric, OR B) Omitted the context so as not to burden their target audience.
Finally, there is a mix-max of things to track, metrics to monitor and Opportunities to Focus, which looks like
Captain Ramius Pointing to a young Jack Ryan that Admiral Halsey was Stupid!
The Legendary Kent Beck has written a deep 2-part piece on countering the conjectures presented by McKinsey and elaborating on the gaps that engineering orgs are traditionally bound to manifest. It is very well written and covers almost everything. There are also a bunch of other eminent Software Engineers who have written on this and I have tried to give a quick lot at the bottom of this article.
What Was I concerned about?
Focus On Activities
I was primarily concerned about the lack of focus on Outcomes and Impact and a focus on the “Activities” in the proposed framework!
Any engineering leader or manager will tell you that Code Review Velocity and Deployment Frequency have nothing to do with measuring outcomes. While I will not discount Cycle Time or MTTR (I take pride in building multiple teams with one of the lowest MTTR and Cycle times in the ecosystem). They are indicators of some process elements/activities that could lead to outcomes. If we want to measure something, it should be Outcomes, not activities!
Focus on Optimisation of Irrelevant Metrics
Code Review Velocity:
If you want to time-motion the code review process in the entire stream map, you’ll find that async code review is killing your productivity. Pairing improves that dramatically. Instead of trying to sub-optimize for code review, measure the thing we actually want to improve. Which will be “Cycel Time”.
Story Points Completed:
Let’s agree on a basic fact. A “story point” is a made-up number. It was conceived as yet another way to obfuscate estimates for thought work that is difficult to estimate. As originally conceived, it represented the number of mythical “ideal days” of effort. There’s so much time wasted on getting better at “story pointing,” arguing about the Fibonacci sequence, “planning poker,” and other story point nonsense. Frankly, it is one of the “Bad” elements of Scrum! As a leader, you should find and remove handoffs and wait times. Story points are useless for anything and even more useless for this goal. Track throughput instead.
Handoffs:
This is a good one. Good job, McKinsey. You got something right. Stop using testing teams, use pairing instead of code review, operate what you build, and don’t have any people doing anything manual to the right of development.
Contribution Analysis and Opportunities focus
In the other focus areas, they have listed metrics at the individual level that can be useful unless you measure “developer satisfaction,” “retention,” and “interruptions” at the individual level. These should only be measured in aggregates to prevent any cognitive bias. IMO, Things start getting really toxic in the “Opportunities focus” section, though.
I have been part of organisations and processes where there was a focus on tracking and measuring the outcomes of individuals. It did not play out well, ever. My Conclusion after reading the article for the second time is that McKinsey thinks their intended audience (CEOs and CFOs) cannot understand “systems thinking.” Now, If you roll out this or a similar framework and announce this and what do you think will happen?
You have a group of people all working on the same backlog but not acting as a team. Code review suffers, mentoring sufferers, pairing is hard, work breakdown suffers, etc. Anything that requires more than one person to conduct/conclude, including helping someone get unstuck, will get deprioritised!
Overall, The inferences seem to be based on hard facts, but the conjectures are all flawed.
Why This Now?
At this point, I want to highlight what “Triggered” me to write this, read the following.,
For example, one company found that its most talented developers were spending excessive time on noncoding activities such as design sessions or managing interdependencies across teams. In response, the company changed its operating model and clarified roles and responsibilities to enable those highest-value developers to do what they do best: code.
McKinsey’s Article on the purported Framework
Wow. I pray for that company.
So, I believe after McKinsey pointed to the fact, that developers are involved in irrelevant things like design, architecture etc. They created separate towers of responsibility for design. In that case, I am puzzled about who will be responsible for the minor things like dependency management, prerequisites, versioning, capacity planning, concurrency, scalability etc.
Did they get anything Right?
Yes. There are tonnes, but they are buried at the bottom. Their focus on Hand-offs and cycle times are really worth tracking in any engineering org. To the authors’ credit, they have also identified some of the core issues with measuring Developer Productivity. But, someone higher in the firm seem to have suggested to soften the blow. So, they have diluted and buried those sections. I will share 2 gems here.
To truly benefit from measuring productivity, leaders and developers alike need to move past the outdated notion that leaders “cannot” understand the intricacies of software engineering, or that engineering is too complex to measure.
The real problem is that in many large organisations, “The Management” doesn’t understand the work they manage. Management can understand the intricacies of software engineering if they become leaders and study the work they manage. In a large behemoth, not all managers are leaders. They want a framework and will enforce it with an iron fist. Now, McKinsey has delivered them a framework!
Learn the basics. All C-suite leaders who are not engineers or who have been in management for a long time will need a primer on the software development process and how it is evolving.
This one Nailed it! The primary reason “Management” finds it difficult to measure the right thing is because they sometimes do not understand the work they want to measure. Leaders who understand do measure the right things. My primary concern with this framework is, in trying to solve this, McKinsey has made the problem worse!
Just google “McKinsey developer productivity” and you’ll find more articles on how this framework is flawed than the original article link!
Anto’s Response to the Article and the purported Framework.
Sometimes, It seems like most people have added “Remote Work” to a long list of taboo topics that no one should discuss at work. Topics like Religion, Politics, Sexual Orientation, Medical Issues, etc.
