Instance Strategy Mistakes I See Repeated Across Enterprises

[Abhijeet Upadh2]

Instance strategy is one of those topics everyone thinks they understand—until it’s too late to change. I’ve walked into multiple organisations where the instance strategy was treated as a one-time technical decision rather than a long-term operating model choice.

The most common mistake is assuming that fewer instances automatically mean better governance. In reality, a single shared instance across vastly different business units often creates political gridlock. Every change becomes a negotiation, every release is delayed, and innovation slows because the blast radius feels too large. What looks efficient on paper becomes paralysing in practice.

The opposite mistake is equally damaging: spinning up instances too easily. I’ve seen environments with multiple “temporary” instances that somehow became permanent, each drifting into its own version of the truth. Integrations multiply, data diverges, and leadership loses confidence because reports don’t align.

What’s usually missing from these decisions is a clear understanding of why separation is needed. Regulatory isolation, data sovereignty, and fundamentally different operating models are valid reasons. “Different preferences” or “we want autonomy” usually aren’t.

Another overlooked aspect is upgrade velocity. More instances mean more upgrades, more testing cycles, and more coordination. If your organisation struggles to complete one upgrade cleanly, multiplying instances won’t fix that—it will amplify the problem.

Strong instance strategies are revisited periodically, not set in stone. They evolve as organisations mature, merge, divest, or change risk appetite. As architects, we need to challenge instance decisions not just technically, but organisationally. Poor instance strategy doesn’t fail loudly—it slowly suffocates delivery.