[frankdejonge]

If you fall into the case where every team is forced to work around the platform and create their own solution, the problem is not enforcement, it's offering. The thing that is offered is not working for the teams and there is a negative impact because of it. Teams building their own solutions, for a while, after which they are consolidated into a platform offering is a healthy cycle. What is IMO unhealthy is a dysfunctional platform where product people are forced to endure it. I'd much rather empower teams to take on their own impediments then to suck away their motivation by not letting them fix whatever is holding them back.

Sorry in advanced if I state this a little bluntly, but this rhetoric of teams going off and building the same tools all over the place is in my experience not a fault of any team, it's that of the context/organisation they operate in. Framing it as such is IMO destructive for company culture. As if product teams, left to their own, will just degrade into building sub-par platform-esk tools that ruin the org. I don't buy it. Trying to make one thing do two things (the single source of tech complexity) is a trap often catching platform engineers who try to tailor to an audience that is not unified in their needs, still platform teams are incentivised to create just that.

[tsimionescu]

I think we are mostly in agreement - platforms are good, but they should be driven by product teams who see value in them and feel empowered to improve and maintain them when needed. Whether there is also a dedicated platform team or it is more of a group collaboration between product teams is ultimately a detail, as long as the product teams do participate in building and maintaining the platform.