cto-advisor

# CTO Advisor ## Build vs Buy Decision Framework ### Decision Matrix ```markdown ## Build vs Buy Analysis: [Feature/System Name] ### Scoring (1-5 each) | Factor | Build | Buy | Weight | |--------|-------|-----|--------| | Core competency alignment | [1-5] | [1-5] | 3x | | Time to market | [1-5] | [1-5] | 2x | | Total cost (3 year) | [1-5] | [1-5] | 2x | | Customization needs | [1-5] | [1-5] | 2x | | Maintenance burden | [1-5] | [1-5] | 1x | | Data control | [1-5] | [1-5] | 1x | | Integration complexity | [1-5] | [1-5] | 1x | | Vendor risk | [1-5] | [1-5] | 1x | | **Weighted Total** | [sum] | [sum] | | ### Decision: BUILD / BUY / HYBRID ``` ### Decision Rules | Condition | Recommendation | |-----------|---------------| | Core differentiator | BUILD (competitive advantage) | | Commodity capability | BUY (focus on core) | | Strict compliance / data sovereignty | BUILD (control) | | Team has no domain expertise | BUY (faster, less risk) | | Vendor lock-in risk > 7/10 | BUILD or multi-vendor | | Time to market < 3 months | BUY (speed) | | Budget constrained, long-term | BUILD (lower TCO) | ### Build vs Buy Anti-Patterns | Anti-Pattern | Neden Yanlis | Dogru Yol | |-------------|-------------|-----------| | "Not invented here" | Wasted engineering time | Evaluate vendors objectively | | "We'll build it in 2 weeks" | Always takes 5x longer | Realistic estimation with buffer | | Buying everything | No differentiation | Build core, buy commodity | | Ignoring maintenance cost | Build looks cheaper initially | Include 3-5 year maintenance TCO | | No exit strategy from vendor | Lock-in trap | Evaluate migration cost upfront | ## Tech Debt Quantification & Prioritization ### Tech Debt Classification | Type | Description | Impact | Example | |------|-------------|--------|---------| | **Code debt** | Poor code quality | Developer velocity | No types, huge functions, no tests | | **Architecture debt** | Wrong architectural decisions | Scalability | Monolith that should be microservice | | **Test debt** | Insufficient test coverage | Reliability | No integration tests, flaky tests | | **Dependency debt** | Outdated dependencies | Security | 3 major versions behind, CVEs | | **Documentation debt** | Missing/outdated docs | Onboarding | No API docs, stale README | | **Infrastructure debt** | Manual processes, legacy infra | Reliability | No CI/CD, manual deployments | | **Design debt** | UX inconsistencies | User experience | 5 different button styles | ### Tech Debt Scorecard ```markdown ## Tech Debt Assessment: [Project Name] | Area | Score (1-10) | Trend | Priority | |------|-------------|-------|----------| | Code quality | [X] | [up/down/flat] | [H/M/L] | | Test coverage | [X%] | [up/down/flat] | [H/M/L] | | Dependency freshness | [X] | [up/down/flat] | [H/M/L] | | Build/deploy time | [X min] | [up/down/flat] | [H/M/L] | | Documentation | [X] | [up/down/flat] | [H/M/L] | | Security posture | [X] | [up/down/flat] | [H/M/L] | ### Cost of Delay [If we don't address debt area X, what happens in 6 months?] ### Investment Request | Initiative | Effort | Impact | ROI Period | |-----------|--------|--------|------------| | [debt 1] | [weeks] | [description] | [months] | | [debt 2] | [weeks] | [description] | [months] | ``` ### Prioritization Formula ``` Priority Score = (Impact * Urgency * Spread) / Effort Impact (1-5): How much does it slow the team? Urgency (1-5): How quickly will it get worse? Spread (1-5): How many areas does it affect? Effort (1-5): How hard is it to fix? (inverse: 1=hard, 5=easy) ``` ### Tech Debt Budget Rule ``` RULE: 20% of sprint capacity reserved for tech debt reduction Sprint capacity: 10 story points ├── 8 points: Feature work └── 2 points: Tech debt reduction (ZORUNLU, negotiable degil) ``` ## Team Scaling Strategies ### Hiring Framework ```markdown ## Hiring Plan: [Quarter/Year] ### Current State | Role | Headcount | Capacity | Gap | |------|-----------|----------|-----| | Backend | [X] | [Y features/quarter] | [shortfall] | | Frontend | [X] | [Y features/quarter] | [shortfall] | | DevOps | [X] | [Y deploys/week] | [shortfall] | | QA | [X] | [Y tests/sprint] | [shortfall] | ### Ratios - Engineer : Manager = 6-8 : 1 - Senior : Mid : Junior = 2 : 3 : 1 - Backend : Frontend = project-dependent - Engineer : QA = 4-6 : 1 ### Onboarding Milestones | Day | Milestone | |-----|-----------| | 1 | Dev environment running, first commit | | 7 | First PR merged | | 14 | First feature shipped to staging | | 30 | Independent task completion | | 60 | Contributing to architecture discussions | | 90 | Fully productive, mentoring others | ``` ### Team Topology Patterns | Pattern | When to Use | Size | |---------|-------------|------| | Stream-aligned | Product features | 5-8 people | | Platform | Internal tooling, infrastructure | 3-5 people | | Enabling | Coach other teams, remove blockers | 2-3 people | | Complicated subsystem | Deep expertise (ML, security) | 2-4 people | ## Architecture Decision Records (ADR) ### ADR Template ```markdown # ADR-[number]: [decision title] ## Status [Proposed | Accepted | Deprecated | Superseded by ADR-XXX] ## Context [What is the issue? What forces are at play?] [Include constraints, requirements, team capabilities] ## Decision [What is the change that we're proposing and/or doing?] ## Alternatives Considered ### Option A: [name] - Pros: [list] - Cons: [list] ### Option B: [name] - Pros: [list] - Cons: [list] ## Consequences ### Positive - [benefit 1] - [benefit 2] ### Negative - [tradeoff 1] - [tradeoff 2] ### Risks - [risk 1]: [mitigation] - [risk 2]: [mitigation] ## Decision Date [YYYY-MM-DD] ## Decision Makers [names/roles] ``` ### ADR Index ```markdown ## Architecture Decision Log | # | Decision | Status | Date | Impact | |---|---------|--------|------|--------| | 001 | Use PostgreSQL over MongoDB | Accepted | 2025-01-15 | High | | 002 | Adopt microservices for billing | Accepted | 2025-02-01 | High | | 003 | Use React over Vue | Accepted | 2025-02-15 | Medium | | 004 | Monolith-first for MVP | Deprecated | 2025-03-01 | High | ``` ## Technology Evaluation Framework ### RICE Scoring ```markdown ## Technology Evaluation: [Technology Name] ### RICE Score | Factor | Score | Weight | Weighted | |--------|-------|--------|----------| | **Reach** (how many people/teams affected) | [1-10] | 1x | [X] | | **Impact** (how much improvement per person) | [1-3: minimal/medium/massive] | 2x | [X] | | **Confidence** (how sure are we) | [50-100%] | 1x | [X] | | **Effort** (person-months) | [X] | divisor | [X] | **RICE Score = (Reach * Impact * Confidence) / Effort = [score]** ``` ### Weighted Scoring Matrix ```markdown ## Vendor/Technology Comparison | Criteria | Weight | Option A | Option B | Option C | |----------|--------|----------|----------|----------| | Performance | 20% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | | Community/support | 15% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | | Learning curve | 15% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | | Cost | 15% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | | Scalability | 10% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | | Security | 10% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | | Integration | 10% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | | Maturity | 5% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | | **Weighted Total** | | [sum] | [sum] | [sum] | ### Recommendation: [Option X] ### Reasoning: [1-2 sentences] ``` ### Technology Evaluation Anti-Patterns | Anti-Pattern | Risk | Dogru Yol | |-------------|------|-----------| | Resume-driven development | Wrong tool for the job | Evaluate against actual needs | | Hype-driven adoption | Immature ecosystem | Wait for version 2.0+ | | Single vendor evaluation | No comparison baseline | Always evaluate 3+ options | | Ignoring exit cost | Future lock-in | Calculate migration cost | | No POC/prototype | Unknown unknowns | Build spike before committing | ## Budget Planning & TCO Analysis ### TCO Template (3-Year) ```markdown ## Total Cost of Ownership: [System/Technology] ### Year 1 (Setup + Operations) | Category | Cost | |----------|------| | Licenses/subscriptions | $[X] | | Infrastructure (cloud/hardware) | $[X] | | Implementation/migration | $[X] | | Training | $[X] |