By Philippe Magne <\/h3>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>With the major economic crisis we are all facing together, it is high time to take a fresh look at our existing application assets.<\/strong><\/p>\nMany companies are still convinced that they have to replace their legacy platform, along with all the applications running on it. Most business leaders have at some point dreamt of having a cutting-edge information system, driving their company\u2019s performance and always flexible to their changing business needs. Many of these companies blessed with the financial means to do so have embarked on reengineering or replacement projects of titanic proportions. Some of them – after taking their organization through deep and costly transformations and consuming considerable resources over the years – have finally succeeded in \u2018crossing the Rubicon\u2019. The vast majority however have decided to stop and reconsider, realizing that the original investment required has been largely underestimated and that if they continue on the same course they could risk putting their entire business in jeopardy.<\/p>\n
With a potential economic crisis looming, these massive “works in progress” will inevitably be put under some scrutiny. Would it not make better business sense to reinvest in existing assets rather than replace everything? And most importantly, to consider options which lessen the risk involved? In these uncertain times, it is important to question whether a replacement is really essential \u2013 but before feeling comfortable with what on face value may seem like a strategic U-turn, we need to look inwards and ask ourselves a different question. Why were we so sure in the first place that everything needed to be replaced\u202f? Apart from the fact that our ecosystem naturally leads us to over-consume, it is clear that most of the time, the decision to replace a system is based on a relatively cursory assessment and a number of “myths” or preconceived ideas. As soon as we accept that these are the main cause of our strategic misdirection, we can put our emotions to one side and take a critical look at each of these ideas.<\/p>\n
In this article we will examine the ten most common preconceptions about legacy systems.<\/p>\n<\/div>
Summary<\/h2>\n\n- \u201cLegacy systems can\u2019t adapt to digital transformation\u201d<\/a><\/li>\n
- \u201cThe continuity of legacy systems is not ensured by the manufacturer\u201d<\/a><\/li>\n
- \u201cThe TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) of legacy systems is very high\u201d<\/a><\/li>\n
- \u201cLegacy systems are not compatible with the Cloud\u201d<\/a><\/li>\n
- \u201cSkilled resources have become very scarce\u201d<\/a><\/li>\n
- \u201cThe younger generations are put off by these systems\u201d<\/a><\/li>\n
- \u201cIt is impossible to convert existing teams to the new ways of working\u201d<\/a><\/li>\n
- \u201cThe monolithic architecture of legacy applications is an obstacle to their evolution\u201d<\/a><\/li>\n
- \u201cNo one dares touch these ‘huge monoliths’ of 20-30,000 lines of code\u201d<\/a><\/li>\n
- \u201cLegacy applications no longer meet the needs of users\u201d<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div><\/div>\n
1. “Legacy systems can’t adapt to digital transformation”<\/h2>\n
False. This would have been true if these systems had not evolved, if they had remained locked in a closed world, cut off from the rest of the industry. Today, this is far from the case. Every day we consume services on the Web or on our smartphones that are connected to legacy systems. The most typical example for us all is our bank! Yes, as we all know it is absolutely possible to deliver a legacy system through the Cloud, and to develop web interfaces and web services for this legacy system too. From a technology standpoint these systems have become perfectly \u2018normal\u2019 and can form a natural part of your digital transformation strategy. I don\u2019t want to dwell here on all their advantages – that would be an article in itself \u2013 but security, reliability and scalability are undeniably the key strengths of the legacy platforms. Everything possible has been done to make them \u2018ordinary\u2019 and ensure they fit naturally into the overall information system. We should be careful however not to ignore all platform specifics as it is many of these that create the business value that their customers enjoy.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n2. “The continuity of legacy systems is not guaranteed by the manufacturer”<\/h2>\n
False: Even though there is now almost only one manufacturer left in this category, IBM will not be abandoning these systems any time soon, given they run 70% of the world\u2019s business transactions even today. New versions of the operating systems are released on average every two years, each with significant innovations and a comprehensive roadmap spanning the next twenty years.<\/p>\n
But the most powerful argument for their sustainability is that legacy systems remain an important source of revenue for IBM. Add to this a customer base which is uniquely and unequivocally loyal to the platform. These two factors mean that we all benefit from a perfectly stable and sustainable business model.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n3. “The TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) of legacy systems is very high”<\/h2>\n
True and False: This is clearly the case in the z\/OS mainframe world where customers are all trying, in one way or another, to reduce their consumption of “MIPS”. It is however totally false in the case of the IBM i (aka iSeries, AS\/400) world, for two main reasons:<\/p>\n
– The first is that IBM i applications have been running on “Power” machines for over 25 years, the same machines that also host Unix (AIX) and Linux applications. IBM i customers have therefore been reaping the benefits of economies of scale for a long time now. The acquisition cost is identical for each of these three operating systems.<\/p>\n
