Legacy Modernisation
Big-bang replacement fails often enough that it should be the last option. We modernise in slices, each of which is useful on its own and reversible if it is not.
What this covers
Assessment
What the system does, what depends on it, and what is genuinely unused.
Strangler approach
New capability in front of the old system, taking traffic gradually.
Data migration
Moved in stages, reconciled, with a way back.
Interface preservation
Consumers kept working while the inside changes.
Decommission
Turning the old part off deliberately, with evidence it is unused.
Knowledge capture
The rules living in the old code, written down before it goes.
Who this is for
Long-lived platforms
Systems older than most of the team.
Merged estates
Duplicate systems from acquisitions.
Unsupported technology
Where the risk is the platform rather than the function.
Cost-driven programmes
Where the licence or hosting bill forces the question.
How we work
People who have done it before
Teams that have worked in this setting, not a generic squad reading the brief for the first time.
One team, start to finish
The people who design it are the people who build it and the people who answer for it afterwards.
Working software early
Something running in weeks, so the direction is judged against a real thing rather than a document.
Bought once, owned by you
What you keep at the end
The code, the documentation and the accounts are yours throughout. Nothing here depends on us staying, and any arrangement that continues does so because it is worth continuing.
Talk to us
What we promise
- A named team you can reach, not an account manager relaying questions
- A working version early, and every fortnight after that
- Written estimates with the assumptions and the risks stated
- Your code, your data and your accounts, yours throughout
- A direct answer when something is late or will not work
How it runs
Scope
What the solution has to do, what it must integrate with, and what is deliberately out.
Pilot
A working configuration with one team or one process, measured against how it works today.
Roll out
Extended in stages, each with a way back if it does not hold.
Improve
Measured after launch and changed on evidence, which is when most of the value arrives.
Common questions
Because a rewrite has to reach parity before it delivers anything, and parity is usually further away than it looks.
Longer than a rewrite promises and shorter than a rewrite takes. Each stage delivers on its own.
You keep what has been delivered. That is the main argument for doing it this way.
We do, as we go — and that documentation often turns out to be the most valuable artefact.
Would this work here?
A short conversation is usually enough to tell whether this fits your situation. If it does not, we will say so.
Get in touch