The Power of Collaboration in API Governance
This article will explore the pitfalls of one-sided governance and discuss various API governance models, underscoring how the right choice can significantly impact your API management strategy. It will then look at how your choice of API management tooling can help or hinder the effectiveness of your API governance.
Why collaborative API governance is essential:
Collaborative API governance is essential for a well-functioning API program. It involves engaging stakeholders from different areas of the organization, including developers, operations teams, security teams, product owners, and business leaders. When all stakeholders are involved in creating and maintaining governance policies, they're more likely to understand and comply with those policies. This leads to more consistent application of the policies and better overall compliance. A collaborative approach can also help balance control and flexibility in API governance. By involving various stakeholders, governance policies can be shaped to ensure consistency and security while allowing innovation and agility. This is important in regulated industries, such as finance, where governance policies may be the difference between complying and out of compliance.
It also fosters a sense of shared ownership among stakeholders. This can increase commitment to the governance process and promote a culture of accountability and responsibility. Ultimately, collaborative API governance will lead to higher-quality APIs as developers, security experts, and business leaders bring unique insights into the process. It will also ensure that API governance aligns with the organization's business objectives.
When API governance becomes one-sided:
Resistance to API governance can occur for various reasons, such as fear of added workload, lack of understanding, or concerns about stifling creativity. This makes API governance one-sided, either because a centralized group is ignored or needs to be collaborating with the rest of the organization. This leads to decisions and policies being made and enforced by a single group without adequate input or consideration of other stakeholders. This situation can lead to several potential issues:
Resistance and Non-compliance: When stakeholders feel their needs and perspectives are not considered, APIs will not comply and will have inconsistent design elements. Governance processes are ignored or circumvented by teams whenever possible.
Lack of Innovation: One-sided governance can stifle innovation by enforcing a rigid set of rules that don't allow flexibility for creative solutions. If developers feel their ideas and creativity are not valued, they may become less motivated to innovate. While it is essential to help teams avoid anti-patterns, rules without explanation or options will leave groups following the same patterns and procedures - even when they don't benefit the API consumer.
Decreased Productivity: If the governance policies are relaxed and well-suited to the needs of the developers, it can help productivity. Developers may spend excessive time navigating the governance requirements instead of focusing on their core tasks.
Poor Quality APIs: If the governance policies don't adequately address the needs of API consumers (internal or external), the resulting APIs might not meet their requirements regarding usability, performance, security, and other vital aspects.
Reduced Morale: One-sided governance can decrease morale among developers and other stakeholders. Feeling unheard or undervalued can lead to frustration and dissatisfaction, negatively impacting the work environment and outcomes. It may even lead to a higher rate of developer turnover.
Misalignment with Business Goals: If a single perspective primarily drives the governance policies, they may need to align better with broader business goals and strategies. This can lead to inefficiencies, missed opportunities, and suboptimal business outcomes.
To avoid these issues, it's crucial to ensure that API governance is collaborative and inclusive. All key stakeholders, including developers, business leaders, and API consumers, should have a voice in the governance process to ensure the policies are balanced, effective, and aligned with the organization's overall goals.
Selecting an API governance model:
Traditional governance, mainly seen during the service-oriented architecture (SOA) days, tended to be heavy-handed. It left the enforcement to just a few people, often resulting in delays and conflicts as teams are forced to make last-minute changes. Over time, organizations have shifted away from this model to utilize one or a combination of models to achieve their goals. API governance models can be classified into a few different types based on the level of centralization and the degree of control exerted over API design and implementation. Standard governance models include:
Centralized Governance: In this model, a single central team or authority is responsible for all aspects of API governance. This represents the traditional SOA governance model seen in years past. The central team defines the standards, approves API designs, and enforces compliance. This model provides a high level of consistency and control but can also slow down development and limit flexibility.
Decentralized or Federated Governance: Here, governance responsibilities are distributed among multiple teams or individuals across the organization. Each team has autonomy over its APIs but must still adhere to a set of basic standards defined centrally. This model offers a balance between control and flexibility and can be more scalable than centralized governance. In this model, API coaches are often trained and deployed across the organization to distribute the review process, preventing a single group from slowing down the process. API coaches also benefit from their domain area knowledge, providing deeper insight than a centralized group that is less familiar with the domain.
Distributed Governance: In this model, each team or individual has complete control over their APIs with no central authority. This model is often seen in organizations with product-centric structures, where each team has its own executives, product managers, development teams, and budgets. While this offers maximum flexibility and speed, it can lead to consistency and make enforcing security or quality standards easier. This is especially the case as product lines try to cross-sell to existing customers but find that their authorization mechanisms vary significantly, resulting in frustrating customer integrations.
Hybrid Governance: This model combines elements of centralized and decentralized governance. For instance, a central team might define broad standards and guidelines, but individual teams have discretion over implementing these in their specific context. This model attempts to balance consistency and control with flexibility and autonomy. Applying this model is helpful when organizations are transitioning from a distributed governance model into a new target state, such as a federated governance model, as it allows groups to realign themselves to a centralized set of guidelines while managing their existing APIs.
Automated Governance: This model leverages automation tools to enforce governance policies. For instance, automated tests could be used to check whether APIs comply with design standards. This can increase efficiency and consistency while shifting compliance feedback left to an earlier stage of the design and development process. This model helps enhance their effectiveness when combined with the above models.
Unless your organization is an early-stage startup or a smaller organization with a handful of APIs, a federated governance model, combined with an automated governance model, will fit your needs. Suppose you have multiple APIs across the organization with a style guide. In that case, starting with a hybrid governance model and moving toward a federated governance model with API coaches is the optimal choice.
Selecting the proper API Management Tooling:
An API gateway is only part of your API management tooling. Selecting the proper tooling to coordinate your API management is critical for an effective API program. Keep these factors in mind when choosing a platform for your API management strategy:
Comprehensive: Your API management tooling should address the five pillars of API management: API design/documentation, API publishing/cataloging, API security/access control, API governance, and API analytics/reporting. Many available tools only address some portion of these pillars, leaving gaps that can result in the need to perform manual API governance processes. When all of these pillars are handled and reported on at various levels, everyone from executives to product managers can visualize the level of compliance across their APIs.
Flexibility: API management tooling often assumes a homogeneous approach to API governance. As we discussed earlier, organizations often have to start in a hybrid governance model as they work toward converging multiple initiatives across the organization into a distributed API governance model. Flexible API management tooling supports the need for a centralized set of automated compliance checks and the ability to override and handle team-specific needs while the transformation is underway.
Automation: API management tooling that doesn't automate processes and integrate with your API lifecycle will not be used. Seek tooling that supports automation and reporting throughout the API lifecycle. This will allow your API governance processes to be shifted left through notification of API design elements that are out of compliance through instant feedback. Not doing so will frustrate your teams when they spend hours designing an API that has to be redesigned after a manual API design review process.
🔗 APIwiz provides robust API governance tools, helping you maintain high standards and meet your organizational goals.