One thing I’ve noticed in my career is that it is often quite difficult to distinguish “good” technical infrastructure improvements (meaning ones that will actually help a company achieve its goals) from “bad” ones (stuff that is unnecessary, risky or simply not worth the investment). I've seen these decisions made more using the political capital of high level engineers than by anything data-driven. That’s not to say this isn’t a problem, just maybe more of an art than a science.
jvans|1 year ago
Left to their own devices a lot of engineers will go to enormous lengths for either marginal improvements or changes that actively hurt. I can understand why leadership is skeptical of these investments because even for someone extremely technical, if you're not in the weeds everyday of that particular problem, it's very hard to know what's worth it