The SaaSification of an application goes far beyond simply migrating to a cloud hosting provider. It involves a complete overhaul of the product, business processes, and customer experience to create a platform capable of generating recurring revenue, adapting to demand, and scaling without geographical constraints.

In a context where financial predictability and time to market make all the difference, transforming traditional software into an online service is a major competitive lever. This article details the business challenges, essential organizational and technical adaptations, as well as a pragmatic action plan to successfully execute this transition.

Why SaaSify: Business Challenges and Scalability

Moving to SaaS means shifting from a one-time sales model to a predictable recurring revenue engine. It also means offering a scalable platform that can meet growing demand without linear cost increases. Learn more about scalable platform design.

Recurring Revenue Model

One of SaaS’s main strengths lies in monthly or annual subscriptions. This system provides better visibility into future revenue and simplifies investment planning. Cash flow forecasts become more reliable, which reassures both finance teams and investors.

Unlike a perpetual licensing model where each sale generates a one-off revenue spike, SaaS establishes an ongoing relationship with the customer. Each subscription renewal becomes an opportunity to assess satisfaction, adjust the offering, and propose upsells of advanced features, thereby contributing to increased revenue per user.

Finally, the ability to adjust subscription tiers based on usage or organizational needs allows for better alignment between perceived value and the price charged.

Discuss your challenges with an Edana expert

In a digital landscape where APIs are proliferating, viewing them solely as “technical components” is a major strategic mistake. Behind each endpoint lies real economic potential, capable of generating direct revenue, fueling partnerships, or making your internal operations more efficient and scalable.

For an executive, the question is no longer “Should we expose an API?” but rather “Which value should we monetize and which model should we choose to maximize that value?” This article offers a pragmatic framework for turning your APIs into a truly profitable product by outlining the economic levers, suitable models, essential prerequisites, and the architecture to put in place for success.

APIs: A Strategic Product with High Economic Potential

APIs are not mere technical building blocks: they are fully scalable assets. Turning them into products means monetizing a capability (payment, data, business connectors…) rather than billing an isolated endpoint.

By rethinking the API as a business lever, you open new revenue streams, foster innovation, and increase your organization’s scalability.

Opening New Revenue Streams

By commercializing an API, the company offers a service to a broader scope than just its direct customers. This might include access to exclusive data, a scoring engine, or a payment feature. The business model is then based on the value delivered to the end user.

When a document-scanning API is exposed, a third-party bank can integrate this capability into its custom API integration for its online onboarding process. It pays per API call, creating direct, usage-based revenue.

Thus, the API becomes an additional channel without requiring a dedicated sales force or logistical efforts, while amplifying the reach of your technical expertise.

Creating External Ecosystems and Scalability

APIs enable you to gather a network of partners, integrators, and niche software vendors. By exposing your services through a developer portal and following the best practices for connecting your systems, you encourage the emergence of complementary solutions built on your platform.

An industrial SME unveiled a business connector API for its long-standing customers. Local integrators quickly adopted it to automate the collection of production data. This example shows that an API can become a collaboration catalyst and accelerate joint value creation.

Beyond call volume, it is the strength of the network that boosts your competitive edge and reinforces your market position.

Optimizing Internal Operations

Internal APIs, often underestimated, streamline communication between your applications and services. By standardizing exchanges, you reduce redundancy, lower maintenance costs, and increase responsiveness to business needs.

For example, centralizing authentication via a single API enables all your cloud-native applications to connect seamlessly. The marginal cost of each new deployment drops drastically, while security and traceability are enhanced.

By treating the internal API as a product, you establish a continuous improvement cycle where the product team monitors key metrics and adjusts priorities based on actual usage.

Choosing the Right Monetization Model for Your API

Each monetization model creates value in specific usage contexts. The choice of model directly relates to the nature of the API and the needs of your ecosystem.

Freemium, usage-based, subscriptions, or revenue-sharing: it’s not enough to list these options; you must understand when and for whom they work best.

Freemium to Accelerate Adoption

The freemium model offers a free access tier, often limited in volume or advanced features. It helps build a community of users and gather feedback before converting a portion into paying customers.

For a geolocation API, offering a free monthly quota encourages developers to integrate quickly, then upgrade for higher volumes during the MVP, POC, or prototype phase. The transition to paid becomes natural once the value is proven.

This approach maximizes rapid adoption and strengthens your reputation among developers, who become your best ambassadors.

Usage-Based for High-Intensity Services

Pay-as-you-go charges for each call, transaction, or request. This model is particularly suited to messaging, payment, or real-time data APIs, where usage varies according to seasonality or client growth.

A young fintech adopted this model for its instant payment API. Fluctuating call volumes aligned with online sales periods generated proportional revenue, without overcommitting smaller players during testing phases. This strategy draws inspiration from third-party APIs in the financial sector.

Usage-based pricing ensures an exact match between user cost and obtained value, while offering flexibility.

Subscriptions, Revenue-Sharing, and Internal Monetization

Subscription plans or tiered pricing provide financial predictability and suit business-oriented APIs with steady monthly usage. You set quota limits and a fixed price per tier.

Revenue-sharing applies when the API is involved in a transaction (marketplaces, finance). You take a percentage of each processed operation, aligning your revenue with client performance.

To structure these models, you can rely on a business model canvas tailored to your APIs.

Finally, internal monetization does not necessarily mean direct billing: you can measure and highlight cost savings, deployment speed, or process standardization to justify the investment.

{CTA_BANNER_BLOG_POST}

Assess Your API’s Maturity Before Monetization

Monetizing an API too early exposes you to financial and reputational risks. It’s essential to evaluate your API’s technical, functional, and organizational maturity.

Stability, documentation, security, observability, and automated billing capabilities are the pillars of a revenue-ready API.

Stability and Quality of the API

An unstable API or one subject to frequent non–backward-compatible changes undermines integrator and customer trust. SLAs, automated tests, and clear versioning are indispensable. For illustration, consult the risks of your production systems and the methods to avoid them.

Ensuring stability before monetization prevents costly downtime and protects your reputation.

Security, Access Control, and Documentation

Fine-grained access control (OAuth2, API keys), encryption, and regular audits guarantee partner trust. Clear, versioned documentation with examples simplifies integration and reduces support overhead. To learn more, discover how to ensure data security with your enterprise software.

Without this, clients quickly abandon the trial, and support becomes a time and resource sink.

A well-documented and secure API fosters adoption and justifies premium pricing.

Observability and Billing Support

User-level metrics, centralized log collection, and anomaly alerts are the foundation for fair and scalable billing. Without observability, you cannot detect abuse or adjust your pricing model in real time.

An API monetized without observability is not viable: the infrastructure risks being undersized, and customers will be dissatisfied.

Backing Monetization with a Professional API Exposure Architecture

Monetizing an API requires more than a simple exposed web server. You need a robust exposure system capable of handling authentication, quotas, billing, and security.

The modern API Gateway is at the heart of this exposure architecture, supported by advanced observability and a decision framework based on user value, granularity, and marginal cost.

Advanced Observability to Guide Pricing

Collecting detailed metrics (response times, data volumes, error rates) per user or application helps identify high-value usage and adoption trends.

These insights inform plan adjustments, abuse prevention, and the identification of new monetization opportunities (add-ons, overage tiers).

Without observability, pricing remains speculative and risks penalizing your best customers or exposing your infrastructure to unforeseen costs.

API Gateway: The Technical Foundation for Monetization

A professional API Gateway ensures advanced authentication, rate limiting, quota management, versioning, and automated billing. It integrates with a developer portal for key management and monitoring.

Choosing a modular open-source solution avoids vendor lock-in and guarantees flexibility and scalability. The API Gateway becomes the single point of control and governance for your API ecosystem.

This component reduces risks, enhances security, and simplifies implementing differentiated service-level agreements for different clients.

Key Questions to Decide on the Monetization Model

To formalize your choice, consider three questions: What value does the API deliver to the user (cost savings, time, reliability)? Which consumption granularity is most predictable (calls, transactions, data volume)? What is the marginal cost of each unit of service?

Answering these questions allows you to align your pricing with the value created and ensure your model remains viable as usage grows.

Taking this structured approach avoids unpleasant surprises and aligns your API’s economic performance with your strategic goals.

Turn Your APIs into a Driver of Profitable Growth

Properly productized, secured, and measured APIs become a sustainable asset and a hard-to-imitate competitive advantage. By choosing the right monetization model, carefully preparing their technical maturity, and deploying a professional exposure architecture, you optimize revenue and streamline your ecosystem.

