When you say "is this the best management can do", I believe you are thinking about it in the wrong terms. It's a trade off. Almost all these decisions are trade offs and there isn't a strictly better option available. I read most of the explanations here pointing to that trade off and understanding it.
Let's assume for a minute the poster has joined google. Do you want some random person changing code in a system used to deploy applications? No. That same code deploys Google Search. That thing pumps out over $50 bill a qtr of high margin revenue.
The process described could be at Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Apple. These are Fortune 500 companies and while they will die eventually, it isn't going to be in any time soon and it isn't going to be because the team working on internal infra doesn't move fast enough.
Fair point regarding the golden goose. My point is there is more motivation to keep things as-is then to continue to adapt. Why is that? Because all the key decision-makers can just get up and leave when revenue starts to deteriorate. The good ones always do, because they are in it for more than a paycheck to support their mortgages.
Let's assume for a minute the poster has joined google. Do you want some random person changing code in a system used to deploy applications? No. That same code deploys Google Search. That thing pumps out over $50 bill a qtr of high margin revenue.
The process described could be at Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Apple. These are Fortune 500 companies and while they will die eventually, it isn't going to be in any time soon and it isn't going to be because the team working on internal infra doesn't move fast enough.