We often talk about the costs of coordination and the benefits of decoupling. "Amazon is so fast because their teams don't have to coordinate". Convincing others to do something often takes more time than simply doing it.

But we rarely discuss the benefits of that coordination. So, here is a story where upfront coordination was costly but yielded a much better outcome eventually.

Stripe background: Charges → Payment Intents

In 2019, Stripe launched new APIs, Payment Intents and Payment Methods, meant to cover all payment flows. A payment is when a buy pays a seller for goods or services. This is different from a transfer, a deposit, or a withdrawal.

Unlike its predecessor Charges, Payment Intents was designed to work for all payment methods in all markets. The US is familiar with a few payment methods: cash, credit and debit cards, ACH debits and transfers, wires, cheques, and even Bitcoin. But each country has their own set of payment methods (e.g. Argentina has Mercado Pago and Brazil has PIX).

By trying to cover all global payment methods, Payment Intents is not the most convenient API for any given one of them. And in particular, Payment Intents is not the most convenient for cards, the most popular payment method in North America, at the time Stripe's biggest market by far.

Michelle Bu, lead Payment Intent designer, covers Payment Intent's arc in great detail here.

Not only did Stripe launch Payment Intents, it made it the one and only payments API. I didn't agree. In my view, Charges was easier to integrate with for US developers; Payment Intents was a step back for lots of users. I pushed back but I was overruled¹. Payment Intents was it and if you wanted to offer more payments functionality, you had to work with it somehow.

The entire Stripe product team had to coordinate around Payment Intents. For example, when making a new version of Checkout (2018-2019), that team had to use Payment Intents as much as possible. You can configure the checkout page with the Checkout Session object but the payment itself is tracked by a Payment Intent.

Eventually, I accepted the decision and got to work: we replaced Charges with Payment Intents throughout the documentation, redesigning https://docs.stripe.com/ in the process. But it still took me a couple of years to see how forcing the company to coordinate around Payment Intents was the right trade-off.

Coordinating new projects from the start

By mid-2020, there were a few projects around the company, all somehow related to Remember Me. Remember Me is the feature where Stripe remembers your card details in one merchant and then pre-fills them in a different merchant. This makes it easier to pay for the consumer and improves conversion rates for merchants. It is a great feature but it hadn’t been improved since its launch in 2014.

The projects, all started by different teams, were:

1. Bring Remember Me to all the new checkout pages Stripe had made since 2014 (new Checkout, Web Elements, Mobile Elements, etc.)
2. Extend Remember Me to non-card payment methods like bank accounts. 
3. Remember Me for Financial Connections, Stripe’s (at the time) new product to share your bank account transactions with an app, like you can do with Monarch.

These three projects had the same shape: “consumer has a log-in managed by Stripe, used in multiple merchants”. So we coordinated to have a common brand and system for all those features. We combined efforts into what became Link. 

It would’ve been easier and faster to do these separately. But we could see how, if we coordinated, all those features would reinforce each other eventually.

Coordinating externally around Payment Intents

Implementing Link’s payment features (1 and 2 above) meant integrating them into Payment Intents. Because all the other Stripe products also use Payment Intents, all the merchants are integrated with that API already. By integrating with one API, Link reached all merchants.

On the left side of this diagram, you have the internal Stripe teams exposing their features through one integration point, Payment Intents. On the right side, you have Stripe users, each with the same integration point.

This is great for merchants! They integrate once and they get all the Stripe payment features they want. All of this probably seems obvious to you. But when you are inside of a company, you see the world differently. Each team has their own goals and priorities; coordinating with other teams is a nightmare compared to working independently.

In other words, "Integrating with Payment Intents" meant "coordinating with most product teams at Stripe". For three months or so, we planned those internal integrations with the other teams. It felt like forever. But eventually, we collectively found the right design and implemented it. In many cases, it was the other team how did the bulk of the work. It took us a good chunk of 2021² to coordinate and implement all the internal integrations. At the time, it felt very slow.

