1. Essential knowledge belongs to one person
If only one developer or power user understands deployments, calculations, corrections, and recovery steps, an absence can become an operational incident. Documentation helps, but it must describe real behavior and dependencies—not just installation instructions.
2. Small changes have unpredictable consequences
A request that appears local triggers regressions elsewhere because responsibilities are tangled and test coverage is thin. Teams respond by avoiding change, which allows manual workarounds and unmet needs to accumulate.
3. Reports require recurring manual correction
Manual adjustments may signal unreliable queries, source-data inconsistencies, hidden rules, or a reporting process that no longer fits operations. The correction itself often becomes an undocumented part of the system.
4. Recovery depends on memory
Fragile deployments, uncertain backups, workstation-specific files, and undocumented job sequences make failures longer and riskier. A system that works today may still lack a defensible recovery path.
5. Management cannot compare the options
When leaders cannot estimate the consequences of stabilizing, modernizing, or replacing the system, the missing ingredient is usually a factual baseline. An assessment should inventory dependencies, business rules, data, reporting, risks, and realistic transition paths.
The objective is not to label every old system obsolete. It is to make the current risk visible enough that the organization can choose and sequence the right response.
- Operational and support dependencies
- Critical calculations and business rules
- Data quality and integration constraints
- Modernization options and priorities