Most people know that remote work is a horrible idea for organisations of any size, but they are afraid to call it out because they don’t want to appear out of touch with their employees/colleagues. Others are afraid to be viewed as hostile figures who wish to create tension with employees or be perceived as a manager who doesn’t trust their employees.
So, employers stay silent, and now everyone thinks remote work is the best business idea of the last 200 years.
Most of these shenanigans use personal anecdotes to defend the benefit of remote work. They say they are more productive at home, with fewer distractions and more time for daily (personal) chores. I do not agree or disagree with that statement completely, as it could be dependent on specific roles.
When Remote Work Could be Beneficial:
If you are an individual contributor and mostly work without the need to collaborate in real time, you can be productive in remote work. For example, If you are a finance analyst who dives through ledgers, borough thru tonnes of CSVs and crunch numbers all day, you may be more productive in Home.
When Remote work could be less than Optimal
If you are a creative or knowledge worker (Designer/Developer), chances are you’d NEED to collaborate with, break down/delegate, get feedback etc. In these roles, it will be almost impossible to get a calendar from 6 different people to drive consensus. Whereas if all of your stakeholders are in the office, it is a mere “Shout” or “Wave” and 3 mins conversation following it.
Google has officially changed its mind about remote work
Google leadership publicly admitted that remote work no longer works for them, and that’s the reason they want all of their employees back behind their desks.
Last week, Fiona Cicconi, Google’s chief people officer, wrote an email to the entire company stating, “Going forward, we’ll consider new remote work requests by exception only.” This is horrible news for employees and some companies who believe that remote work is the greatest idea since the invention of the internet.
Let me declutter the above statement for you.
Google is the biggest tech company in the world that created 100s of resources and tools to enable employees to work remotely, admitting defeat.
Despite the release of many communications tools that enabled workers across the globe and all industries to work remotely, it is finally saying that remote work doesn’t work. Let that sink in. Google’s remote employees are unhappy, but Google’s leadership rarely pay attention to the feeling of their employees (after Larry left Alphabet inc). They only pay attention to the stock price and what is recommended at the shareholder’s meeting.
Google is not alone. Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and Amazon also laid off most remote employees.
Remote work destroyed the most profitable industry
As you have seen above, Google leadership is no longer willing to offer their employees 100% remote jobs. They want their employees in the office and productive.
You might ask, why is this happening?
It is happening because you witnessed the destruction of the Tech industry in the last two years. The tech industry crumbled because most Leaders were afraid to tell their remote employees to come to the office, so they did the next best thing: they lost money and laid remote employees off (mostly).
According to the Layoffs tracker, more than 200,000 people were laid off in 2023, and over 164,000 employees were laid off in 2022. This is a clear message to anyone who works in the tech industry, stop working remotely or start interviewing soon.
This is exactly what the most innovative CEO in the world did when he bought Twitter.
When Elon Musk bought Twitter, he found the company in tatters. Musk gave them the same two options he gave his Tesla employees, “If you do not return to the office, you cannot remain at the company. End of story.”
That was the end of the story for many of Twitter’s employees, Musk fired anyone who refused to show up at the office, and his company is more productive and innovative than ever.
Musk ended remote work at Twitter, and most people hated him.
Not every executive had the guts to do what Elon Musk did, but now most wish they did because every company needs to lay off their unproductive employees.
Remote employees are less visible. When it comes to your value to your company, you have to be visible. If you think visibility is not important, ask Kayne West.
Remote employees don’t have a strong connection to other employees or their companies. Relationships are extremely important. I established my professional credibility and earned my colleagues’ respect by connecting with them face-to-face, not through a computer screen.
Remote employees are less invested in their work or career. Since most employer link visibility and ability together, I understand why more than 3000 HR managers believe that.
These reasons led Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, and Zoom to lay off their remote employees first. This is a horrible trend for people who want to work remotely, especially since most remote workers say it could take more than six months to find a new job
In conclusion, I’d like to recommend Richard Baldwin’s video
Can ChatGPT accelerate No-Ops to Replace DevOps in EarlyStage Startups?
Background: I work with multiple CTOs and Heads of Engineering of early-stage startups to help them set up their engineering orgs, review their product architecture, help them prioritise their hiring etc. I also help multiple engineering leaders via Plato. Recently, there have been too many questions on whether can I use ChatGPT for this or that, but the most interesting one among these is “Can ChatGPT accelerate No-Ops to Replace DevOps?”. I have answered that multiple times in verbatim. But thought that writing it down will help me with two things, I can point them to the URL and I can also clearly structure my thoughts on this. So this is an attempt at that.
Glossary First:
DevOps:
For the uninitiated, DevOps is a software development methodology that emphasizes collaboration and communication between developers and operations teams. The goal of DevOps is to increase the speed and quality of software delivery while reducing errors and downtime. DevOps engineers are responsible for the design, development, and delivery of software applications, as well as the management and maintenance of the underlying infrastructure including the pipelines, quality assurance automation etc.
No-ops:
No-ops, on the other hand, is a philosophy that aims to automate and simplify the operations side of software development. The goal of no-ops is to eliminate the need for manual intervention in the deployment and maintenance of applications, freeing up time for developers to focus on creating new features and fixing bugs.
ChatGPT:
ChatGPT is a language model developed by OpenAI that has the potential to revolutionize the way we interact with technology. It can perform a wide range of tasks, from answering questions to generating text and even a rudimentary bit of coding. In the context of DevOps, ChatGPT could be used to automate many of the manual tasks that DevOps engineers currently perform, such as infrastructure management, deployment, and monitoring.
