With the appetite for digital transformation growing, most firms are now engaged in some form of modernisation initiative. With an impressive array of cutting-edge solutions available, many are only excited by the positive things promised by a full-scale ‘new supplier, new solution, rip-and-replace’ approach – often without fully recognising the significant risks that accompany such a strategy.

What are the risks with ripping?

Modernising business-critical systems in this rip-and-replace fashion is fraught with underestimated challenges. While of course the promise of updated technology and next-gen capabilities is compelling, the reality of completely replacing well-established platforms such as case management, matter management, practice management, or any other systems, presents complex risks and obstacles.

The depth of customisation within existing systems is perhaps the most significant obstacle. Over the years, these platforms have been meticulously tailored to meet specific business requirements. Deep customisation makes replacement extraordinarily challenging, as the new system must not only replicate existing functionality but also accommodate the nuanced workflows that have evolved organically within the business.

These business processes, workflows and procedures have been carefully developed and refined through countless iterations, creating sophisticated operational frameworks that cannot simply be transferred to a new system with the press of a button. These processes represent institutional knowledge accumulated over the years, and their successful migration requires careful analysis, documentation, and even completely re-thinking within the new platform’s architecture.

Data migration presents its own difficulties, particularly when dealing with historic information spanning hundreds or thousands of matters. The complexity of ensuring data integrity while transferring years of accumulated information is both time-consuming and technically demanding. Even if firms only transferred active and in-flight matters, the volume to be migrated could still be in the thousands. Firms almost always discover their data structures are more complex than initially anticipated, requiring extensive cleanup and transformation efforts that can extend project timelines considerably.

At the same time, getting users accustomed to completely new systems requires substantial investment in training, support and change management. Even the most intuitive new platform represents a departure from familiar workflows, and the learning curve can impact productivity for months.

Perhaps most risk-heavy is the almost inevitable performance dip firms experience after switching systems, which can negatively affect business operations, precisely at the point the new system was intended to improve them. This ‘trough of disillusionment’ is often deeper and lasts longer than anticipated, causing serious implications for business performance that run counter to expectations of quick, transformative improvements.

Last, but not least, the financial and resource implications are daunting. Real-world experience shows that digital transformation with entirely new technology can require anything from three to 10 years to achieve the level of personalisation and functionality that characterised the replaced system. Some large firms have found themselves investing in additional licences for their incumbent systems while simultaneously working to complete transitions to new platforms. The extended timeline and dual-system costs that this mode of modernisation can entail are not to be disregarded.

Modernisation without disruption is a strategic alternative

A more pragmatic approach is modernisation without disruption – it acknowledges the realities of modern business operations while still enabling meaningful technological advancement. This strategic alternative fundamentally re-envisages how firms can evolve their technology infrastructure without jeopardising their operational foundation or performance.

At its core, this approach recognises modernisation doesn’t necessarily require wholesale replacement of existing systems. Instead it focuses on working collaboratively with current vendor partners to evolve systems incrementally, introducing new technologies and innovative functionalities that integrate seamlessly alongside established platforms. This methodology focuses on targeted improvements to specific areas of operation rather than attempting to change everything in one fell swoop...

Continue reading the full article in Briefing Legal