This is a lesson from earlier in my career that feels painfully relevant to our current cloud environments.
With all of the cloud services now available, one of the biggest changes we have seen is just how many features are suddenly at everyone’s fingertips. In particular, when it comes to on-demand infrastructure, you can now build things in seconds that would once have taken months. That speed has produced a slightly nervous response from a lot of infrastructure, compliance and finance teams, and for good reason. You can get something into production incredibly fast, unlock a lot of demand, and just as quickly build up a very expensive bill without really meaning to.
Remember, one of Amazon’s core principles is to make it easy for people to give them money, and they with AWS and the other cloud providers, brought that mindset to cloud provisioning with real enthusiasm.
The problem is that there never seems to be a sensible middle ground.
In many large organisations, infrastructure services now make it cripplingly difficult to get anything done, often far harder than it ever was with on-prem services or specialist hosting. It feels like the only two options on offer are total freedom or total lockdown.
We have been here before.
The first example that always comes to mind is Microsoft Access. When people wanted space on SQL Servers and were denied back in the day, they used Microsoft Access and Excel instead. When they wanted development capability and were denied, they built it themselves. It became a running joke to judge how frustrated the business was by checking the file systems to see how many new Access databases had appeared and how large they had grown.
Lotus Notes followed a similar pattern. In the early days, users were given templates and just enough rights to create their own databases. Huge numbers of them appeared very quickly. Some became production systems, then the servers filled up and chaos followed. The response was to clamp down harder and harder on new databases and features, until eventually it became so difficult to do anything at all that the core reason for having Lotus Notes disappeared. At that point, you might as well have just used a decent email client. In the end, that behaviour helped cripple the platform.
SharePoint inherited many of the same issues, just with different tooling.
Businesses will always route around blockages. You cannot stop that. What I am seeing again now is the same failure pattern. Crippling bureaucracy is being applied to infrastructure. A new easy-to-use tool appears, and instead of guiding its use sensibly, it gets locked down. What happens next is entirely predictable. Make it hard to get a Salesforce site or proper support, and the business will simply go and buy a new tenant. The same is true of Azure and AWS.
You have to find the middle ground.
If you let people have whatever they want, it spreads like wildfire. You do not get good value for money, and people start building their own little empires rather than delivering value to the business. But if you go the other way and make it cripplingly difficult for the organisation to grow, expand, or even function, then that demand will leak out sideways into shadow IT and unofficial platforms. At that point, you have a much bigger problem on your hands.
So when you are planning your services, and planning how users can request and consume them, remember this. If you make it too hard, you are actively stifling the business. It may comply for a while, but it will eventually find another way. History has shown this again and again.