Modernization or new development? How to make the right decision

Modernization means renewing, expanding or technically improving existing software without completely rebuilding it. Modernizing software is the right decision if the architecture remains expandable and risks can be controlled.

Modernization makes sense if:

• the functional scope is largely suitable and only needs to be extended
• technical debt is manageable
• the code base is maintainable
• technologies are still supported
• integrations are possible
• initial improvements should be visible quickly

For SMEs in industry, production, logistics and finance, modernization is often the most economical way because systems remain available, risks are low and improvements are made step by step.

A new development makes sense if the existing architecture is no longer able to meet the requirements of the coming years. Some systems can be modernized, but remain unstable, insecure or hardly expandable despite the effort.

A replacement is the better choice if:

• the technology is outdated or no longer supported
• the structure of the software is not scalable
• no documentation exists
• individual developers have the only knowledge
• security risks are no longer manageable
• every extension is disproportionately expensive
• performance or integrations are severely limited

This particularly often affects old legacy systems that have been functionally expanded over the years without the architecture and data model having consistently grown with them. In these cases, only a replacement can restore stability, security and predictable operation.

In practice, very few systems are either clearly “modernizable” or immediately replaceable. This is precisely where the strength of hybrid modernization lies. It combines targeted further development with the controlled replacement of individual system components.

At soxes, hybrid modernization means concretely:

• targeted removal of individual functional areas from monolithic systems
• Parallel development of new modules on a modern architecture
• Connection to existing databases and processes via stable interfaces
• Gradual replacement of critical legacy components
• Clean separation of front end, business logic and data storage
• Controlled parallel operation without interrupting production

This means technically:

We first analyze which parts are professionally stable and which areas are technically slowing down or causing risks. These risk zones are then isolated, rebuilt and connected in a controlled manner. In this way, a new architecture is created step by step without jeopardizing operations.

Typical hybrid scenarios from practice:

• A production system retains its database, the interface and interfaces are redeveloped
• An ERP remains in place while individual modules are rebuilt
• old applications are decoupled via APIs and integrated into modern system landscapes

The big advantage lies in the control:

• no big bang
• no complete shutdowns
• no incalculable risks

Instead, a resilient, scalable target architecture is created in stages. Technical debt is reduced in a targeted manner. This is precisely where it is decided whether modernization is sustainable in the long term or only provides short-term relief. We ensure stable operation in day-to-day operations with structured maintenance and support. New and existing components are monitored, errors are detected early and changes are implemented in a controlled manner.

At soxes, the decision between further development, replacement or a hybrid approach is not based on gut feeling, but on a technically and economically sound analysis. The goal is a solution that works today and will still make sense in five years’ time.

1. technical system analysis at architecture level

We not only record functions, but also evaluate the technical status of the existing solution:

• Architecture type and modularity
• Code quality and technological dependencies
• Technical debt at database, logic and integration level
• Security risks and maintainability
• Availability of developers for the technologies used

2. evaluation of technical and business requirements

The question here is not just what the system can do today, but what it must do tomorrow:

• future processes and automation potential
• Requirements from production, logistics, sales or compliance
• Necessary interfaces to machines, ERP, BI or cloud systems
• Scaling requirements for data volumes, users and locations

3. economic evaluation over several years

It is not the project budget that is decisive, but the total costs over time:

• Development and migration costs
• Maintenance, operation and expansion
• Failure risks and security costs
• Dependence on individuals
• Long-term costs due to technical debt

4. roadmap for 12 to 36 months

The decision results in an actionable plan:

• clear prioritization of system components
• Coordinated stages for modernization and replacement
• Clean transitions without production risks
• Predictable budgets and resources
• Synchronization with operation, maintenance and support