.webp)
Headless & Composable & MACH, oh my!
Each of these terms describes the same thing: a new approach to building CMS and commerce experiences that is quickly displacing traditional, monolithic systems. A composable approach is both a technical architecture and an opinionated approach to building modern websites.
There are four common objections with moving to a MACH (Microservices, API-first, Cloud-native, and Headless) architecture. But successful brands leveraging this approach are showing that each of these objections is more myth than challenge.
Myth 1: Legacy Systems Cannot be Upgraded
Enterprises typically have a large number of legacy systems with tight coupling to various parts of their back end IT infrastructure. This could require significant investment in terms of time and resources to migrate or integrate legacy systems with the new architecture.
The reality is: Legacy systems slow down development velocity. Estimating the cost of ripping and replacing legacy systems is an important exercise for every organization to do. But what most organizations forget is to also factor in the cost of that slow development velocity. How many leads are not captured? How much revenue would those leads create? How many marketing campaigns are not executed because the website can’t support the speed of the marketing team? Once you measure those costs, the story changes pretty quickly.
Myth 2: Limited In-House Expertise
Adopting a MACH architecture requires specialized skills and expertise. Enterprises may not have the necessary in-house resources to design, build, and maintain the architecture.
The reality is: You can’t change the talent and brain power you got at birth, but you can choose to outlearn the competition. The cost of an internal team not learning is far higher than the cost of trying. By collaborating with an agency partner who embeds your development team into their own, you can ensure that internal expertise is already established by the time the new CMS is delivered.This expertise will then naturally spread over time.
Myth 3: Security and Compliance Concerns
Moving to a cloud-native architecture may raise security and compliance concerns for some enterprises, especially if they handle sensitive customer data or operate in highly regulated industries.
The reality is: Moving to cloud-native components may change how data is stored and transferred, and that has legal implications. But the exercise to ensure data in a composable framework is compliant with regulations and standards is already an exercise a brand should do regularly to maintain compliance. This isn’t an onerous task. It’s the cost of doing business.
Myth 4: Lack of Business Case
Finally, some enterprises may not see a compelling business case for migrating to a MACH architecture. They may believe that their existing architecture is sufficient for their needs, or that the benefits of a new architecture do not outweigh the costs and risks involved in the migration process.
The reality is: As MACH frameworks spread, the benefits of a composable stack – from SEO to security – are now clear for marketers and IT leaders alike. Technology at brands is a lot like movement for sharks: If they stop moving, it becomes fatal to the shark.
Check out the new section of our website to chart your course to composable and headless. No matter where you are on your composable journey, we’re here to help you keep swimming.