Building thoughtful solutions with Microsoft Power Platform

When I began working on my first real-world solution with Microsoft Power Platform, I approached it as a practical automation task. The objective was clear: replace a manual onboarding step with a more structured and repeatable process. At that point, I did not think of it as a design exercise. It was simply a matter of connecting the right components and making the process work reliably.

During the implementation, however, I started noticing that certain decisions were not as trivial as I had initially assumed. What seemed like a small technical choice often had structural implications. For example, when I considered using an extension attribute in Entra ID to mark specific accounts, I realized that this required additional configuration and long-term consideration. It was technically possible, but it introduced a level of complexity that felt disproportionate for a first version.

A similar moment occurred when I discovered that deleting an Entra ID user was not available as a straightforward, built-in action in the way I had expected. That detail alone did not block the project, but it made me more aware that even simple automation scenarios sit within a broader architectural context.

At that point, my focus changed. Instead of only asking how to make the solution work, I started thinking about what really belonged in the first version — and what didn’t. Early on, I had decided that version one should stay as simple as possible. That decision became a practical filter. Whenever I noticed that the solution was becoming more complex than expected, I had to decide whether that complexity really belonged in the first version.

Coming from a background in structured Microsoft environments, I am used to thinking about long-term maintainability and governance. In Power Platform, the speed of implementation can make it tempting to expand scope quickly. I am beginning to realize that the harder part is not building more, but knowing where to stop.

This blog is not meant to present finished answers or established best practices. It is a structured way for me to document this transition — from focusing primarily on functionality to becoming more aware of design boundaries and trade-offs, even in relatively small solutions.

I am still at the beginning of that process. Writing about it simply helps me think more clearly about the decisions I am making.