Now, The question: Can ChatGPT accelerate No-Ops to Replace DevOps?
ChatGPT (or any of the other generative AIs) has the potential to automate many of the manual tasks performed by DevOps teams, it could potentially replace the most mundane tasks that DevOps perform pretty soon. So, before writing this piece, I wanted to actually put my understanding to test.
I had to use Bard for this experiment, but I do not think there is going to be much of a difference in the outcomes.
Experiment 1: Beginner-Level Task
Writing a simple Autoscaling script to scale as per CPU and memory utilisation.
Simple AutoScaling Script, written by Bard
Experiment 2: Intermediate-Level Task
Creation of a new VPC with 3 autoscaling groups of EC2 and 1 NAT gateway and VPC peering.
Results were mixed.
Though Bard did give information that this can be tweaked, there was one major gap between the ask and the outcome. The NAT gateway was supposed to be the single point of ingress/egress, whereas the script is entirely different.
Assume an early-stage startup that gets used to the early success of Generative AI to preempt the DevOps culture, at some point the AI won’t have the context of what all is in your infrastructure and you could end up misfiring things.
My submission is, ChatGPT or Bard or any Generative can be super helpful for a good DevOps engineer and cannot replace her/him anytime soon. In military parlance, certain materiels are termed Force Multipliers. But, they themselves cannot be the force! (Aircraft carriers or Tanker aircraft are the prime example)
Why do I believe so?
There are several reasons for this:
Human creativity: Despite its advanced capabilities, ChatGPT is just another AI model and lacks the creativity and innovation that a human DevOps engineer brings to the table. DevOps engineers can think outside the box and find new and innovative solutions to “Business” problems, whereas ChatGPT operates within the constraints of its programming and is simply solving the “Constraints” for that technical problem.
Human oversight: While ChatGPT can automate many tasks, it still requires human oversight to ensure that everything is running smoothly. DevOps play a crucial role in monitoring and troubleshooting any issues that may arise during the deployment and maintenance of applications.
Complexity: Many DevOps tasks are complex (or at the very least, the DevOps teams would want us to believe that) and require a deep understanding of the underlying infrastructure and applications. ChatGPT does not yet have the capability to perform these tasks at the same level of expertise as a human.
Customization: Every organization has unique requirements for its development and deployment process. ChatGPT may not be able to accommodate these specific needs, whereas DevOps engineers can tailor the process to meet the non-stated requirements and organisational and platform context
Responsibility: DevOps engineers are ultimately responsible for ensuring the success of the development and deployment process. While ChatGPT can assist in automating tasks, it is not capable of assuming full responsibility for the outcome.
In conclusion, while ChatGPT has the potential to automate many manual tasks performed by DevOps engineers, it is unlikely to replace DevOps entirely in the near future. The role of DevOps will continue to be important in ensuring the smooth deployment and maintenance of software applications, while ChatGPT can assist in automating certain tasks and increasing efficiency. Ultimately, the goal of both DevOps and no-ops is to increase the speed and quality of software delivery, and the use of ChatGPT in DevOps can play a significant role in achieving this goal.
Some say that NoOps is the end of DevOps. Is that really true? If you need to answer this question, you must first understand NoOps better.
Things are moving at warp speed in the field of software development. You can subscribe to almost anything “as a service” be it storage, network, computing, or security. Cloud providers are also increasingly investing in their automation ecosystem. This leads us to NoOps, where you wouldn’t require an operations team to manage the lifecycle of your apps, because everything would be automated.
Picture Courtesy: GitHub Blog
You can use automation templates to provision your app components and automate component management, including provisioning, orchestration, deployments, maintenance, upgradation, patching and anything in between meaning significantly less overhead for you and minimal to no human interference. Does this sound wonderful?
But is this a wise choice, and what are some advantages and challenges to implementing it?
Find out the answers to these questions, including whether NoOps is DevOps’s end in this article.
NoOps — Is It a Wise Choice?
You already know that DevOps aims to make app deployments faster and smoother, focusing on continuous improvement. NoOps — no operations — a term coined by Mike Gualtieri at Forrester, has the same goal at its core but without operations professionals!
In an ideal NoOps scenario, a developer never has to collaborate with a member of the operations team. Instead, NoOps uses serverless and PaaS to get the resources they need when they need them. This means that you can use a set of services and tools to securely deploy the required cloud components (including the infrastructure and code). Additionally, NoOps leverages a CI/CD pipeline for deployment. What is more, Ops teams are incredibly effective with data-related tasks, seeing data collection, analysis, and storage as a crucial part of their functions. However, keep in mind that you can automate most of your data collection tasks, but you can’t always get the same level of insights from automating this analysis.
Essentially, NoOps can act as a self-service model where a cloud provider becomes your ops department, automating the underlying infrastructure layer and removing the need for a team to manage it.
Many argue that a completely automated IT environment requiring zero human involvement — true NoOps — is unwise, or even impossible.
Maybe people are afraid of Skynet becoming self-aware!
NoOps vs. DevOps — Pros and Cons
DevOps emphasizes the collaboration between developers and the operations team, while NoOps emphasizes complete automation. Yet, they both try to achieve the same thing — accelerated GTM and a better software deployment process. However, there are both advantages and challenges when considering a DevOps vs. a true NoOps approach.
