Solved: Are You Building in Your Own Workspace or Making Clients Set Up Their Own?

🚀 Executive Summary

TL;DR: The article addresses the critical DevOps dilemma of whether a provider or client should manage the application deployment environment, which, if misaligned, leads to inconsistencies, high support burdens, and delayed updates. It proposes three distinct solutions: Managed Service/SaaS, Containerized Delivery/PaaS, and Raw Code/Package Delivery, each balancing control, consistency, and operational overhead to optimize software delivery and client relationships.

🎯 Key Takeaways

• The Managed Service / SaaS model provides maximum consistency, rapid updates, and enhanced security by giving the provider full control over the entire application stack, though it incurs higher operational costs for the provider.
• The Containerized Delivery / PaaS model offers a balanced approach, delivering portable, self-contained application artifacts (e.g., Docker images, Helm charts) for client-managed infrastructure, ensuring environmental consistency within the container while offloading host management.
• The Raw Code / Package Delivery model grants maximum client flexibility and zero operational overhead for the provider, but places significant burden on clients for setup, maintenance, and debugging due to potential environmental inconsistencies and complex build processes.

Choosing between managing your application’s deployment environment or empowering clients to set up their own is a critical decision impacting operational overhead, consistency, and client satisfaction. This post explores the symptoms of making the wrong choice and offers three robust solutions for IT professionals.

The DevOps Dilemma: Your Workspace or Theirs?

In the intricate world of software delivery, a fundamental question often arises for DevOps teams and solution architects: Are we responsible for the entire environment stack, or do we deliver artifacts and let our clients handle the infrastructure and setup? This isn’t merely a logistical choice; it defines the operational contract, influences development velocity, dictates support strategies, and ultimately impacts the success of your software and client relationships.

Symptoms of Misaligned Responsibility

Failing to clearly define and implement your deployment strategy can manifest in several painful symptoms:

• “Works on My Machine” Syndrome: Developers’ local environments diverge from testing and production, leading to frustrating integration and deployment failures.
• Inconsistent Production Environments: Each client deployment becomes a unique “snowflake,” making troubleshooting, patching, and upgrades a nightmare.
• Slow Client Onboarding: Clients struggle with complex setup guides, extensive dependency lists, and prerequisite installations, delaying time-to-value.
• High Support Burden: A disproportionate amount of support effort is spent diagnosing client-side environment issues rather than application bugs.
• Security Gaps: Inconsistent client-managed environments make it harder to enforce security policies, apply patches, and conduct audits across deployments.
• Delayed Updates and Feature Rollouts: Pushing new features or critical security fixes becomes a lengthy, manual, and error-prone process due to varying client setups.
• Resource Drain on Your Team: Your engineers spend valuable time writing and updating bespoke deployment documentation instead of innovating.

Recognizing these symptoms is the first step towards adopting a more standardized, efficient, and scalable deployment model. Let’s explore three distinct solutions.

Solution 1: Full Control – The Managed Service / SaaS Model

Description

In this model, your organization maintains complete control over the entire application stack, from underlying infrastructure (servers, network, databases) to the application runtime and code. Clients interact with your service through an API or web interface, with zero responsibility for deployment, infrastructure, or operational maintenance. This is the paradigm behind most Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) offerings.

Advantages and Disadvantages

• Advantages:
  • Maximum Consistency: All clients run on identical, well-controlled environments, simplifying testing, updates, and debugging.
  • Rapid Deployment & Updates: You control the CI/CD pipeline end-to-end, enabling quick feature rollouts and critical patches.
  • Enhanced Security: You enforce security best practices across the entire stack, from infrastructure hardening to application-level security.
  • Lower Client Burden: Clients focus purely on using the application, significantly reducing their operational overhead.
  • Streamlined Support: Fewer “it works on my machine” issues and better visibility into the operating environment.
• Disadvantages:
  • Higher Operational Cost: You bear the full cost and responsibility for infrastructure, scaling, and maintenance.
  • Potential for Vendor Lock-in (for clients): Clients may perceive a lack of control or customization options.
  • Scalability Challenges: Your infrastructure must scale to meet the demands of all clients combined.
  • Data Sovereignty Concerns: Some clients may have strict requirements about where their data resides, potentially limiting your choice of cloud regions.

Real-World Example: SaaS Application on Kubernetes

Consider a typical SaaS application hosted on a Kubernetes cluster in a public cloud (e.g., AWS EKS, Azure AKS, GCP GKE). Your DevOps team manages the cluster, deploys applications via CI/CD, and monitors performance.

