Strategy

Legacy systems are not the problem, how you work around them is

Legacy technology creates constraints, but the deeper complexity usually comes from the layers of workaround, duplication, and process that have grown around it over time.

Why replacing old systems rarely solves the real issue on its own, and why the more important work is understanding the operating model that has evolved to compensate for them.

24 June 20236 min read

In short

Why replacing old systems rarely solves the real issue on its own, and why the more important work is understanding the operating model that has evolved to compensate for them.

Why legacy systems get blamed so easily

It becomes the thing that needs to be replaced before anything meaningful can improve.

On the surface, that makes sense.

Older come with limitations. They are harder to change, often poorly documented, and rarely designed for how products operate today. But in my experience, the system itself is rarely the real issue.

The issue is how the organisation has adapted around it.

What creates the deepest friction is rarely the legacy system itself. It is the way the organisation has learned to work around it.

How workarounds become the real source of complexity

Over time, teams workarounds. are adjusted to compensate for gaps. Additional steps are introduced to handle . Different departments solve the same problem in slightly different ways because there is no single path that works for everyone.

Individually, those decisions make sense.

Collectively, they create complexity.

What starts as a workaround becomes the way things are done.

And that is where the problem begins to grow.

Key takeaway

The real complexity usually comes from the operating model that has evolved around the system, not from the system in isolation.

Why the problem stops looking temporary

By the time is being considered, those workarounds are deeply embedded. They are no longer seen as temporary fixes, but as part of the itself. People rely on them. are built around them. Entire workflows exist to compensate for limitations that were never properly addressed.

From the outside, it looks like a technology problem.

From the inside, it is an problem.

Why replacing the platform often changes less than expected

Replacing the does not remove that.

What often happens is that a new is introduced with the expectation that it will simplify everything. But the same are carried over. The same workarounds are rebuilt. The same inconsistencies are preserved, just implemented in a different way.

The technology changes.

The does not.

Why new systems inherit old problems

This is why new can feel just as complex as the ones they replace.

They inherit the same .

Users still have to navigate the same . Internal teams still rely on the same manual steps. still moves in fragmented ways because the underlying structure has not been challenged. What was meant to be a fresh start becomes a continuation of the same problems.

Just with a better .

What changes when you look at the operating model first

What shifts this is not replacing the first.

It is understanding everything that has formed around it.

That means looking at how work actually through the organisation. Where decisions are made. Where duplication exists. Where people are compensating for gaps that should not be there. It means identifying the workarounds, not just accepting them as part of the .

This is where the real complexity sits.

And this is where the opportunity is.

Why not everything should be carried forward

Because once those are visible, they can be challenged. Some can be removed entirely. Others can be simplified. In many cases, what looks like a limitation is actually a that has evolved unnecessarily over time.

Not everything needs to be carried forward.

Why the system should enable the model, not define it

This changes how is approached.

Instead of asking what the new needs to do, the focus shifts to how the organisation needs to operate. What should the look like if it was designed properly? Where can steps be removed? Where can ownership be clarified? Where can be introduced?

Only then does the come into play.

As an enabler, not a constraint.

What I have found is that when this work is done upfront, often become more manageable than expected. In some cases, they can even support improvements without immediate replacement, simply because the way they are being used has changed.

The pressure shifts.

It is no longer about escaping the .

It is about fixing what sits around it.

That is the part that tends to get missed.

do have limitations.

But they are rarely the reason things are not working.

It is the layers of , workarounds, and decisions that have built up over time that create the real . Until those are addressed, replacing the will not solve the problem.

It will just move it somewhere else.

LET'S WORK TOGETHER

Ready to improve your product?

UX, research and product leadership for teams tackling complex digital services. The work usually starts where things have become harder than they need to be: unclear journeys, inconsistent products, competing priorities, or teams trying to move forward without a clear direction. I help simplify the problem, shape the right next step, and turn complexity into something people can actually use.

Previous feedback

Will Parkhouse

Senior Content Designer

01/20