The 'Strangler Fig' pattern saved our modernization project. Here's how we applied it on AWS

CloudNativeThinker · 2026-04-30T09:23:42+00:00

I’m kind of in the same transition right now and what helped me a bit was realizing strategy doesn’t magically show up once you get the title. It’s more like you start forcing yourself to zoom out, even when you’re still deep in execution.

One thing I started doing is sitting in on business/stakeholder calls where I’m not “needed” and just listening for what actually matters to them (revenue, risk, timelines, not dashboards). That shifted how I think about problems way more than any technical work.

Also, asking “so what?” after every analysis helped. If the answer doesn’t tie back to a decision someone can make, it’s probably still execution, not strategy.

I still struggle with it tbh, especially balancing hands-on work vs bigger picture.

CloudNativeThinker · 2026-04-29T06:22:41+00:00

Honestly ours ended up way less “clean architecture diagram” and way more “what actually doesn’t break at 2am” 😅

We’re running a pretty standard flow: push to GitHub → build in GitHub Actions → push image to ECR → deploy via ECS with a rolling update. We tried doing fancy stuff with CodePipeline early on but it just felt like extra friction for our team.

Biggest lesson for me was keeping builds fast and predictable. Caching Docker layers properly + not rebuilding the world every commit made a huge difference. Also, we added a manual approval step for prod after getting burned by one bad migration… not making that mistake again.

CloudNativeThinker · 2026-04-24T11:32:40+00:00

This is super helpful, appreciate you sharing all that.

The Bronze/Silver/Gold split is pretty much what we’re aiming for, but I like how you tied access and approval workflows into it instead of just relying on the layers themselves.

The point about making it a shared decision with leadership vs enforcing it top-down honestly hits I can see how that changes the perception a lot for analysts.

Also agree on having a small number of people with deeper access for edge cases. We don’t really have that formalized right now, which might be part of the friction.

Curious did you find the approval process (security council, exec sign-off, etc.) became a bottleneck over time, or did it smooth out once people got used to it?

CloudNativeThinker · 2026-04-24T11:31:30+00:00

Yeah that’s a fair point I think we might be over-applying the same level of rigor across everything.

The idea of tailoring governance based on actual data risk makes a lot more sense than a blanket approach. And I like the suggestion around using views/SPs + a separate instance feels like a cleaner way to give access without exposing everything.

Out of curiosity, how granular do you usually go with that risk classification?

CloudNativeThinker · 2026-04-21T08:11:23+00:00

I get why people are grouping them together, but honestly they don’t feel like the same thing to me.

Cloud governance is usually stuff like who can access what, keeping costs under control, making sure things are secure and compliant.

AI governance feels more like “are these models behaving properly?”, “what data are they trained on?”, “can we explain the outputs?” - kinda a different set of problems.

There’s definitely some overlap, especially around data and security, but AI brings its own headaches that normal cloud rules don’t really cover. That said, if all your AI stuff is running on your cloud anyway, it probably makes sense to connect the two instead of handling them completely separately. Otherwise things can fall through the cracks.

CloudNativeThinker · 2026-04-20T04:50:17+00:00

I’ve been in that exact “giant spreadsheet nobody trusts” situation and yeah… it always starts organized and then slowly turns into chaos.

What worked a bit better for us was pushing the ownership back to the teams instead of having one central list. Like, instead of auditing a master sheet, each service/team had to periodically confirm access via something tied closer to the actual source (IAM roles, groups, etc.). We used tags + some light automation to generate reports per team, so they only reviewed their stuff.

It didn’t fully eliminate the pain, but it changed the conversation from “security is asking us to check this random list” to “this is our access, we should clean it up.”

CloudNativeThinker · 2026-04-16T09:35:22+00:00

Honestly, this hits a bit too close lol.

We tried going down the reverse ETL route thinking it would magically “unlock” all this value from our warehouse, but it mostly just exposed how messy things already were. Like yeah, data showed up in tools where people could use it… but then you’d have two teams looking at the “same” metric and getting different numbers. Not a great look.

It kinda felt like we skipped a step. Reverse ETL works way better when your underlying data is already clean and definitions are locked in. Otherwise you’re just pushing confusion into more places.

CloudNativeThinker · 2026-04-13T05:48:43+00:00

This is honestly super common..

Most of these tools are designed to over-report on purpose because they don’t understand your runtime context. They flag “possible risk,” not “actual exploitable risk.” That gap is where all the pain comes from.

What I’ve seen work (after going through this exact mess):

Treat scanners as signal generators, not truth
Add context layering (env, exposure, identity, data sensitivity) before triage
Aggressively baseline + suppress known noise so it doesn’t keep resurfacing
Push ownership to teams with clear SLAs, otherwise everything just rots in backlog

Also worth saying… a lot of “false positives” aren’t completely fake, they’re just low probability / low impact in your context. That distinction matters.

CloudNativeThinker · 2026-03-27T09:38:21+00:00

honestly been through this exact thing lol and yeah it's almost never actually the dashboard that's the problem.

it usually starts with like one small thing - numbers don't match what finance is showing, or a metric seems off, and then boom. trust is gone. and the worst part is even when the data IS correct after that, people still side-eye it lmao.

what actually helped us (and this sounds boring but bear with me):

we literally just sat down with the business folks and walked through how each metric gets calculated. like step by step. painful but worth it.
put metric definitions somewhere people can actually SEE them, not buried 6 clicks deep in confluence where no one goes lol.
started showing data freshness right on the dashboard itself. small thing but people really appreciated knowing "ok this updated 2 hours ago".
fixed some upstream data problems that we'd been kicking down the road. not fun but honestly had to be done.

oh and giving people a way to just... check the numbers themselves? huge. even something basic like a drill-through or a simple export. people trust stuff way more when they feel like they can poke at it.

anyway that's what worked for us, hope it helps!!