Integrating these best practices allows a company to shift from perceived cost to revenue engine, build strong partnerships, and support sustainable growth.

Our experts are available to help you define a tailored API strategy, from maturity assessment to billing and API Gateway implementation.

Discuss your challenges with an Edana expert

Since the advent of AI and no-code platforms, the traditional trade-off between buying or building software is no longer limited to cost or time considerations. Hybrid options and AI-assisted development tools now offer new ways to design highly customized digital services.

Yet this apparent ease does not eliminate the need for a finely tuned strategic analysis. It remains crucial to define the desired level of control, differentiation, and long-term viability for each software component. Faced with the proliferation of SaaS solutions and code-generation tools, organizations must rethink their approach to turn their IT ecosystem into an evolving, secure asset. In this article, we explore the build vs buy dilemma—its stakes, limitations, and opportunities—to guide IT and operational decision-makers.

New Criteria for the Build vs Buy Trade-Off

Traditional cost and time criteria are no longer sufficient to choose between buying and building. AI and no-code have rewritten the rules of the game, offering new options to address business needs.

Shifting Financial and Time-to-Market Considerations

Until recently, the build vs buy decision primarily hinged on financial projections and time-to-market imperatives. Multiyear development cost estimates guided whether to adopt an off-the-shelf solution or develop internally. Technical risk was deemed high, and rapid deployment was a decisive factor.

Today, no-code platforms and AI-assisted code generators have reduced application development costs and delivery times. Development cycles can be shortened by months, and SaaS licensing budgets can sometimes exceed in-house development expenses. This shift fundamentally changes the nature of the decision.

However, lowering financial and time barriers should not overshadow the need for a holistic perspective. It remains essential to anticipate governance, integration with the existing IT landscape, and the ability to evolve the solution over time without incurring excessive technical debt.

The Impact of AI and No-Code on Decision-Making

Generative AI accelerates code writing and software component creation, while no-code platforms empower business users to prototype workflows without involving IT. This synergy provides unprecedented agility for testing concepts and obtaining rapid feedback.

For IT teams, the challenge is now to oversee and structure these AI and no-code initiatives. It is necessary to establish quality, security, and interoperability standards to prevent “shadow IT” proliferation and ensure the coherence of the digital ecosystem.

Concrete Example: Accelerated Deployment with a Low-Code Solution

A mid-sized insurance company deployed a claims management tool on a low-code platform to comply with new regulations. Initial features were live in under six weeks, compared to the four months expected with a traditional approach.

This project demonstrated that AI-assisted and no-code development could cut time-to-market by nearly 60%, while still providing enough customization to address industry-specific requirements. Teams focused on business logic rather than technical configuration.

However, this example also highlights the importance of defining an evolution and maintenance roadmap from the outset, ensuring the tool remains aligned with the broader IT ecosystem and can accommodate new use cases without a full redevelopment.

Buying Software: Benefits, Trade-Offs, and Risks

Acquiring a packaged solution promises rapid deployment and outsourced maintenance. However, this approach may require functional compromises and create dependency on the vendor’s roadmap.

Fast Time-to-Market and Built-In Best Practices

SaaS solutions are designed for deployment in days or weeks, with standardized business processes and preconfigured settings. They embed industry best practices, providing a robust, proven functional foundation.

Maintenance, security updates, and technical support are typically included, reducing the operational burden on the IT department. Internal teams can then focus on user adoption and workflow optimization rather than infrastructure management.

Nevertheless, this approach still requires an analysis of existing processes. It is important to confirm that the standard workflows cover core needs and to plan any necessary adaptations or add-ons before the solution goes live.

Vendor Dependency and Hidden Costs

Once the tool is in production, its functional evolution depends entirely on the vendor’s priorities. Specific requirements or innovative requests may remain in the backlog if they do not align with the vendor’s public roadmap.

Moreover, recurring license fees, add-on modules, and professional services (integration, training, advanced support) can quickly inflate the total cost of ownership. Some expenses are often underestimated during initial budgeting.

Finally, system interfaces, data migration, and extensive customizations can incur significant additional costs, even when the offering appears “all-inclusive.”

Concrete Example: License Proliferation in a Public Organization

A public agency adopted multiple SaaS tools sequentially to manage HR, finance, and compliance processes. Each new tool was deployed swiftly, but annual licensing costs doubled over three years without a clear consolidation plan.

This situation revealed only partial functional alignment, leading to ad-hoc interface development and an array of support contracts. External maintenance fees eventually consumed a growing portion of the IT budget.

The example underscores the need for centralized software procurement governance to avoid license fragmentation and plan a coherent architecture rather than accumulating disparate solutions without an overarching strategy.

{CTA_BANNER_BLOG_POST}

Custom Development: Alignment, Control, and Challenges

In-house development enables full alignment with business processes and control over future changes. But it requires robust governance and a long-term vision to avoid common pitfalls.

Advantages of Full Alignment with Business Processes

Custom software perfectly mirrors internal process maps, with no workarounds or unnecessary layers. It supports precise workflow modeling and targeted automation of critical tasks.

Data ownership remains complete, from collection to reporting, without reliance on proprietary formats. This sovereignty is especially vital for regulated sectors or those with stringent compliance requirements.

Finally, deep customization creates a sustainable competitive edge, protecting the organization from imitation and off-the-shelf solutions. It is a strategic lever for differentiating high-value services.

Requirements for Durability and Maintainability

Building enterprise software demands modular architecture, automated testing, and thorough documentation from the design phase. Without these foundations, maintenance quickly becomes a bottleneck.

Governance must allocate a dedicated budget and resources for continuous evolution, including for use cases not envisioned initially. A cross-functional steering committee can ensure alignment among IT leadership, business units, and external partners.

It is also crucial to prioritize open-source, modular technologies to minimize vendor lock-in and preserve the freedom to evolve or migrate the software without prohibitive costs.

Concrete Example: Success of a Custom Tool in the Watchmaking Industry

A Swiss SME in the watchmaking sector developed a production-tracking application integrated with its existing ERP. The tool was designed from the outset to accommodate production line changes and international regulatory requirements.

Thanks to an extensible architecture and automated testing, each new version was deployed without service interruption or a spike in bugs. The software has become a strategic asset, continuously refined through a long-term partnership.

This case shows that a well-governed custom project can deliver lasting operational advantages and avoid productivity-hampering disruptions.

Crafting a Hybrid Strategy for a Resilient Ecosystem

Neither full buying nor full building is a one-size-fits-all solution. A hybrid approach delivers the best of both worlds, anchored in modular architecture and adaptive governance.

Identifying Components to Buy vs Build

Start by mapping core functionalities common across industries versus differentiating features unique to your business. Standard modules often address transversal needs (CRM, accounting, HR) efficiently.

Designing a Modular, Scalable Architecture

A microservices or API-first approach facilitates integration of third-party components, whether open source, commercial, or custom. Each service can evolve independently according to business priorities.

Modularity reduces the scope of changes and testing, limiting system-wide impacts. It also simplifies upgrades and technology migrations without full rebuilds.

Moreover, using containers and CI/CD pipelines ensures environment reproducibility and deployment speed, while maintaining version and configuration traceability.

Implementing Agile Software Governance

Governance should rest on a steering committee comprising IT leadership, business stakeholders, and architects. Regular reviews ensure evolution consistency and adherence to security and performance standards.

It is advisable to establish a best-practices repository, including buy vs build decision criteria, API levels, and code quality standards. This reference guides all projects.

Finally, ongoing technology watch allows rapid identification of opportunities to update or replace components, preventing technical debt accumulation and vendor lock-in.

Choose Your Strategic Mix to Transform Your IT Ecosystem

The buy vs build decision extends beyond budgetary or technical trade-offs. It shapes control levels, innovation capacity, and the durability of your digital architecture. Packaged solutions accelerate deployment, while custom development delivers strong differentiation—provided governance is solid. A hybrid approach combines standard modules with tailored development to build a modular, secure ecosystem.

Whatever path you choose, rigorous analysis of needs, risks, and long-term impact is essential. Our experts are available to help you identify which components to buy, build, or adapt, and to structure your software strategy so it remains an asset, not a liability.

