Environments Without the Headaches
The Unsung Hero of Speed and Stability
Less friction. More flow.
Streamlined environments that remove bottlenecks and keep teams moving forward
Built-in safety, zero surprises.
Standardized environments that catch issues early and reduce release risk
Speed that drives advantage.
Responsive infrastructure that turns delivery into competitive advantage
Executive Summary
The speed and safety of software delivery teams depend on more than individual developer skill, it depends on the set of environments those developers need to test the software in. A responsive, standardised environment strategy, enabled by platform engineering, removes bottlenecks, catches problems earlier, and gives teams the autonomy to move fast while reducing chances of breaking things. By right-sizing environments, automating their creation, and embedding quality checks from build to customer release, organisations can shorten time-to-market, cut waste, and reduce release risk, turning delivery from a source of friction into a competitive advantage.
The Foundation of Speed
We've talked about the Path to Production as a contract — the agreement on what every change must go through before it reaches customers. We then looked at Pipelines as the way to implement that contract: a factory line for software, moving changes through checks automatically instead of by hand.
But even the best machinery depends on the ground it runs on. A race car shows its speed on smooth tarmac, not on cracked or muddy track. And consistency matters as much as quality: if you practice on tarmac but race off-road, your preparation won't translate.
In software delivery, that ground is your environments — where code is built, integrated, and released. Get them wrong, and even the best pipeline feels like pushing a car through sand. Get them right, and you get consistency across every stage, the speed to move safely, and the autonomy for teams to deliver without friction.
Meet the Environments
Build (Stage 1)
| Can be ephemeral | Yes |
|---|---|
| Size (vs. Prod) | Similar to developer's workstation |
| Cost Profile | Low (containers spun up on demand) |
| Stubbed vs. Integrated | N/A |
| When It's Run | Every code push |
| Main Point | Consistent, reproducible builds eliminate drift and catch issues early |
Eliminating "Works on My Machine"
The Problem
The first environment we encounter in the pipeline is the Build Environment, the one that turns code into an immutable artifact. In the traditional setup, each developer's laptop has its own personality: slightly different operating systems, language versions, and library sets. What "works on my machine" often breaks elsewhere, and no one can be entirely sure why.
Trying to solve for individual machine differences between engineers with a central build server isn't much better if they're long-lived and manually configured. This causes drift to set in, no one can say exactly what's installed, and no one can safely rebuild it.
The Solution
Platform Engineering advocates for a different approach. One where the developers build inside standardised containers (same operating system, same build dependencies) whether running on their laptop or the CI server. They can still manage their own dependencies for their application, but infra teams control the base images and security scanning.
It's a split of responsibilities that works for everyone: teams get freedom over what matters to their code, while security can verify the known state of every build environment.
Why Build Consistency Matters
Without this foundation, the Path to Production starts shaky. Teams end up with mismatched versions of languages or libraries, subtle incompatibilities that don't surface until much later, and a slow erosion of trust in their path to production.
A well-structured build environment is the first leverage point in the entire delivery system. Standardising and automating it:
Cuts onboarding time
New engineers go from weeks to days by removing local setup variability
Catches defects earlier
When they cost a fraction to fix, because builds run in the same controlled conditions everywhere
Increases audit confidence
By producing identical, traceable artifacts for every deployment
Without this consistency at the start, later stages spend their time untangling mismatches instead of delivering value.
Fast Feedback (Stage 2)
Lightweight Production-like Environments
Why Production-Like Testing Comes Too Late
The biggest shift in the path to production and one many organisations delay far too long, is moving from code delivery to service delivery. That means getting the application into something that looks and behaves like production as early as possible in the software development lifecycle through Deployed Tests (i.e. tests running in an environment integrating with production grade infrastructure rather than a developer's machine)
Historically, running on production-grade infrastructure so early in the process has been rare because production-like environments were expensive, slow to provision, and controlled entirely by infrastructure teams. A request for a new environment could take weeks or months, and by the time it arrived the project might have moved on. Often the capability to build the infrastructure is built at the same time as the apps that need it. So teams make do with late-stage integration, cramming as much verification as possible into a small window before release.
