Download as PDF, PPTX
![(Intrinsic)
] Extraneous [
Germane
20](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/7monolithsvsmicroservicesismissingthepoint-200122162708/75/Monoliths-vs-Microservices-is-Missing-the-Point-Start-with-Team-Cognitive-Load-By-Pais-Manuel-Skelton-Matthew-20-2048.jpg)
More Related Content
Similar to Monoliths vs Microservices is Missing the Point — Start with Team Cognitive Load By Pais, Manuel, Skelton, Matthew
Monoliths vs Microservices is Missing the Point — Start with Team Cognitive Load By Pais, Manuel, Skelton, Matthew
- 1. 1 Monoliths vs Microservices TeamCognitive Load Case Studies Getting started
- 2. Team Topologies 2 Organizing businessand technology teams for fast flow Matthew Skelton & Manuel Pais IT Revolution Press Order via stores worldwide: teamtopologies.com/book
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6. “Start with monolithand extract microservices.” - Tammer Saleh 6 https://www.infoq.com/presentations/cloud-anti-patterns
- 7. “Don’t start witha monolith when your goal is a microservices architecture” - Stefan Tilkov 7 http://martinfowler.com/articles/dont-start-monolith.html
- 8. “If you can'tbuild a monolith, what makes you think microservices are the answer?” - Simon Brown 8 http://www.codingthearchitecture.com/2014/07/06/distributed_big_balls_of_mud.html
- 9. 9 WTF?!?! * where tofocus?
- 10. “Software that fits inyour head” - Daniel Terhorst-North 10 https://speakerdeck.com/tastapod/microservices-software-that-fits-in-your-head?slide=62
- 11. 11 “Software that fits inour heads”
- 12. 4 key metrics:‘Accelerate’ 12 lead time deployment frequency mean time to restore (MTTR) change fail percentage
- 13. Software that is‘too big for our heads’ works against organizational agility 13
- 14.
- 15. COGNITIVE LOAD: The totalamount of mental effort being used in the working memory - John Sweller 15
- 16.
- 17. Intrinsic Extraneous Germane 17 “How do I deploythis app, again?”
- 18.
- 19. Intrinsic (skills) Extraneous (mechanism) Germane(domain focus) 19
- 20.
- 21. More: ‘Hacking YourHead’ 21 Jo Pearce (@jdpearce) https://www.slideshare.net/JoPearce5/hacking-your-head-managing-information-overload-extended
- 22. Limit the sizeof software services/products to the cognitive load that the team can handle. 22
- 23. 23 “Software that fits inour heads”
- 24. A ‘team-first’ approach tosoftware boundaries 24
- 25. Team size ≲9 * * possibly 15 25
- 26. 26 Each service mustbe fully owned by a team with sufficient cognitive capacity to build and operate it.
- 27.
- 28.
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32. 4 fundamental topologies 32 Stream-alignedteam Enabling team Complicated Subsystem team Platform team
- 33. 4 fundamental topologies 33 Flowof change
- 34. 3 core interactionmodes 34 Flow of change X-as-a-Service Facilitating Collaboration
- 35. “...trend analysis, simulations,rapid prototyping, scenario planning, gaming, environmental scanning … give clues to the context and competitive environment.” - Dr. Naomi Stanford, “Guide to Organisation Design” (The Economist) 35
- 36.
- 37.
- 38.
- 39.
- 40.
- 41.
- 42. Team became toolarge ⇔ System became monolithic Blocked flow of work across streams 42
- 43. Listen to ‘triggersfor evolution’ ❏ Software grows too large ❏ Over specialization (Brent) ❏ Increased coordination needs 43
- 44.
- 45.
- 46.
- 47. It’s not alwaysabout software size... More broadly, align size and number of domains of responsibility with team cognitive capacity. 47
- 48. Aim for teamswith high cohesion internally (think autonomy, mastery & purpose) Aim for low bandwidth comms between smaller teams 48
- 49. Listen to ‘triggersfor evolution’ ❏ Awkward interactions ❏ People not invested, burn out ❏ Frequent context switching 49
- 50. Getting started with teamcognitive load 50
- 51. How well canthe team as a unit “grok” the systems they own and develop? Explicit cognitive load 51
- 52. Push some thingsinto a Platform? Explicit cognitive load 52
- 53. Are skills orcapabilities missing? Explicit cognitive load 53
- 54. What would changeif we adopted the 3 team interaction patterns? Collaboration, X-as-a-Service, Facilitating Team Interactions 54
- 55. Collaboration, X-as-a-Service, Facilitating Howwould teams react & behave? Team Interactions 55
- 56. How is yourPlatform defined? Thinnest Viable Platform 56
- 57. What is thethinnest platform that could work? Thinnest Viable Platform 57
- 58. What’s needed torun and support it? Thinnest Viable Platform 58
- 59. Team Topologies 59 Organizing businessand technology teams for fast flow Matthew Skelton & Manuel Pais IT Revolution Press Order via stores worldwide: teamtopologies.com/book
- 60. Training 60 Day 1 Fundamentals Day 2 DeepDive Day 3 Applying in Context teamtopologies.com/training
- 61. Looking for casestudies 61 Global manufacturing company Large government agency Global financial services
- 62. Remaining problems 62 Measuring cognitiveload at scale Assessing team communication at scale How to nudge managers and heads of X to become Team Topologies enablers
- 63. TeamTopologies.com @TeamTopologies Sign up fornews and tips: TeamTopologies.com
- 64. Thank you! teamtopologies.com 64 Matthew Skelton,Conflux @matthewpskelton Manuel Pais, Independent @manupaisable Copyright © Conflux Digital Ltd 2018-2019. All rights reserved. Registered in England and Wales, number 10890964 Icons made by Freepick from www.flaticon.com - used under license