Nearly 90% of organizations now have platform initiatives, yet the gap between success and failure remains stark. The State of Platform Engineering Report Volume 4, reveals a troubling pattern: 29.6% of teams don't measure success at all, 45.3% struggle with developer adoption, and 18.3% have delivered no measurable results.
The difference isn't tooling or cloud provider. It's execution discipline. These five recommendations, distilled from thousands of hours of community conversations and real-world platform programs, separate initiatives that deliver ROI from those that become expensive distractions.
Why these recommendations matter in 2026
Platform engineering is no longer emerging - it's mainstream. The industry has moved past 'What is platform engineering?' to 'What does great platform engineering look like?' And, this maturation brings new challenges.
The data reveals persistent execution gaps. While 94% view AI as critical to platform engineering's future, most teams haven't mastered the fundamentals that make AI integration successful. Cultural resistance outweighs technical challenges. Measurement remains weak, though there is improvement from previous years (down from 45% to 29.6% who don't measure at all).
At the same time, a new philosophy 'shifting down', eliminating toil rather than redistributing it, brings a new requirement to rethink how platforms create value, and the multi-platform reality compounds complexity. 55.9% of organizations now operate multiple platforms, a shift from viewing this as fragmentation to recognizing it as intentional design. AI platforms, data platforms, and application platforms serve fundamentally different purposes.
These recommendations aren't theoretical. They address the specific barriers platform teams face: proving ROI to executives, driving voluntary adoption, managing AI integration, and operating with resource constraints. Organizations that execute these fundamentals will define the next decade of platform engineering. Those that don't will inherit exponentially costly organizational debt.
Recommendation #1: Adopt platform as a product with dedicated leadership
Platform as a product isn't a mindset - it's an operating model requiring dedicated ownership. The data exposes a critical gap: only 36.6% have dedicated Platform Product Managers (combining 21.6% with PPMs only and 15% with PPMs plus product-minded engineers), while 38% rely on engineers with distributed product mindset. This distributed approach, once considered best practice, proves insufficient for complex platform ecosystems.
Why dedicated Platform Product Managers matter
Engineers with product mindset bring valuable perspective, but they lack the bandwidth and authority to drive platform evolution strategically. Platform Product Managers bridge technical capabilities with user needs, structuring work and prioritizing features based on actual usage patterns rather than internal assumptions.
The role demands specific capabilities:
- Conducting user research with developers, data scientists, and ML engineers
- Translating technical improvements into measurable business outcomes
- Managing roadmaps across multiple platform domains
- Balancing innovation with stability and security requirements
Measuring business outcomes in a multi-platform world
Measurement separates successful platforms from expensive experiments. Yet 29.6% of teams don't measure at all, and 24.2% don't know if their metrics have improved. This visibility gap cripples the ability to prove value and secure investment.
Effective measurement frameworks combine multiple perspectives:
- DORA metrics (deployment frequency, lead time, change failure rate, MTTR) track delivery performance
- SPACE metrics assess developer productivity across satisfaction, performance, activity, communication, and efficiency
- Platform-specific metrics include Platform NPS, Time-to-First-Deployment, and Golden Path adoption rates
- Friction Logs capture barriers developers encounter, providing qualitative insight into pain points
The multi-platform reality demands domain-specific measurement. A data platform's success metrics differ fundamentally from an application platform's. Platform Product Managers must define success criteria for each platform while ensuring ecosystem coherence through shared standards and interoperability.
Recommendation #2: Start small with MVP approach for quick wins
The bimodal distribution in time to value tells a clear story: 35.2% deliver measurable value within six months (13.1% under 3 months plus 22.1% at 3-6 months), while 40.9% cannot demonstrate value within twelve months. The difference is approach. Teams following MVP principles demonstrate ROI quickly, securing executive sponsorship and momentum. Those pursuing 'big bang' transformations face massive deprecation risk.
The six-month value demonstration imperative
Platform initiatives unable to prove ROI within six months face substantial risk of being underfunded, losing executive support, or outright cancellation. The MVP framework de-risks initiatives by delivering focused capabilities in weeks, not months.
The approach prioritizes ruthlessly:
- Identify the single most painful developer workflow
- Build a golden path covering 80% of common needs for that workflow
- Deliver in 4-6 weeks with minimal dependencies
- Measure adoption and satisfaction immediately
- Iterate based on real usage data
This isn't about building incomplete platforms. It's about proving value before expanding scope. A well-executed MVP might standardize deployment for a single service type, automate environment provisioning for one team, or implement self-service database creation with guardrails
Golden paths and the 'shifting down' philosophy
Golden paths provide opinionated, well-documented workflows that make the right way the easy way. They eliminate decision paralysis by offering clear, automated paths for common tasks. Developers can deviate when needed, but the golden path handles 80% of cases with minimal cognitive load.
The 'shifting down' philosophy applies directly to MVP design. Don't just move complexity earlier in the lifecycle - eliminate it. If developers struggle with Kubernetes configuration, don't give them better documentation. Build abstractions that remove the need to understand Kubernetes internals for common deployment patterns.
Recommendation #3: Prioritize culture and empathy for voluntary adoption
Cultural resistance is the number one challenge facing platform teams, cited by 45.3% of respondents. This outweighs technical complexity, funding constraints, and executive buy-in. The data reveals why: 36.6% of platforms are driven by extrinsic push or mandates, while only 28.2% achieve adoption through intrinsic value.
From mandate to pull: The adoption challenge
Mandated platforms create resentment and circumvention. Developers find workarounds, build shadow infrastructure, or comply minimally while maintaining their preferred workflows. This pattern wastes platform investment and damages trust between platform teams and their customers.
