|
| 1 | +--- |
| 2 | +title: "Off-the-shelf is not always cheaper" |
| 3 | +excerpt: "... don't give away the Crown Jewels of your business to a vendor who can't do it as well..." |
| 4 | +layout: single |
| 5 | +comments: true |
| 6 | +read_time: true |
| 7 | +share: true |
| 8 | +related: true |
| 9 | +tags: |
| 10 | + - ai |
| 11 | + - data |
| 12 | +header: |
| 13 | + overlay_image: /assets/images/pexels-tembela-bohle-1884581.jpg |
| 14 | + overlay_filter: 0.25 # same as adding an opacity of 0.5 to a black background |
| 15 | + caption: "Off-the-shelf is not always cheaper" |
| 16 | + teaser: /assets/images/pexels-tembela-bohle-1884581.jpg |
| 17 | + |
| 18 | +--- |
| 19 | + |
| 20 | +# Off-the-shelf is not always cheaper # |
| 21 | + |
| 22 | +I have had several clients who have asked me to carry out software architecture reviews to determine how to replace bespoke software |
| 23 | +developed in-house with a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) solution. |
| 24 | + |
| 25 | +What I've found with most of these clients has been that the COTS solution (even if customisable) only covers about 70-80% of the functionality of the |
| 26 | +bespoke solution that they wish to replace. It also covers a load of other areas and features that the client has no use for. In addition, they're |
| 27 | +often not aware of the operational expenditure that the COTS solution will take and haven't factored in the cost of customisations and |
| 28 | +maintenance so they're not comparing like with like. They also tend to underestimate the cost and the timescale of the data migration work required to |
| 29 | +move to the replacement system (usually by a factor of 2.5). |
| 30 | + |
| 31 | +Even when all this is taken into account a small cost difference in favour of the bespoke solution alone would not necessarily prevent me from |
| 32 | +recommending moving to an off-the-shelf solution as it can pay off in reduced opportunity cost due to freeing internal engineering capacity. |
| 33 | + |
| 34 | +However, the biggest factor around how to progress is usually what makes your business unique. This is usually your value proposition and the reason |
| 35 | +you get the market share you do. This value proposition is often built into your bespoke solution but not something easily replicated in the off-the-shelf solution (as it's unique!). |
| 36 | + |
| 37 | +This is usually what leads me to recommend either not moving to the off-the-shelf solution or even taking a hybrid approach of replacing all but the |
| 38 | +unique value proposition and either keeping the bespoke solution or building a replacement for the value proposition only. |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | +All of this can be summed up as don't give away the Crown Jewels of your business to a vendor who can't do it as well and can utilise your data to |
| 41 | +determine how to replicate it for your competitors. |
| 42 | + |
| 43 | +Conversely, if the bespoke solution does not make your business unique then consider a commercial replacement (depending on the costs). |
| 44 | + |
| 45 | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 46 | +< sub>If you want to discuss how to determine how to migrate to new solutions please contact me through the comments, [email ](mailto:[email protected]) or |
| 47 | +[LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrishowejones/).</sub> |
| 48 | + |
| 49 | +<sub>Photo by [Tembela Bohle](https://www.pexels.com/photo/grayscale-photography-of-assorted-apparels-on-shelf-rack-1884581/)</sub> |
0 commit comments