Author: Dr Phillip Zada, Founder and CEO of Z Ware
In the fast-paced world of software development, buzzwords and trends often dominate conversations, leading to confusion and misinterpretation of key concepts. One victim of this phenomenon is microarchitecture, a term mired in misunderstanding within enterprises and government.
In their quest for agility and modularity, these organisations often find themselves inadvertently creating distributed monolithic applications, mistakenly believing they have embraced the true essence of microservices. However, this undermines their ability to harness the benefits of decentralised architecture and introduces challenges when enhancing or replacing components within their applications. Additionally, some software vendors looking to capitalise on the hype often perpetuate the confusion, trapping organisations in a web of misrepresented solutions.
At the heart of the microarchitecture confusion lies the inconsistent understanding and interpretation of the term itself. In its purest form, microarchitecture refers to a system design approach that decomposes complex applications into small, independent, and loosely coupled services. Unfortunately, many organisations equate microarchitecture with simply breaking down large applications into distributed components without fully embracing the principles of loose coupling, independent deployment, and service autonomy.
This misunderstanding leads to distributed monolithic applications, where different components are spread across multiple servers or containers but remain tightly coupled and interdependent. Although these systems may exhibit improved scalability and fault tolerance compared to traditional monoliths, they lack the benefits of a microservices architecture, such as independent scaling, resilience, and flexibility. Consequently, attempting to enhance or replace components within these applications often results in cascading failures and bottlenecks due to tightly woven dependencies and a lack of true modularity.
The Redefinition Game
One disappointing truth which adds to the confusion is the appropriation of buzzwords such as “microservice” by biased parties. As microservices have gained popularity, individuals and organisations have redefined the term to align with their preconceptions or products. This semantic shift creates a fog of ambiguity, diluting and distorting the true principles of microarchitecture.
As an example, some vendors may label their solutions as “microservices-ready” or “microservices-compatible,” even though their offerings lack the fundamental characteristics and decoupling principles of an authentic microservices architecture. As a result, organisations eager to adopt microservices fall into the trap of embracing these mislabelled solutions, only to realise later that they have yet to achieve the desired modularity and agility.
Vendor Traps – Chasing the Mirage
The confusion surrounding microarchitecture also opens the door to vendor traps. In their quest to capitalise on the trend, vendors often claim that their products align with microservices, despite needing more necessary architectural principles. As a result, organisations enticed by the promise of easy adoption and integration find themselves locked into vendor-specific technologies and frameworks that offer limited flexibility and hinder true architectural evolution.
These vendor traps perpetuate misconceptions about microarchitecture and impede organisations from realising the long-term benefits of a genuine microservices approach. Moreover, unwinding from these traps can be costly, requiring significant resources to re-architect and migrate to more suitable solutions.
Embracing Platform Engineering – Unlocking Development Potential
Organisations must embrace the power of platform engineering to break free from the microarchitecture mirage and unleash the full potential of a decentralised and scalable architecture. Treating the solution as a platform rather than a collection of disjointed components provides a solid foundation for unlocking the actual benefits of microarchitecture.
Platform engineering involves building a robust and flexible foundation that supports developing and integrating various services within an organisation. By establishing common frameworks, libraries, and tools, platform engineering enables teams to focus on developing individual microservices while ensuring compatibility and interoperability.
An integral aspect of platform engineering is balancing and leveraging vendor solutions and developing in-house capabilities. While vendor products may offer specialised functionalities and time-saving advantages for certain services, it is equally important not to rely solely on complete vendor solutions.
Embracing in-house-built solutions enables organisations to tailor their microservices architecture to their specific needs. It presents an opportunity for an increase in staff education and experience, leading to both tangible and intangible benefits that contribute to the organisation’s growth.
Taking a slight detour to another important topic, when government agencies and organisations invest in in-house development, they enable their teams to expand their skill sets and deepen their understanding of microservices architecture. This investment in staff education not only enhances the technical capabilities of the workforce but also fosters a culture of continuous learning and innovation within the organisation. As team members gain expertise in developing and maintaining microservices, they become better equipped to address challenges, make informed decisions, and drive improvements in the architecture.
The increased staff exposure, education and experience have tangible cost savings and efficiency benefits. With a knowledgeable and skilled in-house team, organisations can reduce their dependence on external consultants or vendors, resulting in decreased expenses associated with licensing, support, and customisation of vendor solutions.
Additionally, having an in-house team with a deep understanding of the microservices architecture enables for faster development cycles, quicker troubleshooting, and improved time-to-market for new features and updates. This agility and efficiency can translate into a competitive edge in today’s fast-paced business landscape.
The intangible benefits of staff education and experience should not go unnoticed. As team members gain expertise and confidence in working with microservices, they become more engaged and empowered. This sense of ownership and professional growth fosters a positive work environment, boosts employee morale, and enhances retention rates. Employees who feel that their organisation invests in their development are more likely to stay and contribute their knowledge and skills, creating a stable, experienced workforce that can drive long-term success.
Having said that there is also a case to be made for adopting a mix of in-house and vendor solutions; organisations can take advantage of the strengths offered by each approach. For example, in-house solutions can be customised to align with unique business requirements, ensuring a better fit and long-term maintainability. On the other hand, vendor products can be beneficial for specific services that demand specialised expertise or require a faster time-to-market. Carefully evaluating the needs of each component and weighing the pros and cons of in-house development versus vendor solutions is essential in striking the right balance.
Platform engineering also empowers organisations to develop reusable components and services that can be shared across different teams and projects. This approach fosters collaboration, reduces redundancy, and promotes consistency within the ecosystem. By treating the solution as a platform, organisations create an environment encouraging innovation, agility, and continuous improvement.
While platform engineering is a powerful enabler, caution must be exercised to avoid creating another monolithic architecture. The platform should be modular and extensible, enabling individual teams to develop and deploy their services independently. Clear guidelines, documentation, and governance mechanisms should be established to maintain coherence, standardisation, and consistency across the microservices landscape.
“Carefully evaluating the needs of each component and weighing the pros and cons of in-house development versus vendor solutions is essential in striking the right balance.”
Navigating the Microarchitecture Landscape
In pursuing a true microarchitecture, organisations must cut through the confusion, redefine buzzwords accurately, and avoid falling into the distributed monolith trap. Instead, organisations can unlock the full potential of decentralised, scalable, and modular systems by embracing the principles of microarchitecture, fostering a clear understanding of its essence, and leveraging the power of platform engineering.
Navigating the microarchitecture landscape requires carefully evaluating in-house and vendor solutions, striking a balance that aligns with the organisation’s unique needs and objectives. While vendor products can offer benefits for specific services, in-house development allows for customisation and control. Platform engineering serves as the bridge that streamlines development, facilitates collaboration, and ensures the scalability and maintainability of the microarchitecture.
By breaking free from the microarchitecture mirage, organisations can position themselves for success in the digital age. Clearing the path of confusion, embracing platform engineering, and making informed choices regarding in-house and vendor solutions, organisations can truly harness the power of microarchitecture and build systems that are agile, scalable, and future proof. Through this approach, the full potential of microarchitecture can be realised, enabling organisations to thrive in an ever-evolving technological landscape.