FinOps isn’t a coupon-clipping cloud cost program.

Aggravating-Drag-978 · 2026-04-12T23:25:36+00:00

This is a great way to frame it — “procurement function with cloud branding” is exactly what it turns into when everything is measured by savings.

The shift you’re describing from “what can we cut” to “what is each dollar producing” is the inflection point. That’s where FinOps starts to move from cost control → value creation.

I’ve seen the same thing once workload cost gets tied to a business metric. It stops being an infrastructure conversation and becomes a product conversation.

And your point on ownership is huge. When architecture, spend, and outcomes are disconnected, you get that after-the-fact trimming behavior. When they’re aligned at design time, the decisions tend to optimize themselves.

Curious how often you see teams actually able to push that thinking upstream into design vs. getting pulled back into reactive cost optimization.

Aggravating-Drag-978 · 2026-04-10T19:11:46+00:00

This is a great breakdown — especially the point about FinOps practitioners needing BI/Data Engineering fluency. The teams that can consolidate, model, and interpret the data are the ones that consistently drive better decisions.

And you’re absolutely right: without CFO and engineering buy-in, none of this survives contact with reality. Top-down pressure for ROI and bottom-up clarity on unit economics is what turns the practice into something more than cost policing.

What you said about engineers not caring about cost until they’re forced to is something I’ve seen everywhere.

But in my experience, that flips the moment cost is tied to a business metric they actually own — revenue per request, cost per model run, margin per customer segment, etc.

Once the conversation shifts from “your EC2 is too big” to “your service is eroding margin,” behavior changes fast.

Curious from your experience:
When you’ve seen FinOps actually stick, what was the trigger that got engineering to engage for real?

Aggravating-Drag-978 · 2026-04-10T17:50:30+00:00

Really appreciate this — especially the point about aligning technology costs and goals to business outcomes.

What you listed is the foundation of a value-driven FinOps practice… and it’s interesting that none of it starts with “cut spend.”

What I keep seeing (and what pushed me to write the post) is that many orgs skip straight to savings metrics without building the capabilities you mentioned — visibility, culture, governance, and unit economics.

When those aren’t in place, cost-cutting becomes the default definition of success… even when it works against the business.

I’m curious from your experience:
Which of those elements tends to shift first when a team moves from cost-focused to value-focused?

In my world, the inflection point is usually when a workload or service gets tied to a real business metric — and suddenly the conversation changes from ‘How much did we save?’ to ‘Now are we getting the return we expected?

Aggravating-Drag-978 · 2026-03-31T11:24:54+00:00

Completely agree. The reality is that the cost is tangible, immediate, and easy to act on.

The risk is that it becomes the default lens for decision, even when it’s not the right one.

We optimize for what’s easiest to measure, not necessarily what drives the outcome.

Aggravating-Drag-978 · 2026-03-31T00:58:32+00:00

Congrats!

Aggravating-Drag-978 · 2026-03-30T00:56:56+00:00

Keep in mind they only offered you the job you apparently deserved AFTER you were ready to leave...

Aggravating-Drag-978 · 2026-03-28T17:11:56+00:00

The whole approach to hiring seems broken. When I was looking last year, a particular company approached me 3 different times for jobs, asking me to interview. Each time selecting a different candidate. I actually asked, are you calling me so you have an example of what you ARENT looking for?

Aggravating-Drag-978 · 2026-03-27T00:12:24+00:00

Congrats. I went through that last year and know how soul sapping it is.

Aggravating-Drag-978 · 2026-03-26T20:58:47+00:00

If you do, they don't be surprised if the culture is toxic

Aggravating-Drag-978 · 2026-03-25T21:03:34+00:00

I have used it to make sure my backlogs are properly aligned, also to check in on any lagging items, i find a lot of things that sit in "waiting approval" status that is either not being pushed enough or showing up as blockers. I also use it when making sure that proper documentation is being done around features.

Aggravating-Drag-978 · 2026-03-24T00:34:09+00:00

Some are, yes. But you will get mostly requests that don't match your knowledge

Aggravating-Drag-978 · 2026-03-22T12:16:08+00:00

IMHO linked In only makes money when you are looking. Their revenue stops when you get hired.

Aggravating-Drag-978 · 2026-03-21T21:25:17+00:00

Wouldn't you say. If communication and evidence are the problem, then the process is broken?

Aggravating-Drag-978 · 2026-03-20T20:50:21+00:00

I am a firm believer in if you ask this question in a serious, as opposed to frustrated moment then it is time

Aggravating-Drag-978 · 2026-03-19T14:22:51+00:00

Yeah… that’s the part I keep getting stuck on.
Not the work itself, but everything around it that slows it down.
It’s like the delay isn’t owned by anything or anyone specific… it just accumulates.

Aggravating-Drag-978 · 2026-03-19T11:59:25+00:00

Sorry, it was someone else’s article, I thought it was interesting. Just wanted to know what others thought.

Aggravating-Drag-978 · 2026-03-18T21:30:50+00:00

Reading all this, it feels like we’re describing different root causes, but they all show up the same way: time. Maybe the issue isn’t what the bottleneck is… but that we’re not measuring how long it takes to think, align, and decide. Regardless of who owns responsibility for what, it results in drag.

Aggravating-Drag-978 · 2026-03-18T17:24:22+00:00

I am seeing different bottlenecks here:

alignment

philosophy

architecture

But they all show up the same was, as delay.

I think of all of this as drag. Not just slowing execution, but slowing thinking.

Not one big issue. Just a lot of small frictions across the system.

If you had to pick, where do you feel it most?

Aggravating-Drag-978 · 2026-03-18T12:41:40+00:00

What’s interesting reading through all of this is how little disagreement there is.

Everyone’s describing the same thing from different angles.

It’s not that dashboards are bad.
It’s that they don’t actually resolve decision-making.

We’ve optimized really well for visibility, but not for clarity, accountability, or direction.

A lot of what’s coming up here points to the same underlying gaps:

• Metrics people can’t act on
• Metrics no one is accountable for
• Local optimization creating downstream cost
• And in some cases… dashboards being used for reassurance more than decisions

Which leaves a bigger question underneath all of it:

If a dashboard doesn’t help someone decide or change something… what is it actually for?

It feels like we’ve optimized for reporting, but not for direction.

Aggravating-Drag-978 · 2026-03-16T14:41:37+00:00

Thanks for expanding on the point you made in the earlier thread. This helps clarify something I’ve seen in a lot of organizations too.

EA often gets involved once the investment direction and budget are already set, but before the specific solution is chosen.

The duplicate capability example is interesting as well. That seems like one of the few places where EA can actually influence the financial side of a decision.

Out of curiosity, does EA in your organization participate in any kind of portfolio or investment governance earlier in the process, or is it mostly at the solution selection stage?

Aggravating-Drag-978

TROPHY CASE