Discuss your challenges with an Edana expert

In SaaS development, the choice of multi-tenancy is too often reduced to a matter of technical configuration. Yet it is above all an economic model, a matter of customer segmentation, and operational governance. Multi-tenant architecture shapes your offerings, defines your pricing strategy, influences your infrastructure costs, and determines your ability to diversify services according to user profiles. A poor initial decision leads to a heavy technical and commercial debt that stifles innovation and undermines profitability.

Before analyzing databases or containers, it’s essential to design your SaaS from a business-architecture perspective that aligns with your growth and customization objectives.

Economic Benefits of Multi-Tenant SaaS

Intelligent resource pooling is the key advantage of multi-tenancy, far beyond merely reducing the number of servers. The true benefit lies in the ability to standardize updates, unify monitoring, and spread costs across all customers.

Resource Pooling and Economies of Scale

By centralizing multiple customers on a single application and infrastructure instance, hosting costs are shared and optimized. The initial investment in a robust platform becomes more cost-effective as your user base grows.

Software licenses, CPU resources, and storage are shared, diluting the per-customer cost. This approach is particularly suited to fast-growing businesses that need to absorb increasing load without multiplying production servers.

Pooling also makes it easier to negotiate preferential rates with hosting providers or database vendors, since resource volumes are higher and more stable over time.

Simplified Updates and Operations

A well-designed multi-tenant platform streamlines the deployment of new versions because only one application instance is involved. Testing, patch validation, and rollback occur centrally, reducing the risk of errors across divergent environments.

DevOps teams can automate CI/CD pipelines for all customers, ensuring functional consistency and security. Centralized operations cut deployment time and accelerate time-to-market for each new feature.

Unified operations reduce maintenance costs and free up resources for innovation rather than managing multiple isolated environments.

Scalability and Unified Monitoring

The linear scalability of a multi-tenant architecture relies on adding resources or compute nodes without altering the application structure. Traffic spikes are handled more easily, delivering a stable user experience for all customers.

Centralized monitoring—whether for SQL performance, application latency, or memory usage—provides an aggregated view segmented by customer. This makes anomaly detection and dynamic quota adjustment straightforward.

A metrics-driven platform allows you to optimize capacity and anticipate future needs, ensuring controlled and manageable growth.

Isolation Trade-Offs and SaaS Customization

Tenant isolation level isn’t just a technical parameter but a strategic choice that shapes your pricing model and SLA commitments. It also determines your ability to meet regulatory requirements in sensitive industries and to manage noisy-neighbor risks.

Silo Isolation versus Shared Pool

Silo isolation allocates a dedicated instance (VM or cluster) to each customer, guaranteeing complete separation. It addresses stringent needs in finance or healthcare, where confidentiality is paramount.

By contrast, pooling shares resources within a common infrastructure, suitable for SMEs with controlled budgets and standard functional requirements.

The choice between silo and pool directly affects pricing. Customers with critical needs will pay a premium for strict isolation, while those with lighter usage will accept a shared environment at lower cost.

Bridge Approach and Tiered Isolation

The bridge approach offers a compromise: customers share an application instance but have separate databases or containers. This balances security with economies of scale.

Tiered isolation segments subscriptions into levels, each with increasing isolation—from a basic shared instance to a dedicated environment for large enterprise accounts.

This granularity lets you finely tune offerings to commercial expectations and budgets while maintaining overall technical coherence.

Impact on Pricing and Risk Management

Isolation influences SLA definitions: uptime guarantees, response times, and premium support levels are calibrated according to environment type. Commitments are higher for dedicated instances.

From a risk perspective, an incident in a siloed environment doesn’t affect others, whereas in a shared pool, a consumption spike or DDoS attack can impact all users.

Regulatory compliance (GDPR, ISO standards, fintech directives) may make strict isolation mandatory. However, a bridge or tiered model can still be viable when parts of customer data are isolated without multiplying entire environments.

Data Models for Multi-Tenant SaaS

The choice of data model is crucial for scalability and ease of future migration. Each approach—one database per tenant, single schema, sharding, or containers—entails trade-offs in operational complexity and noisy-neighbor risk.

One Database per Tenant and Noisy-Neighbor Risks

Allocating a separate database for each customer simplifies volume growth management and targeted backups. Performance isn’t impacted by other tenants’ queries.

However, this strategy requires advanced orchestration for provisioning and maintenance, and can become costly at scale due to the number of databases to manage.

The noisy-neighbor risk is virtually nil since resources are physically separated. This can justify a premium price for performance- and reliability-sensitive customers.

Single Schema and Scalability Constraints

Using a shared table schema reduces the number of instances to maintain and fully leverages database resources.

This approach demands an application layer capable of strictly filtering data per tenant and enforcing logical partitioning.

Migrating to a more granular model then becomes complex.

Sharding and Containers: Flexibility and Complexity

Sharding distributes multiple tenants’ data across several nodes, enabling horizontal scalability. Each shard can be dynamically added based on growth.

Containers (Docker, Kubernetes) facilitate automated deployment and scaling of these shards but introduce an extra orchestration and monitoring layer.

This solution is powerful for high-volume platforms, but operational overhead and support costs can rise quickly. Such an architecture must be justified by significant traffic and data volume.

Example of a Sharded Migration

A tech startup launched with a single schema to accelerate time-to-market. After two years, rapid growth caused bottlenecks and significant slowdowns during peak periods. Migrating to a sharded model took six months and a substantial budget, demonstrating that delaying scalability considerations can cost more than upfront design.

Common Mistakes, Key Questions, and Multi-Tenant Governance

The costliest mistakes often stem from premature customization, insufficient monitoring, or post-production patching. A successful approach relies on a clear strategic framework and a governance system that treats multi-tenancy as a living ecosystem.

Common Design Mistakes in Multi-Tenancy

Rushing to implement business variations complicates maintainability. Specific developments eventually create code branches that are hard to reconcile during updates.

Lack of tenant-level observability prevents quick identification of the customer behind a consumption spike or systemic error. This delays resolution and affects service quality.

Ignoring infrastructure limits (IOPS, CPU bursts, cloud quotas) can lead to performance incidents and unexpected overages during scaling phases.

Questions to Address Before Design

What are your target customers’ exact profiles and their tolerance for downtime or performance fluctuations? The answer directly guides isolation levels and SLA requirements.

To what degree must your offerings allow customization without compromising the ability to deploy a standardized version? Excessive customization rights can kill scalability.

How will you segment subscriptions and set usage limits per tenant (CPU, storage, queries) to ensure transparent billing and anticipate growth?

{CTA_BANNER_BLOG_POST}

Multi-Tenant Architecture as a Growth Engine

Designing a successful multi-tenant SaaS goes beyond technical choices; it results from business trade-offs around isolation, scalability, customization, and pricing. Every decision made upfront directly impacts your costs, innovation capacity, and market positioning.

Our experts can help you structure your platform as a living ecosystem, combining open source, modularity, and agile governance. Together, let’s develop a multi-tenant strategy aligned with your growth ambitions and customer requirements.

Discuss your challenges with an Edana expert

The success of a software project depends as much on the accuracy of its estimation as on the quality of its code. Yet budgets and schedules often slip, not due to a lack of technical skills, but because of cognitive biases that persist during evaluation phases.

Excessive optimism, anchoring to imposed objectives, or confusing averages with actual outcomes complete the vicious circle. To ensure a realistic outlook, it is essential to understand these mechanisms and adopt an analytical, structured approach. Decision-makers and IT leaders will find pragmatic insights here to identify, measure, and reduce these biases in order to align resources, scope, and deadlines.

The Cognitive Biases That Skew Initial Estimates

Excessive optimism leads to minimizing the real complexity and risks of a project. Anchoring to overly ambitious targets unconsciously influences initial estimates.

Excessive Optimism and Underestimating Uncertainties

Many teams assume that each phase will proceed without major hiccups. This belief underestimates the probability of delays, revision requirements, or additional testing. Integration tests, for example, are often shortened to meet an “ideal” schedule.

When multiple sub-teams work in isolation, optimism sustains the illusion that little coordination is needed. In reality, unforeseen communication issues, versioning conflicts, or technical dependencies can emerge. This gap between expectations and reality cumulatively shifts the timeline.

Example: A logistics company planned to develop a tracking module with a six-week schedule. Ignoring the delays caused by API integration tests, it ultimately extended the project by over 50%, resulting in a three-month delay. This illustrates how an optimistic estimate can quickly turn a controlled project into a runaway effort.