Pros
More automation, less maintenance
By automating everything using code, NoOps aims to eliminate the additional effort required to support your code’s ecosystem. This means that there will be no need for manual intervention, and every component will be more maintainable in the long run because it’ll be deployed as part of the code. But does this affect DevOps jobs?
Uses the full power of the cloud
There are a lot of new technologies that support extreme automation, including Container as a Service (CaaS) or Function as a Service (FaaS) as opposed to just Serverless, so most big cloud service providers can help you kickstart NoOps adoption. This is excellent news because Ops can ramp up cloud resources as much as necessary, leading to higher capacity, performance & availability planning compared to DevOps (where Dev and Ops work together to decide where the app can run).
Rapid Deployment Cycles
NoOps focuses on business outcomes by shifting focus to priority tasks that deliver value to customers and eliminating the dependency on the operations team, further reducing time-to-market.
Cons
You still need Ops!
In theory, not relying on an operations team to take care of your underlying infrastructure can sound like a dream. Practically, you may need them to monitor outcomes or take care of exceptions. Expecting developers to handle these responsibilities exclusively would take their focus away from delivering business outcomes and wouldn’t be advantageous considering NoOps benefits.
It also wouldn’t be in your best interest to rely solely on developers, as their skill sets don’t necessarily include addressing operational issues. Plus, you don’t want to further overwhelm devs with even more tasks.
Security, Compliance, Privacy
You could abide by security best practices and align them with automatic deployments all you want, but that won’t completely eliminate the need for you to take delicate care of security. Attack methods evolve and change each day, therefore, so should your cloud security controls.
For example, you could introduce the wrong rules for your AI or automate flawed processes, inviting errors in your automation or creating flawed scripts for hundreds or thousands of infrastructure components or servers. If you completely remove your Ops team, you may want to consider investing additional funds into a security team to ensure you’re instilling the best security and compliance methods for your environments.
Consider your environment
Considering NoOps uses serverless and PaaS to get resources, this could become a limiting factor for you, especially during a refactor or transformation. Automation is still possible with legacy infrastructures and hybrid deployments, but you can’t entirely eliminate human intervention in these cases. So remember that not all environments can transition to NoOps, therefore, you must carefully evaluate the pros and cons of switching.
So Is NoOps Really the End of DevOps?
TL:DR: NO!
Detail: NoOps is not a Panacea. It is limited to apps that fit into existing #serverless and #PaaS solutions. As someone who builds B2B SaaS applications for a living, I know that most enterprises still run on monolithic legacy apps and even some of the new-gen Unicorns are in the middle of Refactoring/Migration which will require total rewrites or massive updates to work in a PaaS environment, you’d still need someone to take care of operations even if there’s a single legacy system left behind.
In this sense, NoOps is still a way away from handling long-running apps that run specialized processes or production environments with demanding applications. Conversely, operations occur before production, so, with DevOps, operations work happens before code goes to production. Releases include monitoring, testing, bug fixes, security and policy checks on every commit, etc.
You must have everyone on the team (including key stakeholders) involved from the beginning to enable fast feedback and ensure automated controls and tasks are effective and correct. Continuous learning and improvement (a pillar of DevOps teams) shouldn’t only happen when things go wrong; instead, members must work together and collaboratively to problem-solve and improve systems and processes.
The Upside
Thankfully, NoOps fits within some DevOps ways. It’s focused on learning and improvement, uses new tools, ideas, and techniques developed through continuous and open collaboration, and NoOps solutions remove friction to increase the flow of valuable features through the pipeline. This means that NoOps is a successful extension of DevOps.
In other words, DevOps is forever, and NoOps is just the beginning of the innovations that can take place together with DevOps, so to say that NoOps is the end of DevOps would mean that there isn’t anything new to learn or improve.
Destination: NoOps
There’s quite a lot of groundwork involved for true NoOps — you need to choose between serverless or PaaS, and take configuration, component management, and security controls into consideration to get started. Even then, you may still have some loose ends — like legacy systems — that would take more time to transition (or that you can’t transition at all).
One thing is certain, though, DevOps isn’t going anywhere and automation won’t make Ops obsolete. However, as serverless automation evolves, you may have to consider a new approach for development and operations at some point. Thankfully, you have a lot of help, like automation tools and EaaS, to make your transition easier should you choose to switch.
The fact that you clicked on this article tells me that you are leading/heading a Team, group or an entire Engineering function and most likely a fast-paced startup. Assume the following,
It was a regular weekday, and your CEO/CTO asked the most intriguing question.
Do we measure Engineering Productivity? How do we fare? What can we do to improve it?
Well, if your boss’s name is not Elon Musk or if you do not work for Twitter, you can still be saved. Go on and read through. I know it is a long read.
What is Engineering Productivity?
As with anything you’re trying to improve, it starts with measuring the right data. So, you can actually track the right metrics. This data will form the basis of your analysis and baseline. I strongly recommend you don’t change anything about your current engineering process before you can collect sex weeks’ worth of data about your processes. If you start working on processes, you could end up with a Survivorship Basis.
You should have sufficient historical data to make comparisons. On top of that, most teams work in sprints of two weeks, so six weeks of data allows you to collect data for at least three different sprints. This will give you the allowances for any spikes and eliminate any unusual stress or slack on the execution.
Next, you should make gradual changes to the engineering process to see what improves or impedes the value delivery. It’s ideal to only implement one change at a time, so you can see the effect of each change, with all other things being equal. (it never is :D)
For example, if your engineering squads suffer from significant technical debt, you may want to build an additional stub related to feature completion. Every time an engineer completes a new feature, they must document the new feature. This could mean describing the feature, how is it built, what are the outcomes, how it interacts with other functions and the reasoning behind the design decisions.
By continuously measuring engineering productivity metrics, you can determine if this change has positively impacted the developers’ productivity.
How Is Engineering Productivity Measured?
There are potentially 100s of metrics you can measure for an Engineering Org. Here are four key metrics that will help you to get started with measuring engineering productivity. And I have consciously excluded the Sprint Velocity.
4 Prime Directives of Engineering Metrics
1. The One Metrics to rule them all metrics – Cycle Time
Software development cycle time measures the amount of time from work started to work delivered. It is a metric “borrowed” from lean manufacturing, and it is one of the most important metrics for software development teams. In plain speak, cycle time measures the amount of time from the first commit to production release.
2. The Oracle of an Engineering Leader – Release Frequency
You should measure how often you deploy new changes to your customers (production). In addition, you can track deployments to various branches/instances, such as feature branches, hotfix branches, or QA branches. This data would show you how long it takes for a feature/fix to move through the different development stages. In addition, the Release Frequency reflects the throughput of your team. It’s a good stand-in replacement for Agile Velocity, so you don’t spook your Engineers and you are not blind as well.
3. The Guardrail – Number of Bugs
You should definitely track the number of bugs that your team has to resolve within 2 sprints of releasing a feature. This metric helps you to understand the quality of your code better. Higher-quality code should display fewer bugs after feature deployment.
While there are derivative and more evolved metrics like Defect Density, Mean Time to Detect (MTtD), Mean Time to Resolve (MTrR) and Code coverage, those onces makes sense after you’ve taken stock of and address the prime metric “ No: of Bugs” first.
If you want a more detailed list, methodology of QA metrics, refer the links given below.
4. What is your “Blocker” – Review to Merge Time (RTMT)
This may look like a zoom-in on “Cycle time” metric we discussed earlier. But, in fact it is very different. In fact, it is an interesting metric suggested by GitLab’s development handbook.
You should measure the time between asking for a pull request (PR) review and merging the PR. Ideally, you want to reduce the time a feature spends in the review state (or pending review state). A high RTMT prevents developers from progressing while they wait for feedback and encourages context-switching between different issues/features.
Arguably, Context-Switching is the highest productivity killer and should be avoided as much as possible.
So, why would you measure all these engineering productivity metrics?
Why Is Measuring Engineering Productivity Important?
When you’re a “fast-growing startup”, it’s important to keep an eye on engineering productivity. It happens that these startups favour growth through feature delivery at the cost of effectively scaling the engineering team and ensuring the team’s efficiency.
I hear your question.
But, why does my CEO/VP/MD not understand?
Answer is simple
Assume you have to manage multiple VP’s expectations and outcomes (Sales, Marketing, Support etc), Company’s OKRs, and investors (or) board, will you have more time to dedicate to Engineering Productivity?
In these cases, technical debt can quickly grow, which will slowly kill your team’s productivity. Technical debt can have many negative consequences:
More bugs for your team to fix
Lower code quality—not only bugs but also worse code design
Harder to debug code
Scalability issues
A decline in overall happiness and job satisfaction
To avoid all of these scenarios, you should measure the engineering team’s efficiency and avoid technical debt buildup. Avoiding these problems before they occur is an excellent Occam’s razor. But addressing them head-on will have a significant impact on your organisation, both materially and culturally.
In addition to preventing your team’s productivity from going down, the engineering productivity approach allows you to experiment with various approaches to try and improve throughput & efficiency.
So, the goal is to improve the engineering process itself. For example, introducing new tools or applying new techniques. Next, you can measure the impact of these changes on your team’s productivity.
In the next part, I will write down on how can measurement improve engineering productivity, Stay Tuned!
How to Attract the most relevant applicants with great job postings
One of the main problems in SaaS/Software engineering hiring is the way job descriptions are written. While I knew this for some time (read years) The problem is, I was too lazy to change anything about it! That is until recently, one of the candidates I was interviewing for an Engineering Manager Role said this in our introductory call,
Me: Hope you’ve had a discussion with Ms.ABC (our HR) regarding the Roles and Responsibilities. If there are questions on it I can answer them, or we can get into the agenda.
Candidate: Yes I had a discussion with Ms. ABC. But, quite frankly it was your boilerplate JD. I’d actually want to understand what exactly I’d be doing. What will I be in charge of? What will I move?
Needless to say, I spent the next ~30 minutes walking through the current team structure, where he’d come in, what will he own, what the growth trajectory looks like etc. Ultimately, we did 2 more calls before both of us were satisfied that there are mutual synergies and went ahead. It made me reevaluate all of our Job Descriptions over the weekend and rewrote almost half of them to include factual details on projects, outcomes expected, tools available, glimpse of growth among other things.
After this, I asked the HR to send this “revised” JD to the candidates once again.
And the result was visible from Monday!
Either candidates that the HR thought super suited started dropping voluntarily from the process or candidates started expressing interest, doing more research on our stack, infra, product proposition and competitor benchmarking, before the call. Some even did a cold reach-out on Linkedin.