This is the same diagram as above, but with red arrows where the internal Stripe teams have to coordinate with each other. They represent the coordination cost we all dread.

Coordinating internally around Payment Intents

Remember how Checkout was asked to use Payment Intents in 2018? Because the Checkout internals read the available Payment Methods from a Payment Intent, once we added Link to Payment Intents, we had partially added Link to the Checkout internals. This would’ve been much harder if Checkout had its own data models.

Coordinating through one model is not a panacea but it helped in this context. It also wasn't the full story. The Checkout team still did a lot of frontend work for Link.

We also integrated through Payment Intents into Web and Mobile Elements. The more Stripe products that go through Payment Intents, the more likely a new one will be able to coordinate with them through it.

The AWS way: decoupling

From the outside, it seems like AWS products decouple as much as they want. When they launched Glacier (cheaper S3 with higher latency), Glacier's first API was totally different to S3's despite the two products being "the same one on a different spectrum" from the user's perspective.

But from the Glacier's team perspective, the split API makes perfect sense: coordinating with the already contended S3 team will delay them by 6 months. It is much easier to make a custom API for Glacier. So they did.

But whatever time they saved in internal coordination costs, they passed on to their users. Now each user has to integrate twice, once for S3, once for Glacier. And if you add a third storage product, FSx³, then each user has to integrate three times to get all of them.

Compared to the previous diagram, notice how the red arrows moved from inside the company (left side of the diagram) to outside the company (right side).

Eventually, Glacier integrated its functionality into the S3 API, which is now the recommended integration. They probably realized how much more usage Glacier would get if it was integrated to S3. And that made the coordination cost totally worth it.

I don't mean to imply that all of AWS should be one API. The shape of their services or breadth of use-cases make this obviously a bad idea. But the Glacier example is trying to show that at least some of the services have overlapping functionality that users would rather think about in the same API.

Reaping the rewards of coordination

Eventually, all that internal coordination paid off. Most merchants could turn on Link with no integration changes or by changing only few lines. We also recommended all new Stripe users to add Link to their Payment Intent integration. Unlike in the 2019 Charges to Payment Intents migration, we didn’t need to redo the documentation to accommodate Link.

We wouldn't have closed half of our initial enterprise deals if we had asked them to integrate with another API from scratch. And it would’ve taken us twice as long to close the rest of the deals. The API integration cost, measured in developer time, is often bigger than the cost of whatever Stripe is selling! Big merchants have dozens of dependencies on Stripe's API beyond the checkout form (refunds, disputes, reconciliation, counting fees, taxes, etc). If in each of those flows they needed to account for Link separately, Link would've gotten nowhere.

By adding Link to Payment Intents, we bypassed most of those costs.

The upfront coordination cost eventually translated into a constant tailwind for Link. As more merchants integrate with Payment Intents for any reason (e.g. Tax), they can get Link without additional integration costs. And when they integrate Payment Intents because of Link, then they can get every other feature (e.g. Tax) without additional costs. In this world where we coordinated, the number of Stripe product each merchant uses is much higher than in the alternative world where we didn't.

So, next time you are reluctant to coordinate (as I often am), consider the value of what you are getting in return!

Footnotes

1. Once Payment Intents was chosen, we still wanted to make it more convenient for North American developers. With David Ackerman, we designed error_on_requires_action=true, which makes Payment Intents work like Charges. In my opinion, it is the ugliest parameter in Payment Intents. But eventually, lots of US merchants used it to quickly migrate from Charges to Payment Intents with a one-to-one copy-paste migration.↩
2. I am simplifying the story. We shipped many different things, some quicker than others. For example, Remember Me launched in new Checkout by early 2021. And then it made it to Web Elements before it made it to Mobile Elements. And it made it North American before it made it to Europe. But the basic story is the same: upfront coordination costs with delayed implementation and rewards.↩
3. The real FSx doesn’t have the same shape as S3 and Glacier, I am using it as an illustration of “AWS will continue to put out storage APIs”.↩

« Risk-takers decide faster There Is No Antimemetics Division »