Going live is the easy bit..

Going live is the easy bit..

So you've finally made it. After months (perhaps years) of designing, iterating and testing your new system is finally ready for prime time. All that remains is to bask in the glory of happy users and delighted stakeholders... well perhaps, but isn't there something you've forgotten?

Chances are you didn't start from a blank sheet of paper and there was a legacy system or capability in place when you started. Perhaps it was a semi-manual process, a legacy system that was no longer effective or a platform that was going out of support. We don't need that anymore so we can just turn it off, right? Alas, in my experience, that's rarely the case.

Turning off a legacy system, especially one that users are very familiar with, is the ultimate test of the business change process. It's often at this point, when faced with the reality of turning a system off, that the true readiness of the business to transition begins to surface. Niche requirements that were never captured or have lingered as low priority items in the backlog are suddenly elevated in importance - 'but we still do X once a quarter' or 'we can't do without Y'. Until the last tail use-case has been satisfied business stakeholders will often lobby to retain the legacy platform.

Another challenge with turning old systems off is what to do with the data they hold. The data itself may be a valuable archive that may need to be searchable as part of the new process and therefore needs to be ported or federated into the new platform. Often the system logs need to be retained for audit purposes - who saw what, and when. In legacy systems the data can be held in a proprietary format that only the original application understands and so needs to be exported in a readable form. If the data is sensitive then ensuring whatever archive is used replicates the necessary data privacy controls can be non-trivial, especially if the exact nature of the content is somewhat uncertain.

There is often a mismatch of incentives with IT departments challenged to realise the cost benefits of decommissioning the system whilst business users, with separate budgets, cling to the legacy, fearful that their remaining needs will simply be overlooked as resources are diverted onto new projects. The law of diminishing returns kicks in pretty quickly as senior executive interest wanes. A zero-sum-game of optimising investment budget can lead to annual cycles of 'kicking the can down the road' - it's easier to keep paying the operational licence fees and platform costs than to invest in finishing the job and migrating the last remaining functionality.

Faced with these challenges many organisations choose the path of least resistance and let the legacy system live on, often unsupported. At an enterprise level the collective effect of local retention decisions is increasing operational risk, elevated cyber security risk, an incomprehensible and inconsistent data environment, increased inertia to future change and a spaghetti architecture that few, if anyone, understands. Over time the ability to be agile is lost.

We all have a duty to finish the job and ensure that we focus as much on turning systems off as we do on turning them on in the first place.

(All views in this article are my own)

Daniel Hyman

Tech Leader | I help CTO/CIOs in financial services reduce tech and vendor costs in mission-critical systems by $10M+ annually, by leading teams to decommission legacy environments and displace non-strategic vendors.

1 年

Michael Shearer superb article that's right up my street. It might be "easier to keep paying the operational licence fees and platform costs than to invest in finishing the job..." for a while, but eventually the legacy system has to go! Why not do the hard work now, bank the savings and get back to strategic work?!

回复

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Michael Shearer的更多文章

  • Raising the bar or sinking the ship?

    Raising the bar or sinking the ship?

    Apologies, it's been a while since my last post. As an intelligence officer the protection of sources and methods is a…

    3 条评论
  • Santa's Sleigh - How does it work?

    Santa's Sleigh - How does it work?

    I can remember as a small boy trying to figure out how Santa's sleigh worked. This desire to understand how things work…

    3 条评论
  • What worked?

    What worked?

    So you've made it to the next release, it wasn't pretty but you got the job done. But the work never ends and there is…

  • Should we fix it?

    Should we fix it?

    Modern software products are highly complex. They are constructed by stitching together layer upon layer of code…

  • User experience - is it worth it?

    User experience - is it worth it?

    Regular readers of this newsletter will know I often refer to trade-offs in building successful products and solutions.…

    4 条评论
  • Just give us the requirements!

    Just give us the requirements!

    In spite of all the progress in agile ways of working, value streams and DevOps there remains, buried deep in the…

    3 条评论
  • Working or Gaming The System?

    Working or Gaming The System?

    Obtaining senior executive approval for a new project or initiative is never easy. Skilled practitioners in the art of…

  • Take the paper as read...

    Take the paper as read...

    In the modern organisation good governance requires that the right people are involved in the decision making process…

  • Moving Money - Securities Settlement

    Moving Money - Securities Settlement

    In this, the last instalment in this series we take a look at the complex process behind the buying and selling of…

  • Moving Money - Correspondent Banking and CLS

    Moving Money - Correspondent Banking and CLS

    Part 3 of this short series explores the complex world of 'moving' money across borders and between currencies. This is…

    4 条评论

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了