– The second is that, thanks to its unique architecture which combines both the O\/S and database manager in a fully integrated way, administration of the IBM i platform is almost child’s play. I used to call it “the operating system for dummies”, pardon me. In some SMEs, we sometimes find the accounting department doubling up as system administrator\u2026<\/p>\n
With the major economic crisis we are all facing together, it is high time to take a fresh look at our existing application assets.<\/strong><\/p>\n Many companies are still convinced that they have to replace their legacy platform, along with all the applications running on it. Most business leaders have at some point dreamt of having a cutting-edge information system, driving their company\u2019s performance and always flexible to their changing business needs. Many of these companies blessed with the financial means to do so have embarked on reengineering or replacement projects of titanic proportions. Some of them – after taking their organization through deep and costly transformations and consuming considerable resources over the years – have finally succeeded in \u2018crossing the Rubicon\u2019. The vast majority however have decided to stop and reconsider, realizing that the original investment required has been largely underestimated and that if they continue on the same course they could risk putting their entire business in jeopardy.<\/p>\n With a potential economic crisis looming, these massive “works in progress” will inevitably be put under some scrutiny. Would it not make better business sense to reinvest in existing assets rather than replace everything? And most importantly, to consider options which lessen the risk involved? In these uncertain times, it is important to question whether a replacement is really essential \u2013 but before feeling comfortable with what on face value may seem like a strategic U-turn, we need to look inwards and ask ourselves a different question. Why were we so sure in the first place that everything needed to be replaced\u202f? Apart from the fact that our ecosystem naturally leads us to over-consume, it is clear that most of the time, the decision to replace a system is based on a relatively cursory assessment and a number of “myths” or preconceived ideas. As soon as we accept that these are the main cause of our strategic misdirection, we can put our emotions to one side and take a critical look at each of these ideas.<\/p>\n In this article we will examine the ten most common preconceptions about legacy systems.<\/p>\n<\/div> False. This would have been true if these systems had not evolved, if they had remained locked in a closed world, cut off from the rest of the industry. Today, this is far from the case. Every day we consume services on the Web or on our smartphones that are connected to legacy systems. The most typical example for us all is our bank! Yes, as we all know it is absolutely possible to deliver a legacy system through the Cloud, and to develop web interfaces and web services for this legacy system too. From a technology standpoint these systems have become perfectly \u2018normal\u2019 and can form a natural part of your digital transformation strategy. I don\u2019t want to dwell here on all their advantages – that would be an article in itself \u2013 but security, reliability and scalability are undeniably the key strengths of the legacy platforms. Everything possible has been done to make them \u2018ordinary\u2019 and ensure they fit naturally into the overall information system. We should be careful however not to ignore all platform specifics as it is many of these that create the business value that their customers enjoy.<\/p>\n False: Even though there is now almost only one manufacturer left in this category, IBM will not be abandoning these systems any time soon, given they run 70% of the world\u2019s business transactions even today. New versions of the operating systems are released on average every two years, each with significant innovations and a comprehensive roadmap spanning the next twenty years.<\/p>\n But the most powerful argument for their sustainability is that legacy systems remain an important source of revenue for IBM. Add to this a customer base which is uniquely and unequivocally loyal to the platform. These two factors mean that we all benefit from a perfectly stable and sustainable business model.<\/p>\n True and False: This is clearly the case in the z\/OS mainframe world where customers are all trying, in one way or another, to reduce their consumption of “MIPS”. It is however totally false in the case of the IBM i (aka iSeries, AS\/400) world, for two main reasons:<\/p>\n – The first is that IBM i applications have been running on “Power” machines for over 25 years, the same machines that also host Unix (AIX) and Linux applications. IBM i customers have therefore been reaping the benefits of economies of scale for a long time now. The acquisition cost is identical for each of these three operating systems.<\/p>\n – The second is that, thanks to its unique architecture which combines both the O\/S and database manager in a fully integrated way, administration of the IBM i platform is almost child’s play. I used to call it “the operating system for dummies”, pardon me. In some SMEs, we sometimes find the accounting department doubling up as system administrator\u2026<\/p>\nSummary<\/h2>\n
\n
1. “Legacy systems can’t adapt to digital transformation”<\/h2>\n
2. “The continuity of legacy systems is not guaranteed by the manufacturer”<\/h2>\n
3. “The TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) of legacy systems is very high”<\/h2>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.arcadsoftware.fr\/arcad\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/Photo-Arcad-Philippe-Magne.png\" "\\"Photo")
<\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div>