Anchoring to Management-Imposed Targets

When a deadline or budget is set before a requirements analysis, estimates are often tweaked to fit those constraints. This political framing can hide significant gaps from on-the-ground reality. Under pressure, developers tend to propose figures that first satisfy managerial expectations.

This anchoring effect prevents a candid assessment of tasks and encourages a “quick-fix” mentality to meet artificial deadlines. Teams may resort to superficial technical solutions, generating technical debt or repeated patches.

Over time, the pressure of these rigid targets erodes the IT department’s credibility with executive management. Systematic variances between estimated and actual outcomes ultimately undermine mutual trust and overall project governance.

Disproportionate Trust in Individual Experience

Relying solely on one expert’s judgement, without cross-checking opinions or historical data, can distort estimates. Even a seasoned professional is subject to memory biases or idealized recollections. The Dunning-Kruger effect may also amplify self-confidence.

Some organizations fail to compare past estimates with actual results. This lack of feedback prevents learning and leads to repeating the same mistakes. The cumulative discrepancies then become structural.

To limit this bias, it is recommended to systematically document each project: actual durations, incurred costs, and encountered challenges. This repository of historical data will temper individual experience with a more factual approach.

Limitations of Traditional Estimation Methods

Analogy-based methods, expert judgment, or agile velocity remain useful but insufficient on their own. Without a rigorous framework and reliable data, they become sources of major errors.

Analogy-Based Estimation: The Illusion of Repeatability

Analogy-based estimation refers to a past project deemed similar. This approach assumes the new initiative will share the same conditions, which is rarely the case. Each business, technical, or organizational context has its own specificities.

Neglecting differences in scope or complexity inevitably underestimates the required time. Moreover, technological advancements and changes in processes can significantly alter the effort needed.

Example: A financial services firm based an estimate on an internal CRM project completed two years earlier. New compliance requirements and external API integrations were not accounted for, leading to a nearly 30% budget overrun and a four-month production delay.

Expert Judgment: When Intuition Replaces Analysis

Expert judgment relies on the intuition of experienced practitioners. It can be deployed quickly but often lacks traceability and quantitative justification. An expert may prioritize certain tasks deemed critical or overlook ancillary activities.

This lack of granularity prevents identifying risk areas and objectively documenting assumptions. Consequently, decision-making becomes opaque and budget tracking complex.

To mitigate these limitations, it is preferable to combine expert judgment with parametric models or scenario simulations. This triangulation strengthens the robustness and transparency of the estimate.

Agile Velocity and Overextrapolation

Agile velocity measures the number of story points completed per iteration. It becomes risky when linearly extrapolated to estimate an entire project. Productivity can vary depending on the nature of the user stories, unforeseen issues, and maintenance effort.

The assumption of stable velocity ignores ramp-up effects, onboarding new team members, and increasing complexity in later phases. It also fails to account for accumulated technical debt.

Without periodic recalibration mechanisms, this method degrades into a mere mathematical projection, detached from real-world variability. Variances then widen as early as the second sprint month.

{CTA_BANNER_BLOG_POST}

Adopt an Analytical Framework to Solidify Estimates

A structured estimation process, based on explicit assumptions and risk measurements, limits slippage. Parametric models and continuous monitoring allow effort adjustments throughout the project.

Structure Assumptions and Quantify Risks

The first step is to formalize each assumption: development time, available resources, technical complexity, and testing.

It is also crucial to assess the impact of uncertainties by assigning a risk percentage to each item. For example, you might add a 15% buffer for security and compliance activities on critical projects.

Example: An e-commerce platform introduced a table of assumptions and risks for each feature. This approach made it possible to visualize the financial impact of potential delays, negotiate mitigations, and reduce budget drift by 20%.

Use Parametric Models to Objectify Costs

Parametric models use formulas based on measured metrics (lines of code, module complexity, number of APIs). They generate standardized and traceable estimates.

These models must be calibrated with the organization’s own historical data. When internal databases lack reliability, you can turn to industry benchmarks adjusted for context.

By regularly comparing parametric estimates with actuals, variances are quickly identified and coefficients adjusted. This method transforms estimation into an evolving, measurable process.

Continuous Update and Recalibration Loops

Unlike a “fixed-number” approach, estimates should be reviewed at each project milestone. Periodic reviews compare forecasts with actual performance.

At each revision, collect performance data: velocity, hours spent per task, quality feedback, and incidents. These indicators feed the parametric model and refine future projections.

Thanks to these feedback loops, the snowball effect is avoided and real-time control is maintained. Contingency margins are recalculated regularly, providing greater flexibility and reliability.

Establish a Data-Driven Culture and Dedicated Governance

Documenting estimation data and analyzing variances reinforce the quality of future projects. Formal reviews and clear metrics foster transparent, high-performance governance.

Systematic Collection and Archiving of Metrics

For every project, record key elements: date, mobilized resources, story points, actual time spent, and major events. This information should be centralized in an accessible repository.

This database becomes the primary source for calibrating future projects and gradually reducing biases.

Indicators can include productivity measures, incident counts, and business satisfaction scores. These metrics round out the efficiency profile and guide internal process improvements.

Estimation Reviews and Regular Steering Committees

Formal review sessions bring together the IT department, business stakeholders, and project managers. These committees aim to validate assumptions, assess risks, and prioritize decisions.

By holding reviews monthly or at each major milestone, you ensure close monitoring. Every decision, negotiation, or scope change is documented and traceable.

This governance model provides executive management with visibility, builds confidence, and enables prompt risk detection. It structures decision-making and prevents uncontrolled trade-offs.

Integrate Uncertainty Management and Safety Margins

Managing uncertainty means integrating calibrated buffers according to project maturity and feature criticality. These reserves can be technical, temporal, or budgetary.

You can also create pessimistic, realistic, and optimistic scenarios. These projections help visualize each choice’s financial and time implications.

By anticipating possible variations, you strengthen the plan’s resilience and avoid panic when issues arise. This practice turns uncertainty into a governed element rather than a constant threat.

Master Your Estimates to Turn Projects into Success

Awareness of cognitive biases and the implementation of a structured estimation process are essential to avoid budget and schedule overruns. By combining hypothesis formalization, parametric models, and continuous metric tracking, organizations enhance the reliability of their forecasts. A dedicated governance model—anchored in regular reviews and data archiving—transforms estimation into a true performance lever.

Our experts are available to help you implement these best practices, tailor your methods, and support your organization’s maturity. Benefit from a personalized assessment to secure your next estimates and manage your projects with confidence.

Discuss your challenges with an Edana expert

In an environment where many Swiss companies still rely on outdated and deeply intertwined business applications, modernizing the application ecosystem without disrupting production represents a major strategic challenge.

It is not just about rewriting code, but about understanding the interconnections between services, data, and processes to avoid any operational break. A progressive approach, based on rigorous analysis and precise mapping, ensures a smooth transition while leveraging new API-first and cloud architectures. This article guides you step by step through a proven legacy migration method, guaranteeing data security, operational continuity, and future scalability.

Analyze Dependencies and Map the Existing Environment

A detailed understanding of the scope and dependencies is the indispensable first step. Without this clear vision, any migration risks causing interruptions and cost overruns.

Comprehensive Inventory of Systems and Components

Before planning any migration, a thorough inventory of applications, databases, interfaces, and automated scripts must be carried out. This step includes identifying versions, programming languages, and frameworks in use. It enables the detection of obsolete components and the assessment of their criticality.

Documentation may be partial or missing, especially for systems developed several decades ago. It is common to uncover hidden business processes or scripts that run autonomously on the database. These artifacts must be listed and documented to avoid side effects during the migration.

The inventory also quantifies the volume of data to migrate and the interfaces to support. It forms the basis for a batch-based plan, distinguishing high-risk modules from low-impact ones. This categorization facilitates work prioritization and the definition of intermediate objectives.

Functional Mapping and Interconnections

A functional map links business capabilities to underlying technical components. It allows you to visualize how each module feeds critical processes, such as order management or production tracking. This global view is essential for defining the sequences to be preserved.

Cross-dependencies, often unsuspected, are frequently the source of bottlenecks. For example, a notification service may invoke a billing microservice to retrieve data. If this interconnection is not identified, the migration may trigger a cascade of errors.

Analyzing existing workflows makes it possible to isolate critical sequences and plan targeted tests. With sequence diagrams or dependency graphs, the project team can simulate the flow of operations and anticipate potential weak points.