Making Production-Like Testing Reality
The Platform Engineering Approach
With a Platform Engineering approach, cost and speed constraints should fall away. On-demand, production-like environments can be spun up in minutes without a direct human dependency, drastically saving costs by running only for the duration of the tests.
This changes the quality bar we can set: instead of saving "realistic" testing for the end, it becomes part of everyday work: required from the start, not crammed in at the finish.
Here, encapsulation is the key principle. Everything the service needs to run in production (binaries, configuration, network settings, monitoring and alerting) is packaged into one immutable artifact. The only things left out are environment variables, which carry sensitive credentials and other details that genuinely must differ between environments. Even then, the aim is that the team cultural minimize environment variables at all times: fewer differences mean fewer surprises.
Stubbed Dependencies
The first set of deployed tests in the Path to Production aims to test the change with integrated production infrastructure but with dependencies stubbed out. Your service is deployed with fake versions of its dependencies, in the form of stubs These stubs are under your control, so you can make them helpful or obstructive at will, like a sparring partner who can throw both predictable jabs and the occasional surprise hook.
In traditional setups, teams often skip the practice of using deployable stubs entirely. Without stubs, you have to test against real dependencies, which means booking shar
The Poison of Configuration Drift
Configuration drift is what happens when environments stop being predictably identical. It acts a poison to a path
to production
A developer makes a small "just to make it work" tweak in one place, but doesn't capture it in code. Multiply that across dozens of teams and suddenly you have hundreds of unique quirks spread through your estate.
Instead of reliable replicas, you end up with fragile snowflake environments: each one slightly different, impossible to reproduce, and prone to melting under pressure. The result: your pre-production tests are rehearsing for a play that will never be performed in the same theatre.
Stubbed Functional (Substage 2.1.1)
| Can be ephemeral | Yes |
|---|---|
| Size (vs. Prod) | Similar to developer's workstation |
| Cost Profile | Low (containers spun up on demand) |
| Stubbed vs. Integrated | N/A |
| When It's Run | Every code push |
| Main Point | Consistent, reproducible builds eliminate drift and catch issues early |
Autonomy Through Isolation
Independent Team Progress
Testing in isolation gives autonomy back to teams. If the environment is always ready on demand and the deployment automated, writing the functional test becomes part of the Definition of Done and, in many cases, something the business can explicitly require. That definition can now mean "a running service proven end-to-end", rather than just "code complete".
This gives business leaders confidence that everything works before it meets the chaos of the wider system. Each team can demonstrate progress in isolation, without depending on another team's readiness, and without the familiar tune of being blocked: "we can't demo because of someone else".
The responsibility for proving readiness stops with the team, greatly improving their autonomy, speed and safety.
Cost-Effective Testing Strategy
Because these environments can be created on demand, you only pay for them when tests are actually running. This results in immediate saving in both time and infrastructure cost. For functional testing in isolation, recommend deploying a single unit of the service with the same CPU and memory profile you expect in production, but reducing the instance count to the minimum (typically one).
This keeps behaviour realistic while taking advantage of the cost savings from not running the environment continuously. When scalability needs to be proven, that can be done separately in non-functional testing with two or three instances, where linear scaling can be validated without burdening the functional stage.
Stubbed Non-Functional (Substage 2.1.2)
| Can be ephemeral | Yes |
|---|---|
| Size (vs. Prod) | 2–N nodes depending on SLA/risks |
| Cost Profile | Medium–high (short-lived) |
| Stubbed vs. Integrated | Stubbed |
| When It's Run | Every code push |
| Main Point | Validates scalability/resilience early, framed as a business-driven tradeoff |
Business-Driven Performance Testing
The next step is to add non-functional tests in their own ephemeral isolated environment spun up purely for this purpose and torn down when done. This stage is where you push for load, resilience, and graceful failure: discovering exactly how much CPU and memory the service needs, and whether adding more delivers linear scalability or reveals bottlenecks.
