Why Design Process Matters – Developing a Concern for “Why”


Earlier in the year I had the opportunity to sit down virtually with Ethan Banks and Chris Wahl on the Datanauts podcast to discuss two of my favorite topics: design process and documentation. Being a Datanauts listener since the launch of the show in 2015, and a Packet Pushers listener since 2013, it was an honor to be able to contribute content to a platform that has done so much to continually encourage my career development.

As this series is meant to be a companion to the podcast, I’d recommend giving the episode a listen using the link or embedded audio below. We had a great discussion and I believe it’s well worth the time invested.

Datanauts 168: Why Design Process Matters For Data Centers And The Cloud

With that out of the way, I imagine a few questions might come to mind:

  • What makes design process and documentation so important?
  • Aren’t there new, cool technologies that should be talked about, instead?

In short, I believe there’s more than enough news-of-the-day type commentary on specific technologies, and instead I thought I’d share my thoughts on the topics that have drastically altered the trajectory of my career.

Aside from maintaining a general curiosity and investing off-hours time in developing relevant skills, I consider attention to design process and documentation responsible for much of my professional progress.

If you are in the IT infrastructure space, creating well-structured designs and effectively communicating your decisions will go a long way toward improving your work and others’ perception of it.

Before we dive into the details of these topics, though, I wanted to provide a bit of background on my career and how I came to understand and appreciate them. Hopefully the context proves useful as we move forward.

Developing a concern for “why”

Stage 1 – User Focus

My career in IT began in Managed Services where I started off as a systems technician deploying, migrating to and supporting Windows-based environments. While this role was far from glamorous, it exposed me to a wide variety of end-users, the applications they used, and the back-end infrastructure that supported their operation.

All the while I was under intense pressure to simultaneously think on my feet, learn quickly and provide a high level of customer service. At this level, being friendly, resourceful and responsive were probably the most useful techniques available to me, and I relied on them to get me through this user-centric phase.

Stage 2 – Technology Focus

As a result of this initial exposure and the growth that accompanied it, I was able to progress through the ranks to an infrastructure engineer role and focus more on the underlying infrastructure I was most interested in. Along with this transition came a separation from users, their needs and day-to-day complaints. It was a very welcome change.

In its place, a concern for the customer-wide impact of technology and the decisions I made developed. I found as my technical skills broadened, so did the scope of my responsibility and perspective. Detailed understanding of technology, impact of changes, overall work output and a can-do attitude were my go-to techniques when navigating this technology-centric phase.

Stage 3 – Business Focus

At some point, being immersed full time in the implementation and support of infrastructure technologies became less appealing, and I pursued a transition to a much more customer-facing pre-sales architecture role. That experience exposed me to organizations of all sizes with varying levels of internal IT expertise, process maturity and infrastructure complexity, which was a (mostly) welcome change.

As I soon discovered, the techniques I relied on in my previous roles were no longer enough. Being friendly, responsive and resourceful are table-stakes attributes for senior level positions.

A high level of work output is also assumed, as efficiency and multi-tasking are required to perform these new duties. And instead of being beneficial, a detailed understanding of technology, and exposing it during conversation with the wrong audience, can actually prove detrimental.

Glazing-over a customer executives’ eyes with an improperly-timed technical tangent is a quick (and painful) way to learn this lesson. What, then, was required to be successful when handling these new responsibilities of solution design?

A working understanding of the customers business, their goals and project-specific requirements was needed, at a minimum. Beyond this, there was still a need for a structured way to communicate decisions and rationale. The customer needs to understand how you intend to provide value and reduce risk, after all.

The answer, as I eventually discovered, was formalized design process and structured documentation, informed by a curiosity for the business side of things and driven by a concern for “why”.


Getting to a functional understanding of design across multiple technology silos wasn’t completely straightforward, though.

For each of the technologies I worked with, including virtualization and cloud, there were different sets of design guidance, significant variations in quality and sometimes conflicting advice to be reconciled.

As I suspect I am not the only one who has had this experience, I am hoping the lessons I learned will be useful to those traveling along the same path.

Throughout the remainder of this series, we’ll take a look at design process in general, specific guidance offered by both VMware and AWS, see if we can come to a working synthesis and provide a few helpful documentation tips along the way.

Stay tuned!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s