So, I wanted to share the small titbit here.
Why General Descriptions Don’t work?
Most Job descriptions barely resemble “specifications” at all, but feel more like generic stubs. Sort of like the equivalent of shopping for a car with as much details as “red and goes fast” or “black and built to last.”
It leaves too much open to the imagination for it to be a successful criterion to enable fitment. With criteria as broad as this you’ll end up spending an inordinate amount of time executing the search, since so many things appear to be a match. For me, Red and goes fast is always a 1971 Ford Mustang, for you it could be a 1998 Ferrari 365.
A Red Ford Mustang & a Ferrari 365, What do you Fancy?
A Black Dodge Ram and Jeep Cherokee, What do you Prefer?
The truth is that statements like the above — or its equivalent in engineering hiring — “Get me a backed dev with OOPS in Python/Java/Go with 5 years experience” — guarantee a similarly frustrating shopping experience. You’ve made it needlessly difficult for yourself and your HR/TA team to identify the specific talent you want. In this trite example you’ve indicated that you’re looking for a mid-level engineer that knows OOPS, but that basically includes everyone that ever graduated with a CS degree in the past 5 (to 10?) years. Surprisingly, many job “specifications” we see contain rarely any more info. These are the “Boiler Plate” Job Descriptions.
How did we find ourselves in this mess?
I understand why hiring managers do this. Sometimes they’re not exactly sure what they want — after all, it takes real time and effort to work out the specific vision for the role. But instead of acknowledging this and then solving the real problem (their own laziness), they delegate the JD writing to their Team/HR and it turns into generic tech JD. But the hiring manager is unfazed — “I’ll know the right candidate when I see them,” they say. Really? It could be true in some instances. Sometimes, we start with a Backend developer, then we come across a candidate with experience in building a full pipeline or a payment system. Then we expand the role to cover wider scope and evaluate against it. But generally, How will they know the right candidate if they can’t write down specifically what the candidate looks like?
Another reason for generic job specs is because a hiring manager is recruiting in a talent-constrained market (sound familiar?), and it feels like a smart move to cast as wide of a net as possible. Theoretically, one should be able to get more candidates into the top of the funnel this way, right?
Perhaps. Theoretically. But in my experience, this approach usually, and utterly, backfires. Here’s why:
Boiler Plate Job Descriptionsaren’t designed to appeal to any engineer in particular
In the current job market, engineers are faced with a wide variety of options from some amazing established companies and lots of seemingly “sexy” startups. (after “the great resignation”)
You need to take your opportunityto stand out! The more specific you are about the challenges a specific engineer will get to work in a specific role, the more traction you’ll get with (the right) candidates.
The idea is to make an engineer excited when you describe what they will “Get to do” in the first 12-15 months in the role.
Be very specific,
Talk about the product/modules they will own/drive/be part of,
Talk about the outcomes and metrics they will own and drive,
Talk about the toolchains & frameworks they’ll use (or get to choose),
Talk about What’s hard/challenging about the role, How are they a great fit.
The more details you can squeeze into the spec to help them visualize their role and the projects they’ll be working on the better.
Boiler Plate Job Descriptions don’t arm others to help you
Another bad thing about generic JD is that they don’t help others help you. Think of how much reach could you get by using everyone in your network as a recruiter. But in today’s scenario, “everyone else” is already asking them if they know any Python Engineers or React Developers or Go Engineers. Why would they help you? Because you’ve taken the time to get specific about what you want? Maybe.
Take a look at the following Job Description. Anyone in software engineering who had some deployment, infra-planning & communication seems to be a candidate for the role.
I recently got a request from a founder friend of mine to refer a Sr.Tech Lead/Engineering Manager for an early-stage startup. When I saw the JD, it was so generic it did not even have the primary stack on it. Assume sharing it from your handle. I politely declined to share it and asked for some more information and said will come back once he shares. (I believe he is very busy and hence hasn’t come back)
The bottomline is, Make them want to help you — give them a JD that’s so amazing, well-written, specific, (even entertaining) — that they can’t help but pass it on, post it, tell their friends about it, etc. If you make it stand out — you’ll get more attention from the folks that can help because you’ll arm them with something interesting & effective that they can use to reach out to their network.
Boiler Plate Job Descriptions don’t enable you to know what success looks like
This is a very simple point — see above — if you can’t explain what the ideal candidate looks like, how will you know when you’ve found them? The JD shared by my friend looks as vague as this.
Typical Boiler Plate JD
Actually, his company was looking for a guy who could not just do Infrastructure Architecture. They wanted someone who has architected/built a cloud native SaaS application. His team has built the application and has no idea how to convert it to truly cloud native format to scale without breaking the bank!
The main idea here is about not being willing to settle for less. I realise the market is tough right now, and maybe you’ll need to make compromises. But do you want to start at the wrong end of the pool? When you go out the door with a generic description, you preemptively give up the battle. If you need to settle — fine! — but know exactly what points you’re compromising on.
The larger problem is that if you don’t know what the best candidate really looks like then the other people involved in making a decision likely don’t know what s/he looks like either. A well-defined, specific description of the role enables everyone involved in the interviewing and hiring process to be on the same proverbial page.
Now go get started!
Fixing your job descriptions will take some work(as I found out). To get to specifics, you’ll need to dig in and make additional efforts. You might also need to do some retraining in your organization and teach others these principles, too.
