Application retirement
Test which applications can retire first, what they depend on, and how the sequence changes run cost and delivery risk.
Your enterprise is hard.
Stop guessing.
Start knowing.
Your enterprise is a complex structure of applications, platforms, integrations, processes, investments, vendors, and people. Every transformation decision changes that structure—and the consequences are rarely isolated.
stuart models those consequences before you commit. Compare alternative paths, see hidden dependencies, and understand cost, risk, capacity, and time to value.
Traceable assumptions Source-data lineage Scenario sensitivity
Make the decision in the model before you make it in the enterprise.
Scenarios
Selected path
Confidence · Medium Retire, then migrate
Investment$31.4MFinance export
Time to value18 moPlanning assumption
Peak capacity42 FTEPPM + override
Assumption changed Retire 4 dependent applications before migration
Sequence 03 Lineage Application inventory→ Dependency rule→ Scenario output
Illustrative product view and values—not a customer result or forecast.
Stop guessing.
Static plans show intent.
They do not show consequences.
Inventories tell you what exists. Spreadsheets capture assumptions. Presentations describe a preferred plan. None reliably show what will happen when multiple changes collide across technology, finance, operations, data, vendors, and people.
Static planning Describes a preferred path
Information and assumptions remain separated across diagrams, plans, spreadsheets, and presentations.
stuart Models what changes next
Connect the evidence, test the sequence, expose consequences, and compare paths before committing.
Start knowing.
Reveal the structure beneath the strategy.
See what is carrying the load, what changes when it moves, and which sequence gives you the strongest path forward. Begin with one live retirement or modernization decision—not the entire estate.
Modernization sequencing
Compare migration and replacement paths before funding locks in architecture, capacity, and timing.
Investment-case challenge
Expose the assumptions, uncertainty, dependencies, and capacity peaks behind a preferred modernization path.
Know what to do next.
See the dependencies.
Test the sequence.
Compare the consequences.
“Live” does not mean a magic, continuously synchronized model. Data freshness, ingestion method, ownership, and manual enrichment are made explicit for each engagement.
Bring the evidence together
Start with approved exports from architecture, application, finance, portfolio, and delivery systems. Record ownership, freshness, and gaps.
Make assumptions explicit
Create a governed decision model linking applications, dependencies, cost, capacity, timing, and the assumptions behind each scenario.
Compare and challenge
Change a sequence or assumption, see the effects, test sensitivity, and trace every output back to its source or owner.
Method and data
No unexplained number should survive review.
Every scenario output should resolve to source evidence, a named assumption, or an explicit human override. Missing and contradictory data stay visible rather than disappearing inside a score.
Customer-owned evidence
- EA / CMDB exports
- Financial plans
- Portfolio and delivery data
- Structured spreadsheets
Normalized and governed
- Entities and relationships
- Assumption ledger
- Scenario rules
- Versions and review state
Reviewable decisions
- Scenario comparison
- Sensitivity view
- Data-quality findings
- Decision record and exports
Record the origin, owner, date, and transformation applied to material inputs.
Allow accountable owners to change an assumption without hiding the original value.
Show which assumptions materially change cost, capacity, timing, or risk.
Preserve scenario versions, decisions, and approvals for later challenge.
Integration and automation coverage varies by source. Available ingestion, services-assisted onboarding, and any roadmap items are confirmed during pilot scoping—never implied by a logo wall.
Illustrative decision mechanics
See what changes—and why—when the sequence changes.
A comparison is only useful when Finance, Architecture, and Delivery can challenge its inputs. The example below demonstrates the intended mechanics; it is not a customer result.
- Scenario comparisons
- Investment cases
- Roadmap options
- Cost and value views
- Dependency analysis
- Delivery sequencing
- Executive decision packs
- Workforce and ownership impact
Illustrative scenario comparison
Three paths. The same objective. Different assumptions.
Values are deliberately illustrative. A real model must expose the source, owner, confidence, and calculation behind each one.
| Path | Investment | Time to value | Systems retired | Delivery risk | Payback |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical upgrade | $42.6M | 36 months | 2 | High | No payback |
| Migrate and simplify | $38.2M | 30 months | 7 | High | Month 39 |
| Sequence retirement first | $31.4M | 18 months | 11 | Moderate | Month 27 |
Technical upgrade
- Investment
- $42.6M
- Time to value
- 36 months
- Systems retired
- 2
- Risk
- High
- Payback
- No payback
Modernizes the core, but leaves redundant platforms and payback unresolved.
Migrate and simplify
- Investment
- $38.2M
- Time to value
- 30 months
- Systems retired
- 7
- Risk
- High
- Payback
- Month 39
Improves the case, but compresses delivery risk into the migration path.
Sequence retirement first
- Investment
- $31.4M
- Time to value
- 18 months
- Systems retired
- 11
- Risk
- Moderate
- Payback
- Month 27
Reduces investment and brings value forward by changing the sequence.
Founding design-partner pilot
Prove one decision in a bounded engagement.
stuart is currently offered through a structured design-partner motion, not as self-service enterprise software. The engagement starts only after scope, safeguards, responsibilities, and success criteria are clear.
Scope
One consequential application-retirement or modernization-sequencing decision, bounded to an agreed portfolio or business area.
Inputs
Approved system exports, an accountable executive sponsor, and working sessions with architecture, finance, and delivery owners.
Deliverables
A working decision model, compared scenarios, assumption and data-quality findings, and an executive-ready decision record.
Before kickoff
Scope, success criteria, confidentiality, approved transfer methods, access, retention, deletion, timeline, and commercials are agreed in writing.
Stop guessing. Start knowing.
Make the decision in the model before you make it in the enterprise.
Start with a general use case. Confidential decision context and source data are discussed only after the right protections and transfer methods are in place.