> The continuous struggle is to find ways to increase the value our platform provides to the users of the system.
IME as a staff+ platform engineer*, it is dead obvious what increases user value. What is truly challenging is building a story around why anything should be worked on at all, when platform sits the furthest from customers.
I previously worked with a seasoned PM from FAANG who had low technical chops but somehow placed themself in the final decision maker seat for platform work.
They relentlessly blocked work that I described repeatedly in details: data quality was hurting, latency was dog shit, etc. But “bad data model? What do our customers care about our data model and pipelines that are confusing to maintain?”
It wasn’t until I showed some basic charts about our core database being oversubscribed and at risk of a more serious incident. At that point, we finally had the same understanding of the problem at the highest level and I was granted (lol) approval.
This admittedly took me almost a year to figure out. Others just trusted my judgement. The takeaway for me was really good tho. Even technical people probably don’t know wtf is going on in your domain, and metrics gets everyone on the same page, because numbers and charts are easy to understand.
* Platform is used too broadly so hard to say what the author exactly means by this.
> metrics gets everyone on the same page, because numbers and charts are easy to understand.
Those are just not to convince a manager though, it gives numbers to set KPIs, or at least some benchmark to evaluate the improvements, and at the end of the day solid reasons to justify promoting the team.
From both sides of the fence, fixing problems that only the engineers on the ground can properly value leads to everyone being miserable in the long run.
dirtbag__dad · · focus · HN ↗
IME as a staff+ platform engineer*, it is dead obvious what increases user value. What is truly challenging is building a story around why anything should be worked on at all, when platform sits the furthest from customers.
I previously worked with a seasoned PM from FAANG who had low technical chops but somehow placed themself in the final decision maker seat for platform work.
They relentlessly blocked work that I described repeatedly in details: data quality was hurting, latency was dog shit, etc. But “bad data model? What do our customers care about our data model and pipelines that are confusing to maintain?”
It wasn’t until I showed some basic charts about our core database being oversubscribed and at risk of a more serious incident. At that point, we finally had the same understanding of the problem at the highest level and I was granted (lol) approval.
This admittedly took me almost a year to figure out. Others just trusted my judgement. The takeaway for me was really good tho. Even technical people probably don’t know wtf is going on in your domain, and metrics gets everyone on the same page, because numbers and charts are easy to understand.
* Platform is used too broadly so hard to say what the author exactly means by this.
makeitdouble · · focus · HN ↗
Those are just not to convince a manager though, it gives numbers to set KPIs, or at least some benchmark to evaluate the improvements, and at the end of the day solid reasons to justify promoting the team.
From both sides of the fence, fixing problems that only the engineers on the ground can properly value leads to everyone being miserable in the long run.