Developer Self-Service Workflows

The Cost of Not Having Self-Service#

A developer needs a PostgreSQL database. They file a ticket. It sits in a backlog for two days. A DBA provisions it, sends credentials via Slack DM. Elapsed time: 3 days. Actual need: 5 minutes of configuration. Multiply across every database, cache, queue, and namespace, and manual provisioning becomes the single largest drag on velocity. Self-service lets developers provision pre-approved resources directly, within guardrails the platform team defines.

Platform Engineering Maturity Model

Why a Maturity Model#

Platform engineering investments fail when organizations skip levels. A team that cannot maintain shared Terraform modules reliably has no business building a self-service portal. The maturity model provides an honest assessment of where you are and what must be true before advancing.

This is not a five-year roadmap. Some organizations reach Level 2 and stay there — it serves their needs. The model helps you identify what level you need, what level you are at, and what is blocking progress.

Crossplane for Platform Abstractions

What Crossplane Does#

Crossplane extends Kubernetes to provision and manage cloud infrastructure using the Kubernetes API. Instead of writing Terraform and running apply, you write Kubernetes manifests and kubectl apply them. Crossplane controllers reconcile the desired state with the actual cloud resources.

The real value is not replacing Terraform — it is building abstractions. Platform teams define custom resource types (like DatabaseClaim) that developers consume without knowing whether they are getting RDS, CloudSQL, or Azure Database. The composition layer maps the simple claim to the actual cloud resources.

ArgoCD with Terraform and Crossplane: Managing Infrastructure Alongside Applications

ArgoCD with Terraform and Crossplane#

Applications need infrastructure – databases, queues, caches, object storage, DNS records, certificates. In a GitOps workflow managed by ArgoCD, there are two approaches to provisioning that infrastructure: Crossplane (Kubernetes-native) and Terraform (external). Each has different strengths and integration patterns with ArgoCD.

Crossplane: Infrastructure as Kubernetes CRDs#

Crossplane extends Kubernetes with CRDs that represent cloud resources. An RDS instance becomes a YAML manifest. A GCS bucket becomes a YAML manifest. ArgoCD manages these manifests exactly like it manages Deployments and Services.

Multi-Cloud vs Single-Cloud Strategy Decisions

Multi-Cloud vs Single-Cloud Strategy#

Multi-cloud is one of the most oversold strategies in infrastructure. Vendors, consultants, and conference speakers promote it as the default approach, but the reality is that most organizations are better served by a single cloud provider used well. This framework helps you determine whether multi-cloud is actually worth the cost for your situation.

The Default Answer Is Single-Cloud#

Start with single-cloud unless you have a specific, concrete reason to go multi-cloud. Here is why.

Self-Service Infrastructure Patterns

The Problem Self-Service Solves#

Developers need infrastructure: databases, caches, message queues, storage buckets, DNS records. In most organizations, getting these means filing a ticket, waiting days for someone to provision, and receiving credentials in a Slack DM. This bottleneck incentivizes workarounds — manual console provisioning, skipped security configs, everything crammed into shared databases.

Self-service infrastructure lets developers provision what they need directly, within guardrails the platform team defines. Choose a resource from a catalog, fill in parameters, and the system provisions it and returns connection details. No tickets, no waiting.

Choosing an Infrastructure as Code Tool: Terraform vs Pulumi vs CloudFormation/Bicep vs Crossplane

Choosing an Infrastructure as Code Tool#

Infrastructure as Code tools differ in language, state management, provider ecosystem, and operational model. The choice affects how your team writes, reviews, tests, and maintains infrastructure definitions for years. Switching IaC tools mid-project is possible but expensive – it typically means rewriting all definitions and carefully importing existing resources into the new tool’s state.

Decision Criteria#

Before comparing tools, establish what matters to your organization: