what we should really be focused on (but no one is…)
In my thirty year career in Technology I can’t think of a more profound period of change. It is not as if change never existed previously, it did. Innovation and Moore's law have been constant features in technology. However, for decades we had experienced a long period of relativity stability. That is, the rate of change was somewhat fixed. This was largely due to the fact that change, for the most part, was dictated almost entirely by a handful of large companies (such as Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, SAP, etc.). We, the technology community, were exclusively at the mercy of the product management teams at these companies dreaming up the next new feature, and we were subject to the tech giant’s product release cycle as to when we could use this feature. The rate of change was therefore artificially suppressed to a degree.
Then along came the open source software revolution. I can recall being fortunate enough to be in a meeting with Steve Ballmer along with a small group of Microsoft partners in Sydney, Australia around 2002. I can remember him as a larger than life figure with a booming voice and an intense presence. I can vividly remember him going on a long diatribe about Open Source Software, primarily focused around Linux. To put some historical context around it, Linux was a fringe technology at best at that point in time – nobody was taking it seriously in the enterprise. The Apache Software Foundation wasn’t a blip on the radar at the time, Software-as-a-Service was in its infancy, and Platform-as-a-Service and cloud were non-factors – so what was he worried about?
From the fear instilled in his rant, you would have thought this was going to be the end of humanity as we knew it. Well it was the beginning of the end, the end of the halcyon days of the software industry as we knew it. The early beginnings of the end of the monopoly on change held by a select few software vendors. The beginning of the democratisation of change.
Fast forward fifteen years, and now everyone is a (potential) software publisher. Real world problems are solved in real companies and in many cases software products are created, published and made (freely) available to other companies. We have seen countless examples of this pattern, Hadoop at Yahoo!, Kafka at LinkedIn, Airflow at Airbnb, to name a few. Then there are companies created with scant capital or investment, driven by a small group of smart people focused on solving a problem or streamlining a process that they have encountered in the real world. Many of these companies growing to be globally recognised names, such as Atlassian or Hashicorp.
The rate of change is no longer suppressed to the privileged few – in fact we have an explosion of change. No longer do we have a handful of technology options to achieve a desired outcome or solve a particular problem, we have a constellation of options.
Now the bad news, the force multiplier in change created by open source communities cuts both ways. When the community is behind a project it gets hyper-charged, conversely when the community drops off, functionality and stability drop off just as quickly.
This means there are components, projects, modules, services we are using today that won’t be around in the same format in 2-3 years’ time. There are products that don’t exist today that will be integral (and potentially critical) to our operations in 1-2 years’ time.
This brings me to my final point – the cost of future change. We as leaders and custodians of technology in this period should not only factor in current day run costs or the cost of change we know about (the cost of current change), but the hidden cost of future change. We need to think that whatever we are doing now is not what we will be doing in a years’ time – we will need to accommodate future change.
We need to be thinking about the cost of future change and what we can do to minimise this. This means not just swapping out one system for another, but thinking about how you will change this system or component again in the near future. We need to take the opportunity that is in front of us to replace monoliths with modular systems, move from tightly coupled to loosely coupled components, from proprietary systems to open systems, from rigid architectures to extensible architectures.
When you’re planning a change today, consider the cost of future change…