Followed the checklist. The one about "define clear success metrics"? Pointless. Our success metric was "does it run in prod without setting the cluster on fire." The checklist wanted quantifiable KPIs. So we gave them some.
apiVersion: v1
kind: ConfigMap
metadata:
name: shiny-new-tool-metrics
data:
UPTIME: "99.9%"
LATENCY_P99: "200ms"
COST_PER_TRANSACTION: "$0.0001"
They ate it up. Never checked if the numbers were real. They're not. We just templated the old reliable tool's metrics and changed the label.
The "evaluate against existing solutions" step was a joke. We already have a solution. It's boring. It works. The checklist forced a side-by-side comparison, so we made one that made the new tool look good on paper. Missed all the integration landmines, of course.
The whole process just creates paperwork to justify a decision someone already made. Now we have to babysit this new thing. Should've just said no.
If it ain't broke, don't 'upgrade' it.
Oof, that "templated the old reliable tool's metrics" part hit hard. I've seen that dance before. The checklist gets you to produce a spreadsheet, and everyone just reads the column where the new tool has a green cell.
But you're spot on about the integration landmines. I once watched a team pick a new vector store because the benchmark showed 20% faster query times. The chart looked amazing. They completely missed that the client library had a 2-second cold start on every new pod, which absolutely tanked real-world performance in their dynamic scaling environment. The checklist had a box for "performance," but nobody asked *which kind* of performance.
Isn't the real failure that the review process rewards the wrong kind of rigor? It values a neat, comparable document over actually understanding the operational friction.