Skip to content

Commit acf3b02

Browse files
Add COTS article.
1 parent 24a971a commit acf3b02

File tree

2 files changed

+49
-0
lines changed

2 files changed

+49
-0
lines changed

_posts/2024-03-05-COTS.md

Lines changed: 49 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
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>
2.66 MB
Loading

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)