But when you get through the hard work, your postings will turn into valuable weapons that will,
a.) appeal to the engineers you want to reach,
b.) enable others to help you expand your outreach, and
c.) get your hiring team on the same page to quickly come to the right decision.
If you’re curious to see what roles we currently hire for, we have a lot of openings in Product, Design and Engineering:
It ranges from Kubernetes Architect, React Native Mobile Dev, Sr.Backend Dev, Tech Lead-Mobile Technologies, Engineering Managers, Associate Product managers, Product Managers etc.
This post is a summary of a series of “Mentoring” and “Advisory” calls I did with some early stage startups, over the past 6 months. Most of the time, one of the founder ideates, one builds/leads the build. But, they want to go fast and think they need a Product Manager. Unfortunately, most of them don’t need a Product Manager. If you are at a similar juncture, read on to find out more..
The title is a controversial question, I know!
The State of Product Management:
Off lately, Product Managers have to wear too many hats, leaving the role vague and blurring the boundaries of their area of responsibility. This ultimately leads to diminishing the value of the product manager’s core functions. Product Management is a strategic, cross-functional, front-line role that brings great value to the product and business.
But, it commonly gets abused by many fast-paced organisations expecting product managers to fill in the gaps in various disciplines. This may be process, pricing, unit-economics, partnerships, product-marketing to name a few. They can definitely do that due to their broad professional background.
Admittedly, product managers do have a broad background, otherwise they would have a hard time to be able to effectively collaborate with the stakeholders, lead the product and make the informed decisions. But this definitely should not end up with the product managers becoming de-facto “deciders” or “doers” originally intended to be done by other roles in other functions.
How do you decide if you need a Product Manager or Not?
Like any problem, there are two approaches, if an intellectual debate is more to your taste, continue reading on. If it is more of a rational “doer” approach, head straight down to it.
Intellectual Approach
Ask yourselves some questions:
If you are a founder or a leader or a decision maker, before hiring a Product Manager, question yourself as to your expectations from the product manager.
Think hard on what you want them to do:
What do you want your new product manager to change/fix in your organization? What is it that you are unable to do?
Do you not already have the in-house expertise that would help you address the current issues?
If you are still unsure about whether or not you need a product manager “in the house”,
I recommend that you go through this checklist and answer Yes/No to each of its questions:
Do you have a vision for your product? Do you believe it is aligned with the market needs?
Are you sure you are building the right product — the one that delivers value to your target audience?
Do you have a direction for your product? A long-term and a short-term roadmap?
Till now, have you been able to execute your roadmap without major distractions?
Are you capable of maintaining the strategic focus across all levels of the organization?
Do you know your competitors and what they have on the game? Proposition, not features.
Do you have an established feedback loop with your clients? (Not the feature request types)
Do you mostly base your decisions on evidence/data?
Do you find it easy to say “No” to various stakeholders from various functions while hearing their “suggestions” and “inputs” and explain them why what they think is not the “most” right thing?
If you answered “No” to more than 4 questions, you probably need a Product Manager, No doubt in that.
But the reality is, that hiring a highly capable Product Manager won’t magically change the DNA of your organisation. I have seen multiple orgs regress into a worser situation than before. Because, the person responsibl has delegated the product decisions to that Product manager with a shiny belt, without enabling/empowering him/her.
The result
Rational Approach
If you’re a CEO, founder, or senior leader considering hiring a PM, check this list and see if you need one. Lets play a guess and eliminate game.
If you can see your organisation is reflected in this article, don’t bother hiring a PM — save some money and hire a cheaper role. You would also spare a PM some misery.
Don’t bother hiring a PM…
If you have a fixed idea of what to build
You already know what you want to build, you just need somebody to build it. You’ve hired some engineers. You need somebody to gather the requirements from you and the team, and maybe manage the back-and-forth of different requirements from many stakeholders. This person then passes the requirements along to the engineers and makes sure they deliver on time.
You need a Project Manager, not a Product Manager.
If your Sales team or clients are dictating what to build
You have a handful of big clients and you’re ready to bend over backwards to deliver what they need, including building custom features. Your Sales team knows best what to build, surely, as they’re the ones talking to the customers all the time. Now it’s just a matter of writing the stories and prioritising them.
You need a Delivery Manager, not a Product Manager
If they won’t have access to your customers
You have some very-important-people as customers and their time is precious. You don’t want the new person you just hired to talk to them directly — may be they will say something untoward?
I don’t know what you need, but you certainly don’t need a Product Manager.
If you’re not ready to delegate authority
You know that product managers should be given a problem to solve, not a feature to build. Heck, you were probably a Product person yourself, who has now set up your own startup. You have the vision and the strategy and you know exactly how to get there…
What’s left for the Product Managers to do, then? Maybe hire an Engineering Manager or a Tech Lead?
If you see technology as a support function
An easy way to assess this: How much of your company budget is dedicated for product/technology/innovation? If you’re not willing to invest significant resources to staff the product/technology team properly, they’ll be left firefighting all year long.
Don’t hire a Product Manager — yet. Assess how you see technology plays a role in your company’s vision. Set aside a proper budget, hire a strong CTO or CPO, and let them build their team. Only do that if you’re willing to listen to them though — or don’t bother doing it at all.
In Sum and summary, Hire a Product Manager only if you believe you can delegate authority, and can come to a rational decision based on data. If not, hire a Project Manager, Engineering Manager or any of the other roles.
