Perhaps the most noticeable shift has been towards the "less is more" philosophy. That is, rather than trying to take all of the data that's available, or that the business users say they need, there is a push back to reduce the amount of data migrated between systems. In my opinion this is a good thing - not migrating data that isn't required should remove complexity, decrease cost and time lines and, perhaps most significantly, reduce the risk of unexpected problems leading to delays and cost blowouts. For me there are a number of scenarios when this approach makes a lot of sense:
- Some of the data can be shown to add no value to business operations (that is it's only required for compliance or records management requirements) AND the business users agree that this is the case;
- There have been several past restructures to business operations resulting in data which is very hard to map between different charts of account or the like;
- The cost of migrating the data is significantly higher than the value that having it available in the new system would deliver AND not migrating it does not expose the company to any significant additional risk.
- Only open balances and other current data are required for the business to operate;
- Migrating anything over and above current data introduces more cost and risk of project time overruns;
- It will be more cost effective to use alternate means (other than migrating it) to get to old data, including:
- Leaving the old system in place in a read only state;
- Leaving the old data available via a an existing data warehouse or BI solution;
- Leaving (just) the database from the legacy solution in place and having IT staff query it to service user requests.