Search for a command to run...
Most product decisions involve trade-offs. Everyone knows this. The problem is that many trade-offs are quietly ignored rather than explicitly chosen. Here are the trade-offs I see ignored most often:
Microservices are often sold as an obvious upgrade. Autonomy. Scalability. Faster delivery. For many organisations, they deliver exactly that, at least initially. What's discussed less is the cost sid
Defining success for a platform product is harder than for a feature product. There maybe no single user journey. No conversion funnel. Success doesn't show up the day after launch. That's why many pl
Platform teams love adoption metrics. More teams onboarded. More services integrated. More usage across the organisation. It looks like success. Often, it's a trap. Adoption without value is just dist
Interoperability sounds like a technical problem. Make systems talk. Align schemas. Expose APIs. At small scale, that framing works. At larger scale, it breaks down. Interoperability at scale is less
Integration work is often treated as a detail. A line item on the roadmap. Something to estimate, schedule, and move past once the "real" product work begins. That's a mistake. Integration costs are r
Reuse is often treated as a technical problem. Build the right abstraction. Create a shared service. Publish an API. Then wait for teams to use it. In practice, reuse is mostly an organisational chall
"Build once, reuse everywhere" is an attractive idea. It promises efficiency, consistency, and scale, everything platform teams are under pressure to deliver. In practice, it rarely works as intended.
Most API maturity models are too detailed to be useful. They look good in presentations, but they're hard to apply in real organisations where APIs evolve unevenly and constraints are real. The model