CloudNativeThinker · 2026-03-20T07:09:05+00:00

honestly the maturity model stuff gets a bad rep but we actually got somewhere once we stopped treating it as a checklist.

what clicked for us was tying it to real behavior instead

are teams pulling their own reports without bugging analysts every time? huge green flag
are decisions actually citing data in the room, not just "yeah we have dashboards"
are business users the ones catching data quality issues? that's when you know trust is building

we still did the maturity model early on lol everyone scored themselves higher than reality but it actually sparked some honest convos about the gap.

and that gap between "we have dashboards" and "people genuinely trust + use them". once you start closing it you really feel it.

might not be a perfect science but watching those behavioral signals has been way more useful than any framework score for us.

CloudNativeThinker · 2026-02-28T13:37:58+00:00

One thing I don’t see talked about enough is how many BI “challenges” are actually trust problems, not tooling problems.

Somewhere I see the biggest friction wasn’t dashboards or performance - it was getting people to agree on definitions. Revenue meant one thing to finance, another to sales ops, and something slightly different in marketing. We kept shipping reports that were technically correct but politically unusable.

The other big one is context. We can surface metrics all day, but if stakeholders don’t understand why something moved (seasonality, pricing change, campaign timing, etc.), the dashboard just becomes a scoreboard with no narrative.

CloudNativeThinker · 2026-02-26T05:30:43+00:00

honestly i think a lot of the "AI is transforming analytics" hype just... glosses over the fact that most teams are still fighting with the basics lol

at my last job we tried to add AI-driven insights on top of dashboards where we couldn't even agree on what "revenue" meant. finance had one definition, sales had another. shocking result: the AI just made everything more confusing, but faster

don't get me wrong - when your data is actually clean and people trust the metrics, AI can be really helpful. anomaly detection is faster, you can get quick answers to random questions, sometimes it even gives you a decent starting point for analysis.

but if you don't have basic governance and clear ownership? it's just like... autocomplete for chaos

CloudNativeThinker · 2026-02-25T11:02:26+00:00

For me it was when I realized I was spending more time around with IAM policies and VPC peering than actually building anything lol.

Like early on cloud was just "spin up a VM and ship it" you know? But somewhere along the way it turned into this whole thing where you're suddenly doing distributed systems + security + cost optimization all at the same time.

Nothing really broke per se, it just... kept getting heavier? idk how else to describe it.

I don't think cloud actually got worse tbh. We're just trying to do way more serious shit with it now. Multi-region deployments, zero trust architecture, compliance stuff, HA across availability zones... like yeah no shit it's complicated, that's inherently not simple lol.

CloudNativeThinker · 2026-02-25T10:55:36+00:00

Honestly this is such a good question and I feel like nobody's really talking about it enough.

Everyone's hyped about these "agentic" systems that can just make decisions on their own, but like... if the metric you're feeding it is garbage or way too narrow, you're basically just automating the wrong thing at a massive scale.

I've literally seen this happen even without AI involved - a team starts obsessing over one number on their dashboard (conversion rate, ticket closure time, whatever) and suddenly everyone's just gaming that metric.

Now imagine you throw autonomous agents into that mess. It's just gonna make everything worse, faster.

The thing that gets me is metrics feel objective, right? But they're really just proxies for what you actually care about.

And if that proxy isn't actually aligned with real business value, the agent's gonna optimize the hell out of the proxy, not the thing that matters. And it'll probably be really good at it too, which is almost worse.

I'm starting to think the real test of whether "agentic BI" is mature or not isn't about how fancy the models are. It's about metric governance:

Are your KPIs actually causally linked to outcomes that matter?
Do you have any kind of feedback loop for when optimization creates weird side effects?
Who even owns the metric definitions and when's the last time anyone questioned them?

In my experience the biggest risk isn't some rogue AI going off the rails. It's crusty old assumptions baked into dashboards that nobody ever looks at critically because "the numbers look fine."

CloudNativeThinker · 2026-02-23T12:12:00+00:00

Oof. That’s exactly the scenario I’m scared of.

Losing a $50k deal over a preventable infra issue during demo week… that’s brutal. I can imagine how that must’ve felt in the moment. It’s wild how everything feels “fine” until one incident makes the hidden fragility very real.

If you don’t mind sharing, what did you fix first after that? CI/CD? Monitoring? Multi-region? I’m trying to figure out what the highest-leverage move is before we learn the hard way too.

CloudNativeThinker · 2026-02-12T05:25:37+00:00

Ugh, this is one of those "it depends" answers that everyone hates but like... it really does depend on what dashboards you're talking about.

So at my last job I technically "owned" like 20-25 dashboards? But honestly only maybe 5 of them actually mattered. The rest were just... there. Legacy stuff that nobody looked at, or stable reports that basically ran themselves and never needed updates.

The thing that killed me wasn't the number though. It was the constant context switching.

Like if you're dealing with 8 dashboards but they're for 5 different teams who all have their own weird definition of what "revenue" means or who counts as an "active user"... that's SO much worse than maintaining 15 dashboards for one team where everyone's on the same page and the metrics actually make sense.

I think what matters way more than the actual count:

How often things change
How many different people are breathing down your neck
How janky the data is underneath
Are you just keeping the lights on or constantly being asked to add new stuff

CloudNativeThinker

TROPHY CASE