Example CI/CD Pipeline (Simplified Jenkinsfile snippet):

pipeline {
    agent any
    stages {
        stage('Build Docker Image') {
            steps {
                script {
                    sh "docker build -t my-saas-app:${BUILD_NUMBER} ."
                }
            }
        }
        stage('Push to Registry') {
            steps {
                script {
                    sh "docker tag my-saas-app:${BUILD_NUMBER} ${DOCKER_REGISTRY}/my-saas-app:${BUILD_NUMBER}"
                    withCredentials([usernamePassword(credentialsId: 'docker-hub-creds', passwordVariable: 'DOCKER_PASSWORD', usernameVariable: 'DOCKER_USERNAME')]) {
                        sh "echo ${DOCKER_PASSWORD} | docker login -u ${DOCKER_USERNAME} --password-stdin ${DOCKER_REGISTRY}"
                        sh "docker push ${DOCKER_REGISTRY}/my-saas-app:${BUILD_NUMBER}"
                    }
                }
            }
        }
        stage('Deploy to Kubernetes') {
            steps {
                script {
                    // Update Kubernetes deployment with new image tag
                    sh "kubectl set image deployment/my-saas-app my-saas-app=${DOCKER_REGISTRY}/my-saas-app:${BUILD_NUMBER} -n production"
                    sh "kubectl rollout status deployment/my-saas-app -n production"
                }
            }
        }
    }
}

This pipeline ensures that every build is consistent and deployed directly into your controlled production environment, serving all clients from a unified codebase and infrastructure.

Solution 2: Shared Responsibility – Containerized Delivery / PaaS Model

Description

This approach strikes a balance, where you deliver a self-contained application artifact (most commonly a Docker image or a Helm chart), and the client is responsible for providing and managing the underlying infrastructure to run it (e.g., a Kubernetes cluster, a private cloud PaaS like OpenShift, or even just a set of VMs with Docker installed). You control the application’s runtime environment within its container; the client controls the host environment.

Advantages and Disadvantages

• Advantages:
  • Portability: Container images are highly portable across various environments that support container runtimes.
  • Environmental Consistency (within container): The application’s dependencies and runtime are encapsulated, reducing “works on my machine” issues.
  • Client Control over Infrastructure: Clients retain control over their hardware, network, and security boundaries.
  • Reduced Operational Burden (for you): You offload infrastructure management to the client.
  • Easier Updates: Delivering new container images or Helm charts is simpler than raw code updates.
• Disadvantages:
  • Client Setup Complexity: Clients still need to set up and manage container orchestration platforms (Kubernetes, OpenShift) or Docker hosts.
  • Dependency on Client Expertise: Requires client IT teams to have skills in containerization and orchestration.
  • Monitoring & Debugging Challenges: Gaining insights into client-side operational issues can be difficult.
  • Security Patching Burden (for client): Clients are responsible for patching the host OS and container runtime.

Real-World Example: Delivering a Helm Chart for On-Premise Kubernetes

Imagine you provide an enterprise analytics tool. Instead of hosting it as SaaS, you deliver it as a Helm chart package, allowing clients to deploy it on their internal Kubernetes clusters.

Example Dockerfile:

# Use an official Node.js image as the base
FROM node:18-alpine

# Set the working directory in the container
WORKDIR /app

# Copy package.json and package-lock.json to install dependencies
COPY package*.json ./

# Install application dependencies
RUN npm install

# Copy the rest of the application code
COPY . .

# Build the application (if applicable, e.g., React build)
RUN npm run build

# Expose the port the app runs on
EXPOSE 3000

# Define the command to run the application
CMD ["npm", "start"]

Example Kubernetes Deployment (part of a Helm chart):

apiVersion: apps/v1
kind: Deployment
metadata:
  name: {{ include "my-analytics-app.fullname" . }}
  labels:
    {{- include "my-analytics-app.labels" . | nindent 4 }}
spec:
  replicas: {{ .Values.replicaCount }}
  selector:
    matchLabels:
      {{- include "my-analytics-app.selectorLabels" . | nindent 6 }}
  template:
    metadata:
      {{- with .Values.podAnnotations }}
      annotations:
        {{- toYaml . | nindent 8 }}
      {{- end }}
      labels:
        {{- include "my-analytics-app.selectorLabels" . | nindent 8 }}
    spec:
      containers:
        - name: {{ .Chart.Name }}
          image: "{{ .Values.image.repository }}:{{ .Values.image.tag | default .Chart.AppVersion }}"
          imagePullPolicy: {{ .Values.image.pullPolicy }}
          ports:
            - name: http
              containerPort: 3000
              protocol: TCP
          resources:
            {{- toYaml .Values.resources | nindent 12 }}
          env:
            - name: DATABASE_URL
              valueFrom:
                secretKeyRef:
                  name: my-analytics-db-secret
                  key: database_url
      {{- with .Values.nodeSelector }}
      nodeSelector:
        {{- toYaml . | nindent 8 }}
      {{- end }}

You would provide the Docker image (e.g., in a private registry they can pull from) and the Helm chart. The client then runs:

helm install my-analytics-release ./my-analytics-chart -f values-prod.yaml

This command deploys your application on their cluster, with configuration specified in values-prod.yaml controlled by the client.

Solution 3: Client Control – Raw Code / Package Delivery Model

Description

This is the most hands-off approach for your team, where you provide the raw source code, compiled binaries, or a deployable package, and the client assumes full responsibility for setting up their entire build environment, compiling (if necessary), deploying, configuring, and operating the application. This is common for highly customized enterprise software, open-source projects, or situations where clients have extreme control requirements or specific on-premise infrastructure constraints.

