Infrastructure Orchestration

The Architect’s Mindset: From Doing Work to Designing Systems

Jesse Ford

Automation Architect ‐ Itential

The Architect’s Mindset: From Doing Work to Designing Systems

The Architect’s Mindset: From Doing Work to Designing Systems

December 22, 2025
Jesse Ford

Automation Architect ‐ Itential

The Architect’s Mindset: From Doing Work to Designing Systems

Most of us begin our careers in networking the same way. We learn the commands, we memorize the patterns, we get very good at fixing things fast. Early in my career, especially in the Marine Corps, speed and reliability were everything. If something broke, you did the work yourself because there was no one else coming behind you. The job was simple in principle, keep the mission online, keep the comms stable.

Years later, in the world of enterprise and service provider networking, the habit was still there. When a task needed to be done, I did the work. When automation entered the picture, that mindset carried over. I wrote Python scripts. I built one-off tools. I solved the problem in front of me as quickly and reliably as possible.

That mindset is valuable, but it eventually limits you. The transition from engineer to architect does not happen because you learn a new syntax or master a new platform. It happens when you stop thinking about the task in front of you and start thinking about the system around you.

That shift is harder than people talk about, and it is the focus of this article.

From Automating Tasks to Shaping Processes

When I look back on the early stages of my automation work, I can see that I was essentially recreating manual work in Python. If it took twenty steps manually, I automated those twenty steps. It was still a task mindset. I was optimizing effort, not transforming it.

The architect’s mindset begins with a different question. Not how do I automate this task but why does this task exist, how does it relate to the systems around it, and what rules should govern it. The difference may sound subtle but the outcomes are drastically different.

During my podcast conversation on Packet Pushers, Scott Robohn called it the architect’s moment. It is the moment you stop being proud of clever scripts and start wanting a system that holds up under scale, team turnover, compliance audits, and tool changes. For me, that moment arrived at Asurion when our small automation team reached the ceiling of what high code automation could sustain.

Python was not the problem. The problem was that every new script created a new dependency, a new maintenance path, a new risk surface, and a new bottleneck. We were accelerating individual tasks but slowing down the organization.

That contradiction is what pushes many engineers into the architect’s mindset.

Why Scaling Automation Requires Letting Go of Personal Ownership

One of the hardest lessons for technical people, especially those with deep experience, is letting go of personal ownership. When you write a script, it reflects your thinking, your patterns, your style, and sometimes your shortcuts. That works for a while, especially in small teams. It collapses when the team tries to scale.

When automation begins to succeed, demand grows. Other teams want to use your tools. More use cases pile up in the backlog. You become a bottleneck because people need you in the loop to run, fix, or extend the automation you created. At Asurion, we were drowning under the weight of our own success.

That is when I began thinking less about building tools and more about building systems that could survive without me. Systems that were governed, predictable, scalable, and accessible to people who were not Python developers. That shift requires humility. You have to build frameworks instead of personal masterpieces. You have to accept that the best automation is the one the entire team can maintain.

For architects, this is the inflection point. It is where you go from building work to designing workflows.

The Role of Orchestration in Moving Beyond High Code Automation

During the podcast, we got into the tension between high code automation and orchestration. High code has its place. It is flexible, powerful, and essential for complex use cases. The problem arrives when high code becomes the only mechanism for automation inside an organization.

Orchestration solves a different class of problems. It provides structure and governance. It connects systems through APIs. It allows architects to define the logic and guardrails of a workflow rather than writing the entire thing in Python. It also lowers the barrier for others to participate in automation which is crucial for scaling.

At Asurion, once we reached this point, we evaluated every tool we had. Ansible was strong for configuration but not consistent across vendors. Terraform was great for infrastructure-as-code but not ideal for cross domain workflows. Homegrown options required heavy engineering. We needed something that could unify our existing work and extend it without locking us into a single method.

This is where Itential entered the picture. It shifted our automation from a collection of tools to a connected system. It was not about replacing Python. It was about giving Python, Ansible, Terraform, API calls, and even manual checkpoints a place to operate together. That is the difference between automating tasks and orchestrating outcomes.

I bring this up not to promote the platform but because this transition is something every architect eventually faces. The key question is not which tool you choose. It is which mindset you choose.

Compliance as a Catalyst for Architectural Thinking

One of the best examples of this shift for me came from compliance. PCI audits are the type of work no engineer loves. They absorb hours, require precision, and pull people away from high value work. Early in my career I accepted this as part of the job. Later, I realized compliance is the perfect forcing function for automation architecture.

When we built the automated compliance workflow that eventually ran in six seconds per IP, it was not a Python win. It was a systems design win. It forced us to connect data sources, normalize results, apply business logic, and deliver information to multiple teams. It is the type of solution that only works when you stop thinking like a script writer and start thinking like an architect.

This is the type of work that transforms teams. It reduces burnout, improves morale, and demonstrates to leadership that automation is not a cost reduction effort but a capability expansion effort.

For Architects, The Real Work Is Not Writing Automation. It Is Designing Its Future.

There is a moment in every architect’s journey when technical skill stops being the limiting factor. What matters next is pattern recognition, system design, risk thinking, governance strategy, and the ability to see beyond the immediate problem.

If you are a network or infrastructure architect, here is the truth I wish someone had told me earlier in my career:

Automation is not the destination. Automation is the raw material.
Orchestration is the architecture.
And architecture is what scales.

The shift begins when you stop asking how do I automate this task and start asking how do I design a system that makes this repeatable, governable, and resilient for the next five years.

That is the work. That is the mindset. And that is where the real transformation happens.

From Ops to Orchestrated: An Architect’s Automation Journey

If you want to hear more of the story behind this journey and the conversations that shaped it, check out my full episode on Packet Pushers’ Total Network Operations, “Ops to Orchestrated: The Automation Playbook for Architects,” below or view the full podcast playlist here.

It is a deeper look at the lessons, failures, and decisions that pushed me from automating tasks to designing systems that scale.

Jesse Ford

Automation Architect ‐ Itential

Jesse is a Network Automation Architect at Itential with over 20 years of experience spanning the U.S. Marine Corps, telecommunications, and enterprise networking. His career reflects the industry’s shift from manual operations to scalable, intelligent automation. From designing mission-critical networks for the Marines to leading infrastructure at Verizon Wireless, Jesse has applied lessons from both successes and setbacks to develop practical automation strategies. He specializes in multi-vendor environments, leveraging tools like Ansible, Python, Terraform, Netbox, and Nautobot. Passionate about mentorship and knowledge sharing, Jesse empowers teams to sustain and advance automation practices while bridging technical and business priorities.

More from Jesse Ford