The rice bowl effect: Why integration should be judged by its lifetime cost
Whitepaper
Go live is not the finish line
Across Asia, a rice bowl earns its value the same way a system integration does: not by how it looks on day one, but by whether it still does its job years later. Most organisations know what it costs to build an integration. Far fewer know what it costs to own one. Industry research puts the average cost of poor data quality at close to 13 million US dollars a year per organisation, and 60 to 80 per cent of enterprise IT budgets going toward maintaining what already exists rather than building anything new (1). Most firms are already carrying this cost. Few have measured it.
Request whitepaper
This whitepaper sets out why go live is treated as the finish line when it should be treated as the start, what that assumption costs firms, and how technology leaders should judge an integration layer: not by how fast it reached production, but by how little effort it takes to keep running for the years after. The point is not that every firm should replace its current setup. The decision should be based on the true cost of ownership, not on how the build looked on the day it went live.
Perspectives
Insights
- Blog
ACER and REMIT II: Who is responsible for contract classification now?
- Whitepapers
The rice bowl effect: Why integration should be judged by its lifetime cost
- Whitepapers