Business Value delivery by Engineering Teams in StartUps – Part 1
In this multi-part post, I will try to articulate my view on the importance of business value and its delivery by engineering teams. While most of this is written from the view of a StartUp, some elements of an established organisation are also used.
Part 1: Defining Business Value & Role of Leadership in it.
Business value is a concept that can mean multiple things to multiple people and the tricky part is all of them could potentially be valid. A product manager may value a long list of features that his/her customers have demanded for months. Another Product Manager working with internal teams to improve efficiency (revenue) will value the enhancements the accounting or support team was after. While the support manager may value a more stable product to keep the customers, s/he deals with happy.
Business value & impacts are a difficult thing to define and deliver, while it is even more difficult to measure.A collaborative effort is required to define and deliver business value, with consideration needed to ensure all voices are heard.
While most of what I will be covering in this article is typically the purview of product management, I have learned that engineering leaders have a critical role to play in this space. (Will write more on that in the next part.)
Engineering leaders bring product development experience and technical expertise to the table to provide a crucial element to the delivery of business valuewhich I will try and explain in this article.
What is Business Value?
I would define “Business value” as any improvements to systems, processes or people that augment the products or the ability to deliver products or services to the customers, thereby increasing the revenue or experience or both. No two companies will have the same definition of business value. Forget two different companies, a company in its 5th year will have a very different perception of value to its first year. This is due to their products and customers being different and requiring different elements to add value. One company may find value in the ability to build out its new product offering quickly. While another may find value in responding to customer support requests in a timely manner.
Due to the rapid changes around us, the things that businesses value changes often. Companies often face new challenges that require a quick response.
“Be agile, be nimble” is the key phrase.
These challenges can come in the form of new product features released by competitors, or a specific feature requestby a key customer, or changes in the market that render the current product/feature obsolete. Business needs or desires, therefore change just as quickly as any of these external changes.
You have probably worked for a company that comes to the engineering team with new requirements, seemingly daily?
It is not because they cannot make up their mind; It is in response to the changing business needs. This changing goalpost is one of the main reasons that Agile development practices have taken precedence from more traditional waterfall methodologies for software development.
Reacting to change and delivering business value with haste is a crucial area of importance for modern businesses. All companies exist for a purpose. The majority of companies exist to return a profit for their owners (individuals or shareholders), while some companies exist to provide a social service. The critical thing to note is that they all exist to fulfil a specific purpose which guides their definition of business value.
No matter the company large or small, if they stop innovating, and their products or services stop being relevant to society at large and market in particular, that company will whiter and eventually die.
Kodak is a prime example of this occurring in recent history. In today’s world, IT, whether it be hardware or software, is the largest driver of business value. It is therefore critical that the software engineering teams keep delivering the things that the business need to fuel their innovation.
We, as engineers, are not employed to just build that shiney app in the latest technologies, but to deliver our contribution in support of the business purpose (If not drive it!)
The importance of Engineering Leadership in Delivering Business Value
An engineering leader is, of course, a People Leader, and s/he is also responsible for the Execution, both technology and delivery of the engineering team. However there is a third dimension which often goes unrecognised, is that great engineering executives must also be great Business Leaders; they help drive alignment with other leadership/executives and shape the strategy and direction of the business itself.
It is this underutilised/forgotten element which I will try to detail here.
A People Leader & an Execution Champion:
Engineering leadership is often naively thought of as being simply a great Architect or Engineer or a Manager. But most of you already know it’s more than that. Team leadership will involve some combination of team building, culture, leadership development, and performance management.
For detailed coverage on Engineering Leadership – Please checkout my Previous Post
Most of this responsibilities will be bang in the middle of the comfort-zone of a rising Engineering Leader. But one of the hardest things for most engineering leaders as we scale is, to continue having an accurate forecast of when products and features will be delivered – what the business always asks for.
That is partially because this bleeds into the third, and the least recognised dimension of engineering leadership.
The Missing Sauce: A Business Strategist
Engineering leadership isn’t just about delivering products faster, or making engineers more productive. It’s about guiding the team in the same direction as the business, about continuously improving, and it’s about being the voice of engineering as a part of the decision-making process of the executive team. Of course, these are all dependent on our ability to understand the work our engineering teams are doing and how it aligns to business goals.
The third dimension – Business Alignment – is often overlooked or made difficult by other executives, but is absolutely necessary for the management of a successful engineering org. This is the strategic practice of engineering management, and all operational decisions depend on it. Business alignment means ensuring your organization is focused on the right projects that align with the business’s goals.
The Product org can detail/design and Engineering org can build as many features as they can agree on, but what/how does it matter, if they do not align with the business objectives or goals? Business alignment involves the right allocation of resources that supports business objectives, and helping to drive those business decisions of which projects are strategically important. (at itilite, this is always the First Principle)
How do we deliver business value?
So how do we actually deliver business value? Business value isn’t created by a soloist delivering a virtuoso performance, but a collaboration of the business, product, engineering and customer success teams working together to realise a shared vision.
Below are the five ways this can take place; together, these provide a roadmap for delivering business value;
Define systems development strategy
Help business define requirements
Visualise the work and prioritise
Schedule and communicate delivery
Deliver value often and get feedback
I will try to articulate through each of these one at a time and dig into a little more detail in Part 2 of this article.
