While centralization enables one group of engineers or developers to decide on the tools, technology stack, and standards to be used and followed by an organization, this seemingly streamlined approach (at least on paper) to reducing overhead and redundancy can actually lead to stagnation and low morale caused by micromanagement. Teams become bored and afraid to experiment because they think their ideas are against company policy.
Organizations that wish to continue driving innovation must be willing to delegate and empower small, independent teams, giving them the space to be able to think, experiment, and deploy at their own pace and style.
This is one of the many things that microservices architectures bring to the table. The approach of doing one thing well and deploying it to many services breaks free from the practice of designing monolith applications that are basically multiple services jammed into one program.
The decomposing of monoliths gives rise to smaller microservices, which also dissolves the large and often slow-to-act team in charge of maintaining the application, into smaller and more agile teams.
And because microservices are arranged according to varying business features and goals, they can be developed using different programming languages or different versions of one language. What's important is for there to be clearly-defined interfaces that govern the interaction between each microservice. This allows the smaller teams to have the autonomy to select their desired standards and metrics, all while adhering to the organization's overall key performance indicators instead of the other way around.
In addition, decentralizing applications and teams match the core principles of the DevOps methodology, helping narrow the gap between:
• The user interface, backend, and middle-tier developers, who tend to work in isolation
• Development, security, business, production management, and operations teams, who also usually work in their own silos
Bottom line? Both microservices architectures and DevOps lean toward the product model instead of the project model, the latter of which often has a small group of 5 to 7 developers and engineers shouldering the gargantuan task of designing, building, testing, monitoring, and maintaining an application across the entire application cycle.