Value Proposition Statement

Enforce Workspace-based Cluster visibility to establish a clear execution boundary between teams. By associating clusters with workspaces and scoping cluster visibility to workspace membership, Camunda enables customers to safely organise teams within a single organisation — reducing accidental cross-team access, improving clarity, and laying the foundation for scalable governance across Hub, Web Modeler, and Console.

User Problem

Current State

  • All clusters are visible in all workspaces today.
  • There is no execution-level boundary between teams within an organisation:
    • Any user can see all clusters
    • Cluster ownership and responsibility are implicit, not expressed in-product

This makes it easy to:

  • Deploy to the wrong environment
  • Misunderstand which team owns which runtime

Organisational & Platform Gaps

  • Workspaces define collaboration, but do not scope execution context.
  • Clusters live at the organisation level, disconnected from team structures.
  • Users must rely on:
    • Naming conventions
    • External documentation
    • Console-only context

The product does not reflect how customers actually organise teams and environments.

Impact on SaaS Customers

Many SaaS customers want to clearly separate:

  • Teams
  • Environments
  • Responsibilities

Today, they cannot express these boundaries within a single organisation because:

  • Clusters are globally visible
  • Workspaces do not scope execution context

As a workaround:

  • Customers create multiple organisations to approximate team isolation
  • This increases operational overhead and fragments visibility

From an execution perspective, there is no real team boundary in the product today.


Target State

  • Clusters are explicitly associated with one or more workspaces.
  • Cluster visibility is enforced based on workspace membership:
    • Users see only clusters associated with the workspaces they belong to
    • Clusters outside those workspaces are hidden
  • Organisation admins and owners retain visibility into all clusters. The product clearly expresses:
  • Team ownership
  • Execution responsibility
  • Intended deployment scope

Release Notes

What’s New

  • Added the ability to associate clusters with workspaces
  • Enforced workspace-based cluster visibility:
    • Non-admin users see only clusters associated with their workspaces
    • Organisation admins and owners see all clusters
  • Updated Hub surfaces to reflect scoped cluster visibility

What Stayed the Same

No changes to:

  • Cluster provisioning
  • Runtime authorisation inside clusters
  • Deployment APIs (beyond filtered visibility)

Enforcement applies to visibility, not runtime-level permissions.

User Stories

Enforced Execution Boundaries

  • As a workspace member, I want to see only the clusters associated with my workspace, so that I cannot accidentally deploy to a cluster owned by another team.
  • As an organisation admin, I want cluster visibility scoped to workspace membership, so that execution responsibility is clear and enforced by the product.
  • As an organisation admin, I want to assign clusters to workspaces, so that I decide which clusters can be used by each workspace.

Admin Oversight

  • As an organisation admin, I want visibility into all clusters across workspaces, so that I can manage environments and troubleshoot issues across teams.

Modelling to Runtime Alignment

  • As a workspace member, I want my workspace to define which clusters are visible, so that modelling and deployment decisions align with team ownership.
  • I only see the clusters designated for my workspace by the CoE, giving me focus and reducing the probability of errors.
  • In the project view, I can only configure and deploy to clusters that are visible for the workspace.

Open question:

  • What happens if a cluster is removed from a workspace after it has already been configured for a project?

Implementation Notes

Open question:

  • We need to define how a user can request a cluster for their workspace (or assign one if they have the appropriate permissions).
  • Otherwise, the value of workspace-based isolation is limited if workspaces do not have controlled access to deployment environments.