3 ms·
I see orgs trying to use micro-things to solve problems caused by a lack of high-level direction, architecture, design and organization. The problem is, micro-
by jmull 3y ago
I see orgs trying to use micro-things to solve problems caused by a lack of high-level direction, architecture, design and organization.
The problem is, micro-things require better high-level direction, to avoid becoming a tangle of poorly integrated, poorly performing, expensive things.
If end users can tell you're using micro-frontends, you've done it wrong. If you need 20 people in 10 meetings to change your app's chrome, you've done it wrong. If you don't know how and why these problems won't crop up for you before you've gotten started, you're going to be doing it wrong.
You need a strong architecture group, and the buy-in of the micro-thing implementors to take responsibility for their place in the whole to pull off.
- makeitdouble 3y agoFWIW, these architectures tend to follow the org or business entities (there must be a catch name for that phenomenon). Solving a balkanized, poorly integrated services often goes through restructuring the business teams and realign them under a single umbrella. I see it as the poster child for "solving technical problems through social solutions"
- esafak 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law