Random musings on Legacy Modernization: Part 1
Utter the term ‘legacy modernization’ in any technology forum and eyes will light up. The topic is bound to generate animated discussion among techies, architects and IT managers alike. Of course such discussions among IT managers and consultants have a tendency to get polarized: consultants will probably have dollar signs gleaming in their eyes while IT managers try hard to defend their portfolio, arguing “why fix what’s not broken”
Services companies thrive on providing innovative modernization solutions, while software companies try equally hard to pitch upgrades to their own legacy platforms. And then there is the whole mainframe-to-(whatever) discussion that periodically erupts.
In a sense, legacy modernization decisions are like Americans and their cars. Folks get tired of their cars periodically and like to trade-in for something jazzier, new models with better features etc etc. The need is greater after a ‘life changing’ event: graduation, marriage, addition to a family etc. Car dealers have two goals when dealing with customers: depressing the price of their trade-in as much as possible while inflating markup/MSRP on new cars. The analogy between trading-in an automobile and legacy modernization projects is uncanny. Organizations also go through ‘life changing’ events periodically, growth in the vertical, Merger & Acquisition etc. Like auto dealers, consultants may have a vested interest in proposing lower salvage (read code/logic reuse) of the legacy system while prescribing jazzier new technology solutions. In both cases, the Car buyer (IT Manager) and auto-dealer (consultant) try to strike a balance between their diverging goals.
Where the trade-in automobiles anology diverges from legacy modernization is that the Information Asymmetry is skewed towards the buyer. The manager knows her IT portfolio better than most consultants would…so one is bound to wonder who is the buyer and seller here? And more importantly, how many IT leaders leverage the Information Asymmetry to their advantage?
Why am I musing on legacy modernization? Because many of the recent offshoring initiatives I have been involved in have a strong 'modernization' component. More about it in my next blog
Comments
Interestingly I think business rules is a technology that can help both legacy modernization and BPO and offers, perhaps, a way to square the circle. The buyer gets more control over a critical component but the rest of the application can be maintained and outsourced.
Your thoughts?
Posted by: James Taylor | May 8, 2007 02:59 PM
Yes James,
I agree that in certain scenarios, business rules engines (BREs) help ‘square the circle,’ especially when aided by Workflow solutions. Interestingly, there are business specific BRE solutions that are also popular in niche verticals like banking, finance etc. However, I would caution against a one-size-fits-all… in certain scenarios, a COTS package may be a better fit. Of course, this assumes that legacy modernization involves a build-vs-buy analysis too.
Posted by: Mohan | May 8, 2007 05:54 PM