Risk Assessment and Technical Lock-Ins

Once the inventory and mapping are complete, each component is evaluated along two axes: business impact (availability requirement, transaction volume) and technical complexity (obsolete language, lack of tests). This dual classification assigns a risk level and establishes a priority score.

Challenges related to vendor lock-in, missing documentation, or proprietary technologies must be identified. They justify the implementation of mitigation strategies, such as creating wrappers or extracting intermediate services.

Example: An industrial services company discovered that a production planning module depended on a component unmaintained for ten years, creating significant technical debt. The risk assessment revealed significant technical lock-in, leading to isolating this module into a temporary microservice before any migration. This example illustrates the importance of splitting environments to limit regressions.

Define a Tailored Incremental Migration Strategy

Rather than considering a “big-bang” migration, a phased or module-based approach minimizes risks and spreads financial effort. Each phase is calibrated to validate results before proceeding to the next.

Phased Migration and Batch Breakdown

Phased migration involves identifying independent functional blocks and migrating them one at a time. This method delivers quick wins on less critical features and leverages lessons learned for subsequent phases. This approach aligns with proven software development methodologies.

After each batch, a quality and technical review is conducted: data validation, performance tests, and interface verification. If anomalies are detected, a remediation plan is deployed before moving on.

Batch division often follows business criteria, for example: first human resources management, then billing, and finally production modules. This prioritization ensures that key processes are migrated last, thereby reducing operational impact.

Replatforming vs. Refactoring and Lift-and-Shift

Replatforming involves moving an application to a new infrastructure without modifying its code, whereas refactoring entails partial rewriting to improve quality and modularity. The choice depends on technical debt and budget constraints. For insights, read our article on modernizing legacy software.

Lift-and-shift is relevant when the urgency of migrating the environment outweighs code optimization. It can serve as a first step, followed by progressive refactoring to eliminate technical debt.

Each option is evaluated based on cost, expected maintenance savings, and the ability to integrate new technologies (cloud, AI). A hybrid strategy often combines these approaches according to the context of each module.

Temporary Coexistence and Data Synchronization

Maintaining two systems in parallel for a controlled period ensures operational continuity. A bidirectional data synchronization mechanism prevents disruptions and allows testing of the new module without affecting the old one.

ETL jobs (Extract, Transform, Load) or API middleware can handle this synchronization. With each transaction, data are duplicated and harmonized across both environments.

The coexistence period starts with low volumes, then scales up until the final cutover is deemed safe. This parallel operation offers a buffer to adjust flows and resolve incidents before decommissioning the legacy system.

{CTA_BANNER_BLOG_POST}

Ensure Business Continuity and Data Security

A parallel run plan and robust rollback procedures protect against the consequences of potential failures. Data security remains at the core of every step.

Parallel Run Plan and Real-Time Monitoring

Parallel run means operating both the old and new systems simultaneously within the same user or data scope. This phase tests the new module’s robustness in real-world conditions without risking production.

Monitoring tools capture key KPIs (latency, error rate, CPU usage) and alert on deviations. Dedicated dashboards consolidate these indicators for the project team and IT management.

This continuous monitoring quickly identifies gaps and triggers corrective actions. Cutover to degraded modes or rollback procedures are planned to minimize impact in case of an incident.

Backups, Rollback, and Disaster Recovery Plans

Each migration phase is preceded by a full backup of data and system states. Rollback procedures are documented and tested, with automated execution scripts to ensure speed and reliability.

The disaster recovery plan (DRP) includes restoration scenarios of 1 hour, 3 hours, or 24 hours depending on module criticality. Technical teams are trained on these procedures to respond effectively if needed.

Data sets replicated in a staging environment enable restoration simulations, ensuring backup validity and process compliance.

Functional and Performance Testing

Before each production release, a suite of functional tests verifies the consistency of migrated workflows. Automation scripts cover critical use cases to reduce human error risk.

Performance tests measure the new system’s responsiveness under various loads. They allow tuning cloud configurations, resource allocation, and auto-scaling thresholds. Align with quality assurance fundamentals to enforce rigor.

Example: A logistics provider implemented a two-week parallel run of its new TMS (Transport Management System). Tests revealed a temporary overload on the rate data extraction API, leading to capacity optimization before the final cutover. This lesson highlights the value of real-world testing phases.

Optimize the New Architecture and Plan for Future Evolution

After migration, the new architecture must remain scalable, modular, and free from vendor lock-in. Agile governance ensures continuous adaptation to business needs.

Adopt an API-First and Microservices Approach

An API-first architecture simplifies the integration of new services, whether internal modules or third-party solutions. It promotes reuse and decoupling of functionalities.

A microservices architecture breaks down business processes into independent services, each deployable and scalable autonomously. This reduces incident impact and accelerates development cycles.

Containers and orchestration tools like Kubernetes ensure smooth scaling and high availability. This flexibility is essential to accommodate activity fluctuations.

Cloud Scalability and Hybrid Models

Using public or hybrid cloud services allows dynamic resource scaling based on actual needs. Activity peaks are absorbed without permanent overprovisioning.

Infrastructure is defined via Infrastructure as Code tools (Terraform, Pulumi) and deployed across multiple providers if required. Consider serverless edge computing for ultra-responsive architectures.

Proactive monitoring with tools like Prometheus, Grafana, or equivalents detects anomalies before they affect users. Automated alerts trigger scaling or failover procedures to redundant geographic zones.

Modernize Your Legacy Systems with Confidence

Progressive legacy system migration relies on precise scoping, a phased strategy, and rigorous execution focused on security and business continuity. By mapping dependencies, choosing the right method, and running two environments in parallel, organizations transform technical debt into a solid foundation for innovation. Embracing API-first, modular, and cloud-friendly architectures ensures sustainable scalability.

Our experts are available to define a tailored roadmap, secure your data, and manage your transition without disruption. Benefit from a proven methodology and contextual support aligned with your business and technical challenges.

Discuss your challenges with an Edana expert

In a context where rapid feature evolution has become a strategic imperative, incorporating the JSON type into relational databases generates as much enthusiasm as it does questions. This trend offers an immediate solution to flexibility needs but also raises concerns about growing complexity and potential technical debt. IT and business decision-makers must therefore weigh the pros and cons to maintain control over their data architecture. This article dissects the drivers behind using JSON in SQL, its real advantages, and pitfalls to avoid, in order to adopt a balanced, long-lasting approach.

Why JSON Has Invaded Relational Databases

The need for flexibility is driving companies to store semi-structured data directly in RDBMSs. This approach emerges to accommodate variable business schemas without sacrificing traditional SQL.

Limitations of Rigid Schemas in the Face of Business Evolution

Classic relational databases enforce strict schemas, and each new field requires a heavy migration. These operations create downtime windows and tie up significant CI/CD pipelines resources.

When business requirements evolve rapidly, DBAs must schedule successive ALTER TABLE commands, slowing down delivery cadence. This rigidity generates friction between technical teams and business stakeholders.

In practice, these data migration operations weigh on time-to-market and incur additional costs with every change. Organizations therefore seek to minimize these procedures to gain agility.

Storing Metadata and Preferences

Handling user metadata, preferences, or tags has often been offloaded to dedicated tables with complex schemas. Using JSON allows bundling these attributes into a single column, simplifying the model.

A mid-sized logistics company centralized its business configuration parameters in one JSON field. This semi-structured approach reduced auxiliary tables by 60% and streamlined the rollout of new options for its clients.

This consolidation cut development time for each new preferences-related feature by 25%, while preserving the required traceability and flexibility.

A Compromise Between Pure Relational and NoSQL

Leveraging JSON in an RDBMS serves as an intermediary between the rigor of SQL and the flexibility of NoSQL. It enables document modeling without fully migrating to a document-store system.

For some organizations, this compromise reduces the risk of vendor lock-in associated with proprietary NoSQL databases. SQL remains the primary language, augmented by JSON functions for ad hoc processing.

By choosing this path, teams can gradually evolve toward a more flexible model while retaining ACID guarantees and the existing SQL tool ecosystem.

The Real Business and Delivery Advantages of JSON

Embedding JSON in a relational database accelerates time-to-market and avoids costly schema changes. This approach encourages experimentation and the deployment of dynamic features without slowing down backend teams.

Rapid Evolution Without Costly Migrations

Adding an attribute to a JSON document does not require a migration phase or table locking. Developers gain autonomy to continuously iterate on business requirements.