If scalability matters, prove it early; at least from one to two nodes. Framed as a cost–risk decision, it becomes a business conversation as much as an engineering one:
Full Production Scale
Do we need to demonstrate full production scale in advance because peak volumes are business-critical?
Availability Requirements
Is availability so vital that we want to validate headroom for unexpected spikes?
Minimal Testing
Or is a minimal linear scalability test enough to reduce risk without incurring unnecessary cost?
Testing at full production scale might give you higher confidence, but comes with maximum spend, so should really only be done when needed. Two nodes is the minimum proof for linear scalability if that's a business concern. Everything in between is a balance of business appetite for certainty, engineering constraints, and the risk profile you're willing to accept.
The SLA Gap
When non-functional testing starts being part of the teams' standard pipeline, a common gap surfaces: the absence of a clear SLAs. Without them, teams are left guessing at what "good enough" means, and decisions about speed, cost, or resilience are made in the dark.
Too often, this gap becomes a polite excuse, "we don't know what's needed", even among well-intentioned teams. It shouldn't. SLAs give both engineering and business leaders a shared reference point for trade-offs and help drive architectural choices, testing priorities, and investment decisions. Both sides share the responsibility to define these targets, ideally arriving with a proposed plan that balances risk, performance, and cost.
If no target exists, start with the truth: how many requests per second can we handle for a given CPU/memory profile
(and cost)? How quickly does a customer get a response from click to satisfaction? What are the worst experiences,
and how are they measured?
These numbers are the raw material of an SLA, and without them, "good enough" will always be subjective.
Reputation Is Shaped by the Lows as Much as the Highs
Averages hide the truth. While most requests may feel fast, recurring slow ones can define how customers remember you
and what they write in reviews. Percentiles (like p95 or
p99
) measure those worst-case experiences. For example,
p95 tells you how slow things are for the worst 5% of your customers, and p99 for the worst 1%
. If you don’t know these numbers today, it’s worth asking, because they reveal the experiences that shape how
your brand is really perceived.
Establishing Performance Contracts
This isn't just running a load test or checking rolling deployments. It's establishing a contract for how the service should perform in the real world. And because the environment is both ephemeral and on-demand, you can run these scenarios (e.g.: slow downstream responses, network hiccups, bad data) for minutes at up-to full scale, paying only for what you use, and with no drag of waiting for others.
The result: deep insight without the burden of maintaining a permanent, underused testbed.
Fast Integration (Substage 2.2)
| Can be ephemeral | No |
|---|---|
| Size (vs. Prod) | Minimal but representative slice of prod |
| Cost Profile | High (infra + automation upkeep) |
| Stubbed vs. Integrated | Integrated |
| When It's Run | Continuous |
| Main Point | Critical shared env for end-to-end flows; lean but always available |
The Shared Integration Contract
Only after proving itself in isolation does a change move into the shared Fast Integration environment, a place treated exactly like production, where all services run together and the rules are strict. deployments must be non-disruptive, monitoring and alerting must be in place, and everyone helps keep the lights on. It's not just a technical practice; it's a cultural contract.
Fast integration is also one of the very few long-lived environments in the delivery system expected to be running and healthy at all times. Because it is the most expensive to build, maintain, and operate —both in infrastructure and in the automated tests it runs— we recommend sizing it minimally.
It should be just large enough to continuously exercise the most critical end-to-end business journeys (the very top of your testing pyramid). This keeps the noise-to-signal ratio high and ensures that every test running here earns its place.
That focus gives purpose to a central function responsible for cross-system, end-to-end automation. The central team safeguards the flows that matter most to the business as a whole, while individual delivery teams concentrate on their own services and the interfaces between them. Practically, this means every team should know its two or three most important journeys; and the central team applies the same discipline across the company's primary business concerns.
Transforming Manual Testing Talent
Fast integration is also a natural home for redirecting and upskilling manual testing talent. Many large organisations ,and even smaller ones with entrenched practices, underestimate the people challenge in platform engineering. Resistance often comes from very real fears about professional value, hard-won expertise, and career identity. One of the most persistent sources of friction is the role of the teams behind the current manual testing effort.
