Posted by: Maxine Giza
when relevant content is
added and updated.
It’s a no-brainer that application modernization relies heavily on technical expertise, however, IT professionals may overlook the impact politics plays when determining how to best deal with legacy applications, according to Ovum associate analyst Margaret Goldberg.
Applications and a modernization projects don’t just affect an architecture team, but an organization as a whole. That means there are many people who can be for, or against, making any sort of modification to legacy applications. This can be a problem, as Goldberg noted that everyone within a business needs to be on the same page to get a project off the ground.
“Some people subscribe to this mentality if something isn’t broken, don’t’ fix it,” Goldberg said. “This mentality, along with the overall lack of growth in an IT budget, means some stakeholders won’t see the business value in these types of projects.”
Without a clear vision of the payoff an application modernization project, business leaders can be resistant to any related proposal. Additionally, some people get very attached to certain applications and simply don’t want the change to occur.
“There are some really passionate users who hold onto ‘zombie apps’ who don’t realize the resources and investments needed to service these applications might exceed value,” Goldberg said. This is where it’s important to be able to show business leaders how updating legacy applications is important to the organization’s financial health.
Getting modernization resistant individuals, especially if they are in a leadership role, to see the value of updating legacy applications is important, Goldberg said, because “you need to implement change management.”
Even if an application modernization project goes off error-free, Goldberg noted that means little if people are resistant to using the new tool.
Have you struggled with the politics of application modernization? How did you handle it?