New properties can be rolled out via a simple INSERT or UPDATE statement. Peak times can be adjusted without interrupting ongoing operations.

This agility directly impacts product roadmaps, enabling teams to test hypotheses and quickly adjust data models based on user feedback.

Fewer Frequent ALTER TABLE Operations

DBAs see a significant drop in ALTER TABLE operations, which are often a source of bottlenecks and lengthy tests. JSON lets you defer schema modifications to a broader, less time-constrained plan.

During growth phases, teams no longer need to synchronize each change with migration procedures, reducing operational overhead and the risk of incidents.

Financially, fewer migrations translate into savings on labor costs and higher development cycle profitability.

Managing Complex Structures in a Few Lines

JSON excels at representing hierarchies, lists, and nested objects without multiplying joins. This capability simplifies application-side query complexity.

Business units can store arrays of elements (tags, workflow steps, event history) directly in one column, avoiding join tables.

This streamlines backend code maintenance and reduces the testing surface needed to cover each structural change.

{CTA_BANNER_BLOG_POST}

Technical Pitfalls Often Underestimated

Heavy reliance on JSON can obscure your true data structure and complicate maintenance. It also generates more expensive queries and increases dependency on DBMS-specific features.

Loss of Data Model Readability

When schemas shift into JSON, the overall database vision becomes less clear. Entity-relationship diagrams lose both clarity and completeness.

Newcomers must comb through code or documentation to understand the precise shape of documents. This opacity increases error risk and lengthens onboarding time.

Without strict SQL constraints, structural anomalies (missing or mis-typed properties) spread more easily, requiring enhanced validation in the application layer.

More Complex and Less Efficient Queries

JSON functions often consume more CPU and memory than operations on native columns. Queries involving filtering or aggregations on JSON can become performance bottlenecks.

Writing these queries demands deep mastery of the DBMS’s JSON syntax (path expressions, specific operators). Traditional index optimizations no longer suffice.

A financial services firm observed a 40% performance degradation in monthly reports after migrating key attributes into JSON. This highlighted the need for rigorous benchmarking before any full-scale switch.

Dependency on DBMS Versions

Advanced JSON features (indexing, virtual columns, multi-value indexes) vary across systems. Upgrading your DBMS can break your scripts or custom queries.

Migrating legacy systems to a new major version often forces you to test all JSON queries, complicating your upgrade strategy. Companies thus hesitate to adopt the latest releases.

This creates a paradox where JSON—supposed to increase agility—can lock an organization into an older DBMS version if it cannot manage query and index migrations.

The Right Approach: JSON as a Tool, Not a Foundation

Use JSON selectively for peripheral, evolving data while preserving a solid relational core. A hybrid architecture, combined with best indexing practices, ensures maintainability and performance.

Targeted Use for Peripheral Data

Reserve JSON for metadata, preferences, or configuration to avoid scattering business logic into semi-structured documents. Core tables remain classically modeled.

This way, you benefit from JSON’s rapid iteration speed while retaining SQL’s robustness for critical entities (users, transactions, contracts).

By keeping these two realms distinct, you limit drift risks and maintain a coherent view of the overall architecture.

Intelligent Indexing with Virtual Columns

To preserve performance, create virtual columns that extract the most frequently accessed JSON attributes. These columns can then be indexed traditionally.

This method combines flexibility with fast access, avoiding full document scans during queries. DBAs can optimize execution plans just as they would for standard columns.

The result is a high-performance, scalable database where JSON serves as an extension without hindering routine operations.

Clear Separation Between Core and Flexible Data

Your architecture should distinctly separate structural tables and JSON columns. This separation facilitates data governance and the creation of materialized views or dedicated REST services.

An explicit schema enables data engineers to better monitor JSON document growth and anticipate volume changes. Performance alerts become more relevant and localized.

Finally, this approach promotes continuous documentation of the hybrid model, ensuring collective understanding and solution longevity.

Mastering the Balance Between SQL and JSON

Adopting JSON in a relational database requires carefully weighing use cases and technical impacts. By limiting its use to evolving data, indexing via virtual columns, and maintaining a robust relational core, you can enjoy the best of both worlds. A contextualized strategy and rigorous governance prevent drift and ensure a high-performance, maintainable architecture.

Our data architecture and custom development experts will help you define the JSON usage scope, optimize your modeling, and guarantee system stability. Benefit from tailored guidance to align your database with your business needs and long-term objectives.

Discuss your challenges with an Edana expert

Moving from an idea to a high-performing SaaS platform requires much more than simple application development. You must first validate market fit, design a seamless user experience, and then build a cloud-native architecture capable of supporting a growing user base.

True robustness lies in a scalable data model, an API-first approach, and microservices that ensure agility. Security, multi-tenant management, and automated CI/CD pipelines then become the bedrock of operational reliability. Finally, the subscription model, pricing tiers, and integration with third-party tools will determine long-term profitability and growth. This article sheds light on each key step to turn an idea into a scalable, sustainable SaaS product.

Concept and Market Validation for a Solid SaaS Product

Rigorous concept validation secures investment and limits the risk of market mismatch. A user-centered approach informs the product roadmap and aligns functional priorities.

Identifying Needs and Field Research

In-depth understanding of business requirements is the foundation of a relevant SaaS solution. It relies on qualitative interviews with target users and analysis of existing processes. The goal is to pinpoint real pain points and performance metrics to improve.

This work should include a rough estimate of expected gains and implementation costs. This initial estimation guides investment decisions and prioritizes development efforts. It also serves as the basis for the initial financial modeling.

A Swiss insurance startup conducted a series of workshops with multiple business units. This approach halved the list of proposed features, demonstrating that focusing the MVP on three key processes increased internal adoption as early as the pilot phase.

UX Design Focused on Adoption

Rapid adoption relies on an intuitive interface and optimized user flows. The interactive prototyping phase validates functional hypotheses before any development. It reveals friction points and automation opportunities.

Low-fidelity prototyping, tested with a sample of prospective users, aligns navigation and design choices. Early feedback prevents costly redesigns and shortens the development cycle. It also ensures graphic and functional consistency.

A Romandy-based SME specializing in fleet management tested a prototype of its client portal with ten pilot users. Early feedback revealed unnecessary input shortcuts, showing that simplifying the validation steps reduced incident recording time by two-thirds.

Modeling a Scalable Data Schema

The data schema must anticipate the emergence of new business entities without requiring massive refactoring. A modular approach, based on compartmentalized tables and flexible linking keys, facilitates adding fields or relationships. It minimizes database migrations.

Common entities (user, subscription, role) should be separated from domain-specific ones to avoid logic duplication. This segregation promotes reuse and reduces technical debt. It also lays the groundwork for a microservices architecture.

A Ticino-based training company structured its model with distinct modules for courses, sessions, and assessments. This setup showed that evolving to an external certification system could happen without altering the primary database, ensuring a seamless version upgrade.

Cloud-Native Architecture and Multi-Tenant Scalability

An architecture designed for multi-tenancy optimizes operational costs and simplifies maintenance. An API-first approach and microservices ensure product agility and resilience.

Principles of Secure Multi-Tenancy

The choice of resource-sharing model (single schema, schema per tenant, database per tenant) depends on the required level of isolation and regulatory constraints. A single schema with application-level filters offers maximum scalability, while a separate database increases security.

Implementing granular access controls ensures data isolation between tenants. It relies on centralized authentication, session management, and appropriate encryption policies. These mechanisms must be validated during the design phase.

A Swiss HR services provider chose a single schema with logical data separation. The example shows that a cryptographic token-based filtering strategy reduced hosting costs by 30% while maintaining compliance with data protection standards.

API-First: The Foundation of Integration and Agility

Designing the SaaS around RESTful or GraphQL APIs from the outset facilitates integrations with third-party tools. RESTful or GraphQL APIs serve as the specification for the front end, test automation, and technical documentation. They secure interservice communication.

API versioning is critical to avoid breaking existing integrations. Header-based routing strategies allow multiple API versions to run in parallel. They offer flexibility for product evolution without disrupting clients.

A Swiss logistics company demonstrated that implementing an API gateway reduced integration time with its transport partners from two weeks to two days. This example highlights the tangible impact of an API-first approach on the speed of deploying new supply chains.

Microservices and Resource Elasticity

Breaking the monolith into independent services allows each component to be scaled according to load requirements. Critical services, such as authentication or billing management, can be scaled autonomously to handle usage spikes.