Voluntary adoption requires treating developers as customers:
- Conduct user research to understand actual pain points, not assumed ones
- Build feedback loops through office hours, surveys, and embedded telemetry
- Iterate based on real usage patterns and friction logs
- Demonstrate value before requesting behavior change
Internal marketing and domain-specific solutions
One of the most overlooked aspects of platform engineering is internal marketing. Platforms compete for attention and trust within organizations. Without clear communication about how the platform fits into developers' specific worlds, adoption stalls.
Domain-driven approaches recognize that different teams require different abstractions. A platform serving both data engineering and mobile development must honor these differences at the abstraction layer. Forcing teams into rigid workflows designed for 'generic' users leads to frustration and shadow IT.
Recommendation #4: Invest in continuous upskilling across the organization
Platform engineering has evolved from a niche specialization to a mainstream career path. The workforce data reflects this democratization: experience levels shifted toward mid-level and junior practitioners, with 16+ years of experience dropping from 28.1% to 22.3%, while 3-5 years increased from 15.7% to 21.2%.
This broadening creates an urgent upskilling imperative. The discipline now incorporates observability, security, data, FinOps, and AI - domains that didn't exist in platform engineering's original scope. Teams that don't invest in continuous learning will quickly fall behind, waste resources on mistakes, or fail to achieve expected results.
AI proficiency as mandatory, not optional
57% of teams cite skill gaps as a barrier to AI integration. This isn't surprising given AI's rapid evolution and the breadth of knowledge required. Platform engineers need prompt engineering to communicate effectively with AI systems, understanding of ML fundamentals and model behavior, data literacy to manage AI inputs and outputs, and soft skills for cross-functional collaboration with data scientists.
Platform teams must model the transformation they enable for others. This requires structured investment:
- Dedicated learning time: Reserve 20% of time for skill development, not as optional but as survival
- Mentorship networks: Pair AI-experienced members with learners; reverse mentoring lets juniors teach AI tools to seniors
- Rotation programs: Rotate team members through AI-focused projects and cross-functional collaboration with data science teams
- Failure celebration: Create safe spaces for AI experiments to fail, documenting learnings publicly
The Platform Engineering University provides structured learning paths from Certified Practitioner to Certified Architect, alongside on-demand courses covering AI in Platform Engineering, Cloud Development Environments, Kubernetes Cluster Lifecycle Management, and Observability.
Recommendation #5: Master the dual relationship of AI and platform engineering
94% of organizations view AI as critical to platform engineering's future, while 86% believe platform engineering is essential to realizing AI's business value. This symbiotic relationship defines the dual mandate: AI-powered platforms that enhance developer productivity, and platforms for AI that enable AI/ML workloads at scale.
AI-powered platforms: Enhancing developer productivity
AI integration into Internal Developer Platforms moves beyond individual tool usage to strategic platform capabilities. While 89% of platform engineers use AI daily, primarily for code generation (75%) and documentation (70%), most usage remains tactical. The opportunity is embedding AI into platform workflows to deliver organization-wide value.
AI-powered platforms provide:
- Intelligent troubleshooting that analyzes logs, identifies patterns, and suggests fixes
- Automated security scanning with AI-driven threat detection and vulnerability analysis
- Code generation integrated into golden paths, not just individual IDEs
- Natural language interfaces for platform interactions, reducing cognitive load
- Predictive scaling and resource optimization based on usage patterns
Platforms for AI: Enabling AI/ML workloads at scale
75% of organizations are hosting or preparing to host AI workloads, creating new architectural requirements. Traditional software delivery platforms weren't designed for ML teams' needs: large datasets, expensive GPU workloads, long-running training jobs, non-standard tools, and unpredictable iteration cycles.
The Reference Architecture for AI/ML IDPs introduces specialized components:
- Data & Model Management Plane for feature stores, model registries, experiment tracking, and metadata management
- Expanded Developer Control Plane with notebooks, LLM copilots, and interfaces for data scientists and ML engineers
- Dual-orchestrator model combining platform orchestration with ML workflow automation
- GPU orchestration in the Resource Plane for high-performance compute
- Model monitoring in the Observability Plane tracking drift, data validation, and lineage
The convergence of 'AI for platform engineering' and 'platform engineering for AI' isn't optional. Success depends on aligning platform strategy with AI strategy, not treating them as separate priorities.
Frequently asked questions
Do I need a dedicated Platform Product Manager if my engineers have a product mindset?
Yes. While product-minded engineers bring valuable perspective, dedicated PPMs provide the bandwidth, authority, and focus to drive strategic platform evolution. The data shows only 36.6% have dedicated PPMs, yet they report faster time to value.
How do I measure platform success if my organization doesn't currently track metrics?
Start with DORA metrics (deployment frequency, lead time, change failure rate, MTTR) as a baseline. Add Platform NPS and Time-to-First-Deployment for platform-specific insight. Implement friction logs to capture qualitative feedback. Measurement improves iteratively.
What's the difference between AI-powered platforms and platforms for AI?
AI-powered platforms embed AI to enhance developer workflows (intelligent troubleshooting, automated security scanning). Platforms for AI provide specialized infrastructure for AI/ML workloads (GPU orchestration, model registries, MLOps pipelines). Most teams need both.
How do I drive voluntary adoption when executives mandate platform usage?
Focus on delivering genuine value that solves real developer pain points. Conduct user research to understand actual needs. Build feedback loops and iterate based on usage data. Demonstrate value before requesting behavior change. Mandates create compliance; value creates pull.
Join the Platform Engineering community and connect with peers on Slack.