The answer: train them for the most valuable work now. The core skill of a great manual tester is the ability to
spot edge cases and ask the right questions; a skill honed over years. That knowledge needs to be captured and
encoded in automation.
This used to be prohibitively difficult, then became easier with better tooling, and now, with increasingly human-friendly interfaces and AI assistance, there is no excuse not to involve them directly in creating and refining automated checks.
Handled as a clear initiative, with measurable objectives and accountability, this transformation turns a perceived negative into a long-term win: a real, high-impact application of AI and automation that benefits the people, the company, and the customers all at once. It is a path that gives testers strategic relevance, provides them with new career growth, and helps the organisation increase both speed and confidence in delivery.
The Fast Integration stage proves services can work together at speed; the next stage focuses on how they behave over time and under sustained pressure.
Extended Testing (Stage 3)
| Can be ephemeral | Yes |
|---|---|
| Size (vs. Prod) | Up to full prod scale |
| Cost Profile | Medium (overnight runs only) |
| Stubbed vs. Integrated | Stubbed |
| When It's Run | Nightly |
| Main Point | Catches long-duration issues while enforcing reproducibility |
Overnight Validation Strategy
Some tests don't fit neatly into the "fast feedback" loop. They take hours to run: performance soaks, long-running integration checks, full regression suites. For these, you need a long-lived environment, but not a permanent one.
Extended staging runs overnight. It takes the latest version that has passed fast feedback, deploys it at up-to-production scale and puts it through its paces under simulated but realistic loads. The choice of scale is a conscious decision based on risk, expected peak and the desired degree of certainty.
Monitoring and alerting are active here, too, not just for pass/fail but to confirm operational visibility: can you see problems clearly, and would you be alerted in time?
The value is far more than just twofold. Yes, you catch issues that only emerge over time, and you prove you can rebuild this environment from scratch every night and get the same results. But being able to recreate an environment daily is a step-level capability. It enforces a host of good practices such as everything as code, deterministic builds, versioned infrastructure, seeded and reproducible data sets. All these contribute to reduce drift, improve auditability and, ultimately, provide leaders with the confidence that systems can be stood up fresh at any moment. It is also a great place to strategically place tests that could compromise the speed of fast feedback.
Preserving Fast Feedback
There is a reason that part of the pipeline is called fast feedback: it must be fast by design. Its purpose is to give developers near-real-time confirmation that what they have built works, so they can make adjustments quickly. Teams sometimes argue that long-running tests are a reason not to run anything regularly, but that logic fails the honesty test: running no tests because they're slow is worse than running a carefully selected set you can trust more over time.
The pragmatic path is to keep fast feedback lean and reliable, then place the rest of the slow or flaky checks into extended staging and run them consistently without gating releases.
Even if those tests are imperfect, running them every time and publishing the results builds visibility and cultural
pressure to improve them. Seeing the metrics daily or weekly creates opportunities for "side-quest" improvement
work. Quantifying the problem can also make the difference between believing change is possible and assuming it's
not worth trying.
Following this pattern, extended staging becomes both a pragmatic migration strategy and a developer-centric quality net. It is rooted in transparency, visibility, and meeting teams where they are — all while preserving speed where it matters most. That honesty, combined with a steady loop of improvement, is what turns extended staging from an afterthought into one of the most valuable stages in the path to production.
That is a confidence many teams quietly lack and a reason why they cling to fragile, irreplaceable staging setups.
Canary and Production (Stage 4)
| Can be ephemeral | No |
|---|---|
| Size (vs. Prod) | Full prod |
| Cost Profile | Full prod cost (but gradual exposure limits risk) |
| Stubbed vs. Integrated | Integrated |
| When It's Run | At release |
| Main Point | Safely exposes changes to subsets of customers; requires versioning + traffic control |
Safe Customer Exposure
The final step in the path to production is the moment a change reaches real customers. At this point, the business need is simple: to reduce the chance that a release will disrupt everyone at once.