Using Docker containers orchestrated by Kubernetes provides fine-grained control over elasticity and automatic restarts in case of failure. This setup reduces service interruptions and improves the overall resilience of the SaaS platform.

A Swiss e-learning platform migrated a video streaming module to a dedicated microservice. The experience shows that resource consumption could be isolated and optimized, leading to a 25% reduction in cloud costs during peak usage periods.

{CTA_BANNER_BLOG_POST}

Agile Industrialization: CI/CD and Software Quality

Automating tests and deployments ensures high velocity without compromising stability. A culture of continuous feedback strengthens product robustness with each iteration.

CI/CD Processes for Frequent Releases

A well-orchestrated CI/CD pipeline integrates build, testing, and automated deployment to staging and production environments. Each commit triggers a pipeline that validates code consistency and artifact compliance.

Continuous integration encourages small iterations, reducing the risk of major regressions. Continuous deployment, when well-managed, allows multiple daily production releases with quick rollback capabilities in case of an incident.

A Lausanne-based company implemented GitLab CI for its reservation SaaS. The result: updates now take less than ten minutes, and post-deployment incidents have dropped by 70%, proof of the effectiveness of controlled automation.

Automated Testing and Code Coverage

Unit, integration, and end-to-end tests form a safety net for every change. They must cover critical functionalities and run automatically with each build. A minimum coverage threshold encourages maintaining consistent code quality.

Tests in a near-production environment, using anonymized datasets, help detect performance and security issues before deployment. They also reduce emergency fixes during go-live.

When launching a financial dashboard tool, a Geneva-based provider found that an automated test suite uncovered a regression in conversion rate calculations. Thanks to this early feedback, the fix was deployed before any client usage, preventing potentially costly reporting errors.

Security, Monetization, and Strategic Integrations

Strong security governance and a clear subscription model are essential to maintain trust and profitability. Third-party integrations expand the ecosystem and promote adoption.

Security Governance and Real-Time Monitoring

Centralized authentication, fine-grained authorization, and encryption of data in transit and at rest protect sensitive information.

Implementing application monitoring and a SIEM solution enables continuous anomaly detection. Proactive alerts ensure rapid incident remediation and constant auditing of the security posture.

A Swiss healthcare provider demonstrated that a real-time security dashboard detected a brute-force attack on the API. The immediate response prevented any compromise of patient data, highlighting the importance of granular monitoring.

Defining Pricing Plans and Subscription Models

The choice between freemium, fixed-fee, or usage-based pricing should be based on customer segment analysis and perceived value. Tiered plans encourage upselling and facilitate upgrading. They also provide clearer visibility into recurring revenue.

Dynamic management of quotas and features per subscription plan enhances client flexibility while optimizing ROI. Usage metrics enable offer adjustments and anticipation of future needs.

A Bern-based project management SME tested a freemium model with paid add-ons. This experiment showed that 15% of free users upgraded to a higher-tier plan by the third month, validating the tiered logic and activation strategy.

Interoperability and External Tool Ecosystem

Native connectors to CRM, ERP, marketing tools, and payment solutions turn a SaaS platform into a hub that centralizes all business data. They reduce friction points and minimize manual reconciliation tasks.

Clear webhook and API documentation allows ecosystem partners to build extensions or integrations without relying on the product team. This creates a positive network effect and generates new use cases.

A Geneva-based billing solutions provider integrated an automated payment module with a financial services vendor. The example shows that automating payment reminders reduced the average settlement time by 20 days, demonstrating the operational impact of integrations.

Building a Profitable and Sustainable SaaS

The success of a SaaS product relies on a coherent sequence of market validation, UX design, scalable architecture, agile industrialization, security, and monetization strategy. Each step helps limit technical debt and create a sustainable competitive advantage. Seamless integration with third-party ecosystems and rigorous governance ensure controlled scaling and continuous adoption.

Faced with these complex challenges, our experts support companies in defining and executing their SaaS roadmap, from the initial idea to sustainable growth. They offer their expertise in cloud-native architecture, UX, security, and product strategies to transform your vision into a robust and profitable digital service.

Discuss your challenges with an Edana expert

In many sectors, in-house expertise represents a rarely formalized source of value in the form of a digital product. Yet from finance to manufacturing, healthcare to education, converting operational know-how into deployable software is a natural path to new recurring revenue.

Established companies hold under-leveraged advantages: deep understanding of customer needs, existing client trust, and investment capacity. However, this shift raises key challenges: balancing core activities with software development, defining a sustainable SaaS model, implementing appropriate product governance, protecting intellectual property, and adopting agile methods typical of software publishers. Addressing these areas is essential for the initiative to become an autonomous growth driver rather than a side project.

Capitalizing on Your Business Strengths

Leverage your strengths to define an aligned industry software product. A structured approach helps identify differentiating features and clarify key roles.

Identify Strategic Processes

The first step is to map value-generating activities through business analysis. Each process must be analyzed to determine what lends itself best to digitization: repetitive tasks, friction points, or unmet needs.

For example, a construction firm observed that project scheduling consumed significant resources and suffered from systematic delays.

By formalizing scheduling rules and automating notifications, it defined the functional scope for its future industry-specific software. This approach underscores the importance of an API-first strategy for scalable, secure IT architectures.

By pinpointing efficiency gains, you lay the foundation for a structured product that resonates in the marketplace.

Engage Stakeholders

Gaining buy-in from decision-makers and end users is crucial. Collaborative workshops that bring together IT, business units, and executive management ensure solution ownership from the framing phase. For best practices, see our guide on cross-functional teams in product development.

A financial institution involved its portfolio managers and compliance teams to co-design an automated monitoring tool.

Each feature was prioritized based on expected benefits and regulatory requirements. This collaborative approach bolstered the initiative’s legitimacy.

Your experience shows that transversal governance from project kickoff ensures rapid adoption and minimizes production-stage rejection risks.

Define Strategic Objectives

To ensure alignment with your overarching vision, establish clear KPIs: conversion rate, customer retention, time saved, or operational cost control.

An SME in the education sector set a target to reduce grading time by 40% through a digital platform.

Tracking these indicators precisely justified investments and guided the solution’s evolution across iterations.

By setting measurable, shared milestones, the company validated its software’s value and prepared for wider-scale deployment. These best practices can guide the development of a truly data-driven organization.

Scalable and Secure Architecture

Build a scalable, secure architecture. Adopting a modular, open-source approach minimizes dependency risk and promotes agility.

Choose a Reliable Open-Source Foundation

Leveraging proven open-source components offers flexibility, easier maintenance, and freedom from vendor lock-in. Technologies like Node.js, TypeScript, or Spring Boot are robust and widely supported. Regular refactoring prevents the accumulation of technical debt.

Design Independent Modules

Segmenting the platform into distinct services (authentication, reporting, workflow) reduces the impact of changes on the overall product. Each module can be deployed and scaled independently. Read our comparison of microservices vs. modular monolith for deeper insights.

Ensure Security and Compliance

For a B2B product, data protection and resilience against cyberthreats are non-negotiable. Embed encryption, strong authentication, and automated vulnerability testing from the outset. It’s essential to follow the software dependency update process to maintain optimal security.

Sustainable and Agile Business Model

Establish a sustainable, agile business model. Structuring pricing and governance prevents cannibalization and drives growth management.

Define Pricing and Licensing

Choosing between a SaaS subscription, perpetual license, or hybrid model depends on usage patterns, cost structure, and customer maturity. A freemium tier can accelerate initial adoption, while a tiered subscription ensures recurring revenue. Consult our strategic guide to outsource your software development.

Set Up Dedicated Product Governance

Managing a software offering requires a product committee that includes the business sponsor, product owner, and technical leads. Adopting principles from the Scaled Agile Framework can strengthen product governance.

Protect Intellectual Property

Anticipating protection through licensing, patent filings, or confidentiality agreements is essential. This secures your intangible asset and adds value during partnerships or fundraising.

{CTA_BANNER_BLOG_POST}

Orchestrating the Launch and Growth

Orchestrate launch and optimize growth. A structured go-to-market leverages your existing base and adjusts support processes to scale.

Leverage Your Existing Customer Base

Your historic client network is a prime entry point. Offering pilots or migration deals encourages experimentation and accelerates feedback.

Organize Support and Continuous Updates

Integrating a dedicated support team and scheduling regular deployments drive satisfaction and product longevity. A clear SLA and responsive helpdesk demonstrate professionalism.

