Imagine that tomorrow, at 8:00 a. m., a critical system of the State stops working. Not a system, “secondary”, but the system: the one that supports transactions, payments, processes, sensitive, care for millions of people. There is No margin of error. There is No maintenance window is sufficient. There is No button pause.
For many CIOs and IT leaders in the public sector, the pressure is not hypothetical. Is part of everyday life.
Systems legacy —some with more than 20 or 30 years— continue to support the operation of the State. Work, yes. But each line of legacy code, each integration improvised and each dependency rigid builds up a debt silent.
A debt that does not appear in the balance sheet, but that is charged with high interest rates: slow, operational risk and experience citizen impaired.
Modernize seems urgent. But off the system is not an option.
The error that continues to cost millions
For years, the technological modernization in the public sector was raised as a heroic act: “Let's replace everything. Let's start from scratch.” The famous Big Bang.
The promise was seductive: clean architecture, modern technology, fewer patches. The reality was different. Projects that went on for years, budgets overwhelmed, internal resistance and, in many cases, new systems that were never able to completely replace the previous one.
Today we know that the problem was not the intention, but the approach. Rewrite all of a time not only it is risky: it is unnecessary to.
When modernize ceases to be destroy
In recent years, something began to change. Not for fashion, but for survival operational.
The organizations that were able to move understood a key truth: this is not to kill the legacy system, but to stop relying on him.
Here comes the Architecture Evolutionary and, in particular, a strategy as simple as it is powerful: the Strangler Fig Pattern of the strangler Fig).
The metaphor is clear. A fig tree growing around an old tree. Not knocking immediately. Surrounds him, replaced little by little, until the original tree is still necessary.
Applied to technology, the approach is similar to: new functionalities modern built around the monolithic system existing. These new layers intercept gradually, the calls, they assume specific responsibilities and reduce, step-by-step, the dependence of the old kernel.
The system continues to operate. The citizen does not notice any interruptions. The modernization progresses.
Key strategies for the IT leader public
But here is a critical point that is often overlooked.
Beyond the pattern technical, are the decisions structural that really make a difference between an attempt of modernization and transformation sustainable.
– Uncoupling: Reduce the direct dependence of databases monolithic is the first step to gain flexibility, scalability, and security. When the systems are no longer tied to a single rigid core, the change ceases to be traumatic, and it becomes possible.
– Containerization: Move it already works in environments that are modern allows reduce infrastructure costs immediatelywithout waiting years for a total replacement. Not everything should be rewritten to start generating efficiencies real.
– Culture and governance: Modernization is not just a code. Means of a logic of “keep what there is” one of continuous delivery of valuewith teams empowered, clear rules and decisions based on impact for citizens, not only in the emergency department operational.
Without this cultural change, even the best architecture ends up stagnant.
The real change is not technical
Until here, everything sounds reasonable. But there is an uncomfortable truth that the leaders of IT know it well: projects do not fail by the technology... they fail because the organization was not prepared to evolve with it.
Modernize critical systems requires governance, long-term vision and the ability to advance without putting at risk the daily operation. Requires accepting that the change does not occur in a great event, but in constant decisions, aligned, and sustained in time.
The technical debt you pay out
In the State, the technical debt is not an internal problem. It is manifested in rows, rework, waiting times and frustration of the citizens. Each system does not evolve ends shaping policies, limiting services, and slowing down decisions. For that reason, to speak of modernization is not just about YOU. Is to speak of institutional trust.
The good news is that we do not need to stop the train in order to improve it. We need intelligent engineering, strategic vision and a roadmap that allows modernize in motion. That is what that difference to the organizations that survive from the ones that really move.
A final thought for IT leaders
The question is no longer if we must modernize. Nor is it what technology to use.
The key question is: how to reduce technical debt without compromising the service to the citizen?
This is where strategy is more important than the tool.
If your entity is evaluating how to address the technical debt without disrupting critical operations, in Softmanagement we accompany processes of modernization progressive designed for environments where “off the system” is not an option.
Talking from the strategy: jbeltran@softmanagement.com.co