Advantages and Disadvantages

• Advantages:
  • Maximum Client Flexibility: Clients can deeply integrate, customize, and optimize the application for their unique environment.
  • Zero Operational Overhead (for you): Your team is not responsible for any infrastructure or deployment post-delivery.
  • Data Sovereignty: Clients have absolute control over where their data and application run.
  • Suitable for Highly Specialized Environments: Ideal when the application must run on very specific, client-owned hardware or proprietary OS versions.
• Disadvantages:
  • High Client Burden: Clients need significant technical expertise and resources for setup, maintenance, and debugging.
  • Environmental Inconsistencies: Every client setup can be unique, leading to “snowflake” environments that are hard to support.
  • Slow Time-to-Value: Complex setup and build processes significantly delay the client’s ability to use the software.
  • Complex Support & Debugging: Diagnosing issues without direct access to the client’s environment is extremely challenging.
  • Difficult Updates: Rolling out new versions requires clients to repeat potentially complex build and deployment steps.
  • Security Risks: Relying on client’s security practices for their entire stack.

Real-World Example: Enterprise Application with On-Premise Build

An enterprise might purchase a specialized ERP module. You deliver the compiled Java JARs, database schema scripts, and configuration files. The client’s internal IT team is responsible for provisioning JVMs, setting up application servers (e.g., WildFly, WebSphere), configuring databases, and handling all networking and security.

1. Prerequisites:

• Java Development Kit (JDK) 11 or higher
• Apache Maven 3.6.3 or higher
• PostgreSQL 13.x database instance
• Application Server (e.g., WildFly 23.x)

2. Build Application:

Clone the provided Git repository:

git clone https://git.client.com/my-erp-module.git
cd my-erp-module

Build the WAR file:

mvn clean install -Pproduction

This will generate my-erp-module.war in the target/ directory.

3. Database Setup:

Execute the provided SQL schema script:

psql -h db-server.client.com -U erp_user -d erp_db -f schema.sql

4. Deploy to Application Server:

Copy my-erp-module.war to the WildFly deployments directory:

cp target/my-erp-module.war /opt/wildfly/standalone/deployments/

Restart WildFly service:

sudo systemctl restart wildfly

The onus is entirely on the client to ensure these steps are followed correctly, their environment meets prerequisites, and they manage ongoing operations.

Comparison of Deployment Strategies

To aid in decision-making, here’s a comparative overview of the three models:

Feature	Solution 1: Managed Service / SaaS	Solution 2: Containerized / PaaS	Solution 3: Raw Code / Package
Your Control Level	High (Infrastructure, Runtime, App)	Medium (App Runtime within container)	Low (Code/Artifacts)
Client Control Level	Low (Application Usage)	Medium (Infrastructure, Host OS, Container Runtime)	High (Everything)
Client Setup Complexity	Very Low (Access provided)	Medium (Container runtime, orchestration setup)	Very High (Infrastructure, Build, Dependencies)
Environmental Consistency	Excellent (Managed by you)	Good (Within container)	Poor (Client’s discretion)
Maintenance Burden (Your Team)	High (Full stack operations)	Medium (Image updates, chart maintenance)	Low (Code updates, documentation)
Maintenance Burden (Client)	Zero	High (Infrastructure, OS, runtime patching)	Very High (Full stack operations, patching, builds)
Security Responsibility	Primarily Yours (End-to-end)	Shared (App-level yours, Infra/Host theirs)	Primarily Client’s (End-to-end)
Speed of Updates/Patches	Very Fast (Automated CI/CD)	Fast (Distribute new images/charts)	Slow (Client-driven re-build/re-deploy)
Typical Use Cases	Web applications, APIs, Mobile backends, unified services	Enterprise applications, microservices, hybrid cloud, on-prem with modern infra	Highly customized enterprise solutions, open-source projects, legacy systems, strict compliance

Conclusion: Choosing Your Path

The decision of whether to build and manage applications in your own workspace or empower clients to set up their own is a strategic one, with no one-size-fits-all answer. It largely depends on your business model, target audience, application complexity, and the level of control and flexibility required by your clients.

• If your priority is speed, consistency, security, and minimizing client friction, the Managed Service / SaaS model (Solution 1) offers unparalleled advantages, albeit with higher operational responsibility for your team.
• For scenarios demanding portability, environmental isolation, and client control over infrastructure without the full burden of managing raw code, the Containerized Delivery / PaaS model (Solution 2) provides a robust middle ground.
• When maximum client flexibility, deep customization, or extreme on-premise constraints are paramount, and clients possess the necessary technical expertise, the Raw Code / Package Delivery model (Solution 3) might be the only viable option, though it comes with significant operational challenges for both parties.

By carefully weighing the symptoms and exploring these distinct architectural patterns, DevOps teams can make informed decisions that optimize delivery, enhance supportability, and foster stronger, more reliable client relationships. The key is to select a strategy that aligns with both your technical capabilities and your business objectives.

---

👉 Read the original article on TechResolve.blog