Measure, Analyze, and Adjust

Tracking metrics such as adoption rate, usage frequency, and customer acquisition cost guides marketing and product investment decisions.

Transform Your Industry Expertise into a Digital Growth Driver

This journey—from process audit to go-to-market orchestration—illustrates the key steps to build a profitable, sustainable industry software product. Capitalizing on your advantages (customer insight, sector credibility), adopting a modular open-source architecture, structuring a recurring revenue model, and establishing dedicated product governance are essential for success.

Whether you choose SaaS or on-premise licensing, our experts support every phase: strategic framing, scalable development, compliance, and continuous optimization. Together, we’ll turn your know-how into a resilient, scalable digital asset and growth catalyst.

Discuss your challenges with an Edana expert

Choosing between an in-house team or an external provider to develop an application goes beyond comparing quotes. This strategic decision influences your time-to-market, product quality, innovation capacity and risk management. It varies according to project criticality, available skills, corporate culture and regulatory constraints. In this context, understanding the benefits and limitations of both models enables an informed choice aligned with your digital transformation objectives. This article offers a factual analysis framework, illustrated by examples from Swiss organizations, to determine the best option for each situation.

Advantages and Limitations of an In-House Team

An in-house team strengthens technological capital and ensures full control. However, it requires long-term commitment and high organizational maturity.

Core Business Products

Developing internally often proves preferable for applications at the heart of your value proposition. An in-house team, immersed in the company’s vision and objectives, anticipates business needs more effectively. It helps build a patentable software asset or one that can be reused across other projects.

Feedback is immediate, and change management benefits from strong cultural alignment. Decision-makers and business teams speak the same language, reducing validation cycles and improving functional consistency.

However, this solution demands rigorous HR planning to recruit and retain expert profiles. Recruitment lead times can weigh heavily on schedules, especially in the context of a shortage of specialized developers.

High Security Requirements

When data sensitivity is critical, full control over the development cycle and hosting is indispensable. An in-house team ensures the establishment of an appropriate security foundation, from code reviews to penetration testing.

With preproduction and production environments managed internally, access traceability and compliance with standards (ISO, NIST, GDPR) are controlled end to end. This reduces the risk of leaks or major incidents.

Moreover, the in-house team can continuously integrate patches and security updates within very short timeframes. Proximity to infrastructure and internal processes fosters optimal responsiveness.

Cultural Alignment and Sustainability

An in-house team, as a stakeholder in the overall strategy, conveys the company’s culture and values. It builds solutions that respect existing processes and organisation, avoiding misalignment or disruption.

In the long run, the knowledge gained remains within the company, feeding a virtuous cycle of skills development and continuous platform optimisation. Technical debt is better managed when the in-house team applies shared standards. Non-functional requirements ensure code quality and robustness.

For a mid-sized Swiss group, the decision to develop an authentication and customer-tracking platform internally demonstrated a 30% reduction in regulatory validation cycles. This strengthened business trust and optimised compliance without compromising time-to-market.

Advantages and Risks of Outsourcing

Outsourcing accelerates launch and provides access to specialised expertise. Success then depends on partnership quality and project governance.

Rapid Launch and MVP

To test a new offering or concept, outsourcing often significantly reduces time to market. A specialised agency has proven processes and tools to launch an MVP (Minimum Viable Product) in a matter of weeks.

This approach requires a precise definition of the functional scope and deadlines. Scoping workshops and prototyping sprints are conducted with agile methodologies, minimising the risk of scope creep.

Time savings are especially valuable when the market evolves rapidly and early customer feedback drives future product direction. The company can then decide whether to internalise development or extend the partnership based on results.

Access to Specialized Skills

External providers offer a range of skills that are hard to replicate in-house, especially in AI, data engineering, mobility or complex systems integration. They often have full-stack experts as well as front-end and back-end specialists.

With these profiles, projects benefit from best practices, modern frameworks and cumulative experience across multiple sectors. This avoids common mistakes and delivers code quality and security that are constantly updated.

A Swiss retail company engaged an offshore provider to integrate AI-based recommendation features. This external expertise reduced implementation time by 40%, demonstrating the value of strong specialization.

Flexibility and Cost Control

By outsourcing, organisations convert fixed costs into variable expenses. Costs relate to project duration and the actual profiles engaged, making it easier to adjust to project progress.

Agencies often offer daily rates or fixed-price models with regular checkpoints. This allows continuous expense monitoring and better financial forecasting.

However, it is essential to define scope and deliverables precisely to avoid cost overruns. A strong project governance model ensures adherence to deadlines and budgets.

Analyzing the Total Cost of a Project

Comparing only the initial quote is not enough; full-cost analysis includes salaries, infrastructure, training and management. This holistic view enables anticipation of TCO and selection of the most sustainable solution for the organisation.

Salaries and Recruitment

The cost of an in-house developer includes not just the gross salary, but also social charges, bonuses, leave and benefits. In Switzerland, these can add 20–30% to the base salary.

Recruiting senior or specialised profiles in a talent-scarce context may require attractive packages and time, increasing the average monthly cost. Sourcing processes and warranty periods further add to the true cost.

By comparison, outsourcing eliminates most indirect costs, while day rates are often higher. It is therefore important to calculate the break-even point between internal cost stability and a provider’s pricing flexibility.

Training and Infrastructure

Investment in development tools, software licenses and CI/CD infrastructure represents a significant portion of the in-house budget. These costs remain fixed, even during low-activity phases.

Ongoing training to stay at the cutting edge of technology requires a substantial budget and production downtime. Travel and accommodation for specialist conferences often add to the total cost.

For a Swiss manufacturer, estimated training and licensing costs for ten developers exceeded the outsourced budget by 25% over five years. This led to a hybrid model combining in-house and staff augmentation.

Management and Risk Governance

Managing an in-house team demands strong leadership and organisational skills. Project teams, release planning and leave management directly impact productivity.

In an outsourced model, coordination with one or more providers introduces additional risk related to communication, availability and dependency. It is then necessary to allocate internal resources for contract governance.

Financial and operational oversight must include performance indicators (KPIs) to anticipate schedule and budget variances. Rigorous monitoring limits overruns and ensures deliverable quality.

Nearshore Trends and Talent Shortages

The market is evolving under the dual pressures of talent shortages and the rise of nearshore/offshore delivery. A decision framework must integrate these dynamics and align strategy, budget and roadmap.

Talent Shortages and Nearshore/Offshore

In Switzerland, the scarcity of qualified developers weighs on in-house projects. Recruitment lead times can stretch for months, delaying strategic initiatives.

To address this scarcity, many companies turn to nearshore or offshore delivery, benefiting from lower labour costs and a broader talent pool. This geographic flexibility allows rapid workforce adjustment.

However, cultural and linguistic differences can cause misunderstandings and slow collaboration. It is essential to choose a structured partner capable of ensuring delivery quality and security.

Agency Maturity and Quality

The professionalisation of development agencies has accelerated in recent years. Many now adopt DevOps practices, CI/CD and integrated security from the design phase.

Selecting an agency experienced in your sector reduces risks and ensures better adaptability to business specifications. Past references and ISO or SOC 2 certifications are strong reliability indicators.

A recognised provider with agile methods and transparent governance facilitates project oversight and potential upskilling of your internal teams.

Time-to-Market and Organisational Risks

The most agile companies often combine in-house and external teams, forming a hybrid model that optimises both business knowledge and execution speed.

This approach allows rapid launch of critical features via an external provider while gradually internalising the development of strategic modules. Planned skill transfer reduces dependency.

A Swiss fintech thus created a mixed project team where the external agency developed the core API while the in-house team handled the user interface and regulatory tracking. This model demonstrated the value of close collaboration for managing timelines and risks.

Choosing the Right Development Strategy to Accelerate Your Digital Transformation

The in-house option is justified for strategic projects with high security stakes, or when the goal is to build a lasting technological asset. Outsourcing becomes a key advantage for rapidly launching an MVP, accessing specialised expertise or controlling variable costs. A full-cost analysis—covering salaries, infrastructure, training and management—provides a realistic view of TCO. Finally, the choice takes into account market maturity, talent shortages and nearshore/offshore dynamics.

Whatever your context, these models can be combined to deliver speed, quality and risk control. Our experts are at your disposal to define the framework best suited to your challenges and support your organisation towards a controlled and sustainable digitalisation.

Discuss your challenges with an Edana expert