Skip to main content

Legacy system modernisation

The instinct with an ageing codebase is to rewrite it. That is almost always the most expensive option and the one most likely to fail. We start by finding out whether it is actually necessary — and usually it is not.

Best for
Teams whose codebase has become the reason releases are slow.
Typical
Starts with a 2-week assessment

What you get

  • Two-week assessment: architecture, dependencies, security, test coverage, delivery bottlenecks
  • A written rewrite-versus-refactor recommendation, with the reasoning shown
  • A remediation plan ordered by risk and cost, not by what is most interesting
  • Framework and dependency upgrades, executed incrementally so you keep shipping
  • Cloud migration and infrastructure-as-code where it pays for itself
  • Test coverage added around the parts that change most often

When this isn’t the right fit

  • Anyone who has already decided on a full rewrite and wants someone to execute it. We will argue with you, which is not what you are buying.
  • Systems nobody in your organisation can explain and nobody has documentation for. That is an archaeology project first — we can do that, but it is scoped separately.
  • Codebases that are genuinely fine and merely unfashionable.

Questions

About legacy system modernisation

Can you work on a stack you don't normally use?

For the assessment, usually yes — architecture, dependency risk and delivery bottlenecks are largely language-independent. For the remediation itself we will tell you honestly whether we are the right team or whether you need a specialist.

Will you break things?

The assessment exists partly to find out where breakage would hurt most, and coverage goes in there first. Upgrades ship incrementally behind your existing release process rather than as one large merge.

What if the assessment says we should rewrite?

Then it says so, with the costs of both routes laid out. You are not obliged to do the rewrite with us, and the plan is yours regardless.