| FWIW, in these situations you're better off proposing: "I'm going to reuse this VM, to help our ... fleet scale better." That way your management continues to use their allocated budget, and your real prod systems work slightly better (also will eventually require less additional $ to scale up - helping the company i.e. shareholders). The thing to remember: You would assume all middle management really manages are a top line and a bottom line. Numbers related to their KPIs/OKRs are roughly a top line, and numbers related to their resources (humans and cloud infra budget) are roughly their bottom line. The reality: Middle management's resources (humans and cloud infra budget) are not their bottom line. Middle management gets rewarded (promoted) when they have "enough scope", scope has roughly always been defined by number of people (it now also includes things like cloud cost budget). As such middle management has to say "we need to do more with less", but they are promoted based on these numbers going up! Is this reward structure in the best interest of companies (i.e. customers and/or shareholders)? No, neither. Is there a better system? Not yet. Is the reward structure created by middle management for middle management? Likely. So in the meanwhile, if you don't want to become unmotivated, might as well work within the current reward structures. |
Heh, I tried that too! I found a lot of setups using old HDD disks that were at 100% of their IOPS limits and CPUs that were idle. When they were built, Azure didn't have Premium SSD, so that's forgivable. I offered to rearrange where the expenditure goes, such that they have newer and faster CPUs, Premium SSD, but fewer cores which means a reduction in licensing costs. Cost neutral while improving their performance and capacity.
That got a very firm "Nope! Nope! Nope!" from most (but not all) teams as well.
> As such middle management has to say "we need to do more with less", but they are promoted based on these numbers going up!
I came to the same conclusion. Many project managers or product owners introduced themselves in the first meeting by proudly proclaiming the huge size of their operation. I.e.: "The system I'm responsible for is a multi-million dollar project with a small army of developers!"
I've also noticed that there's a tendency to exponentially blow out complexity of what ought to be a trivial system for the same reason. Something that could be static HTML on an S3 bucket or Azure Storage Account turns into a microservices monstrosity draped across three clouds and four external SaaS services.
Those resumes don't pad themselves.