4 ms·

But doesn’t that mean you have a long migration period with two systems to maintain and reconcile?

• eszed 2y ago
  Yes. I've seen this go well, and I've seen this go terribly. It works (in my experience) when the migration work is pushed down to the directly responsible teams - with, of course, affordance made for the time it will take them. (Sidenote: that has the benefit that they learn / re-learn their dependencies for themselves, and discover efficiencies they never would have otherwise.) An overarching "migration team", or whatever you choose to call it, only adds friction, confusion, and more kludges. Management has to be fully committed, and enforce deadlines all the way down the line. Running two systems can (usually) be done short-term, but not long. (Another thought: "short" and "long" terms are variable for different teams and different types of services. Scheduling should take that into account.) Admittedly, however, I've not been through it at a particularly large organization. I'm sure there is exponentially metastasizing complexity (human perhaps even more than technical) once the process involves more people than can fit in a room.
• p_l 2y ago
  In such dysfunctional case the truth is that you do not have an old system to reconcile with - there's no real system of record