Golden Path vs. Golden Cage in Platform Engineering: Why Flexibility Matters

Recently, I have seen so many articles by many big companies talking about standards of building internal developer platforms and the must have features in them. Those are in a nutshell as follows,

• Infrastructure Provisioning
• CI/CD
• Service Catalog
• Security and Compliance
• Monitoring and Observability
• Cost Management
• RBAC
• Multi Environment Support
• Developer Experience

However, one important aspect all these articles are missing or the relevant platforms they are promoting that are not supporting is Flexibility.

In platform engineering, two common metaphors illustrate the impact of design choices: Golden Path and Golden Cage. Both represent an opinionated approach to platform design, but their outcomes are strikingly different. In this article, I am going to explore the balance between structure and flexibility, the importance of avoiding traps, and how the decision between building or buying a platform would shape these outcomes.

Golden Path: Guidance Without Restriction

The Golden Path is the ideal many platform teams aspire to create — a curated experience that provides developers with a smooth, efficient, and secure route to deliver value. By using standardized workflows, approved tooling, and best practices baked into the platform, developers enjoy:

• Accelerated onboarding: Reduced complexity for new team members.
• Enhanced productivity: Fewer distractions from operational tasks.
• Consistent outcomes: Compliance and reliability are built into the workflow.

However, the Golden Path also ensures flexibility. Developers can choose to diverge from the opinionated path when their use case demands innovation or customization, enabling them to tackle unique challenges without hindrance.

Golden Cage: Over-Optimization Gone Wrong

The Golden Cage, on the other hand, results when platforms are designed with too many constraints, turning guidance into restrictions. Developers might find themselves stuck in rigid workflows that don’t cater to their unique needs or the evolving demands of the business. This happens due to:

• Over standardization: Assuming all projects fit one mold.
• Lack of adaptability: Tools and processes that cannot evolve with technology.
• Frustration: Developers spend more time bypassing the system than delivering value.

The Golden Cage stifles innovation, frustrates teams, and ultimately slows down the organization.

Why Flexibility Matters

Flexibility is the antidote to the Golden Cage. A great platform balances opinionated guidance with the freedom to adapt. Here’s why flexibility should be at the core of any platform:

1. Empowered Developers: Teams can innovate without being locked into a single way of working.
2. Scalable Solutions: Platforms can grow with the organization, integrating new tools and workflows as needed.
3. Reduced Technical Debt: Flexible systems adapt to change, preventing obsolescence.

Flexibility doesn’t mean chaos; it means offering curated paths with the option to step off-road when necessary.

Build vs. Buy: Crafting the Platform

The decision to build or buy your platform profoundly affects whether you achieve a Golden Path or fall into a Golden Cage. Each approach has its merits and trade-offs, and the right choice depends on your organization’s goals, resources, and expertise.

The Case for Building

Building your platform offers the ultimate in customization. With tools like Spotify’s Backstage, organizations can create a fully tailored experience. However, building is not without challenges:

• Investment: Building an internal platform requires a significant upfront commitment in terms of time, money, and skilled personnel.
• Expertise: A dedicated platform engineering team is essential for development, iteration, and maintenance.
• Long-Term Overhead: Beyond the initial build, ongoing upkeep, scaling, and adapting to new technologies demand continuous effort.

While building offers complete control, the cost in resources and operational burden can be prohibitive for teams without extensive platform engineering expertise.

I have been building Internal Developer Platforms for the past 5 years and I have seen so many organizations try to build their own platforms as well. So with my experience, let me tell you that no matter how much you invest in it, if you do not have the right resources and the people and vision to build it, your money is probably gonna go down the drain.

The Case for Buying

Buying a platform offers an immediate return on investment (ROI), especially for teams that need to hit the ground running. Solutions designed for internal developer platforms (IDPs) deliver:

• Ready-to-Use Features: Platforms like SkyU provide workflows, integrations, and compliance out of the box, minimizing the time to value.
• Operational Efficiency: Prebuilt platforms reduce the need for large platform engineering teams, freeing resources to focus on business outcomes.
• Scalability and Support: Vendors often provide ongoing updates and support, ensuring the platform stays relevant as your organization grows.

Buying a platform lets you focus on delivering software rather than building infrastructure. It strikes a balance between the Golden Path’s efficiency and the flexibility needed to avoid the Golden Cage.

Conclusion

In platform engineering, the difference between a Golden Path and a Golden Cage comes down to design choices that prioritize flexibility and developer empowerment. Whether you choose to build or buy, the goal should be to create a platform that enables developers to deliver value efficiently while preserving the freedom to innovate.

For teams ready to invest deeply in customization, building a platform may offer unmatched control. But it comes at a cost. For those seeking immediate productivity gains and long-term adaptability, buying a solution offers an easier path to success. Platforms like SkyU exemplify this approach, enabling teams to embrace the benefits of the Golden Path without the risk of becoming trapped in a Golden Cage.