One way to do that is through a canary release by starting the rollout with a small, deliberate slice of your users. The new version is observed closely, using the same monitoring and alerting proven earlier in the pipeline, before deciding whether to promote it more widely. If there is a problem, the change is rolled back quickly, limiting any negative business impact.
1
Blue/Green Deployments
Keeping two identical production environments with one receiving "live" traffic and one on stand-by. The new
version releases to the idle environment and switches traffic to make it "live". If the new version fails,
traffic switches back quickly.
2
Rolling Updates
Replacing parts of the system one at a time, so old and new versions run in parallel until the update is
complete.
Engineers often debate which is better: blue/green offers faster rollback but requires duplicating the full environment; rolling updates use fewer resources but make rollback slower and sometimes more complex. These are valid points, but they're secondary to a more basic question: Do we all agree that we should be doing something to mitigate the risk of a release affecting everyone?
That is what this step in the pipeline is really about. The specific mechanics matter, but they're an implementation detail —an important one— but part of a separate conversation. The focus here is making sure the capability exists in the environment to support any of these strategies, so teams have the flexibility to choose the right one for their context.
For developers, the critical question is: Can I direct a portion of my customers to a new version of my application, watch how it behaves, and then decide to continue or roll back?
1
Version Concurrency
The ability to run multiple versions of the same service at the same time without conflict
2
Traffic Control
The ability to direct specific percentages, groups, or types of requests to each version
3
Real-time Observability
Metrics and alerts tied to each version, so you can see problems as they develop
4
Fast Rollback
The ability to revert quickly without drama
For a non-technical leader, the takeaway is the following: Without those capabilities, the choice of "how" to do a canary
becomes irrelevant, because the team cannot do it at all. With them, while the mechanics can be debated, refined, and swapped
out as needed, the business is able to protect its customers during a release.
That is the value of environments at this
stage: they give teams the room to manage risk intelligently, in ways that fit the moment, without losing sight of the shared
goal. This helps keep the impact of change small, and the ability to recover large.
Why It Works
Great platform engineering that supports a responsive environment strategy underpins a successful shared path to production:
Standardizes the Ground
It standardises the ground under every step, so tests mean what they claim to mean.
Removes Invisible Waiting
It removes invisible waiting — the queues for shared resources that slow delivery.
Reduces Cognitive Load
It reduces drift and the cognitive load of remembering "what's different where."
Makes Cost Predictable
It makes cost predictable by right-sizing environments and running them only when needed.
Encodes Culture
It encodes culture: autonomy, shared responsibility, and a bias for proving things early.
Without it, the path to production is a blueprint without the right building site. With it, speed and safety become
compatible goals.
Environment Strategy for Path to Production Recap
| Environment | Can Be Ephemeral | Size vs Prod | Cost | Integration | Key Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Build | Yes | Workstation-like | Low | N/A | Consistent, reproducible builds eliminate drift |
| Stubbed Functional | Yes | 1 instance, prod-like | Low | Stubbed | Teams prove readiness independently |
| Stubbed Non-Functional | Yes | 2–N nodes | Medium–High | Stubbed | Validates scalability/resilience early |
| Fast Integration | Yes | Minimal but representative slice of prod | High | Integrated | Critical shared env for end-to-end flows |
| Extended Testing | Yes | Up to full prod scale | Medium | Stubbed | Catches long-duration issues |
| Canary / Production | No | Full prod | Full prod cost | Integrated | Safely exposes changes to customers |
Ultimately, Platform Engineering should deliver more than just the individual environments. It should provide a developer platform where every one of these environments is available out of the box, ready to be configured and used on demand. From the first build to canary release, developers should be able to onboard any application into a pipeline that automatically provisions the right environments in minutes, keeps them consistent and secure, and makes them fully self-service. That way, the pipeline, environments, and teams all operate as one system, balancing speed, safety, and autonomy without compromise.
We'd Love to Hear Your Thoughts!