<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Platform-as-Product on F. Latini - IT Engineer</title><link>https://latini.dev/tags/platform-as-product/</link><description>Recent content in Platform-as-Product on F. Latini - IT Engineer</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 08:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://latini.dev/tags/platform-as-product/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Golden Paths, Part 2: The Second and Third Path</title><link>https://latini.dev/posts/golden-paths-part-2/</link><pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://latini.dev/posts/golden-paths-part-2/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;TL;DR&lt;/strong&gt; - The first golden path is an adoption project; the second and third are a portfolio problem, and the dangers invert. You stop worrying that nobody will come and start drowning because everyone did. The rules that got the first road shipped will sink the second: saying yes to every request produces paved-road sprawl, forking the template per team produces ten half-roads instead of three excellent ones, and every path you ship is a product you maintain forever. The second path should reuse most of the first one&amp;rsquo;s guts, the long tail of requests gets the escape hatch rather than a road, and you keep a boring list of what exists. Success at path one buys you demand. What you do with that demand decides whether you end up with a platform or a junkyard of templates.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>