I’ve followed many digital solutions throughout their entire lifecycle: from idea and development, through launch and further improvement, to modernization or decommissioning.
One pattern keeps repeating itself.
A project is launched. The budget has been spent. The team is happy. The customer has received a solution that works. Then comes the next question: What will it cost to operate, maintain, and improve the solution going forward?
That’s often where the cuts begin.
Not because anyone wants to take unnecessary risk, but because maintenance can look like an easy line item to reduce. The system has already been built. It works. How much can really happen?
Quite a lot, is the short answer.
What you’re really cutting
Operations and maintenance is not just about servers, uptime and technical support.
It’s about security updates. Dependencies that are kept up to date. Monitoring that catches issues before users do. Documentation that actually reflects reality. And perhaps most importantly, people who know the solution well enough to make the right decisions when something changes.
It is also about the ability to make small, controlled improvements over time — instead of large, expensive and risky efforts once the problem has grown too big.
When you cut too hard in maintenance, you are not just cutting a service agreement. You are moving the cost into the future. And often, you are making it bigger.
Technical debt rarely arrives suddenly
Technical debt does not necessarily appear because someone has done a poor job. It appears because the world around the solution changes.
Frameworks get new versions. Integrations change. Browsers, security requirements, and privacy expectations evolve. User needs shift. The organization develops new ways of working.
A solution that is not maintained does not stand still. It falls behind.
After a few years without active maintenance, even a well-built solution can become difficult to develop further. Not because it was bad when it launched, but because it has not received the necessary follow-up along the way.
This is often where organizations get the expensive surprise: what could have been handled through planned, continuous improvements must instead be solved as a larger modernization project.
A better way to make the decision
The question should not be: “How little can we spend on operations and maintenance?”
It should rather be:
What is needed for this solution to remain secure, stable, relevant and possible to improve over time?
That does not mean every solution needs a large maintenance budget. A good maintenance model should be adapted to the solution’s actual role, complexity and risk.
Some systems need close follow-up, continuous improvement and active monitoring. Others need a simpler setup with regular updates, security checks and periodic reviews.
The point is not to over-maintain. The point is to make a conscious choice.
You pay either way
I tend to think of maintenance like maintaining the brakes on a car.
You can choose to replace the brake pads regularly. It is planned, predictable and relatively inexpensive.
Or you can wait until the brakes fail. Then it becomes urgent, expensive and potentially far more serious.
The same applies to digital solutions.
You pay for operations and maintenance either way. The only question is whether you pay continuously, in a controlled way and on your own terms — or urgently, expensively and on the system’s terms.
At Frontkom, we therefore see maintenance as a natural part of the delivery lifecycle. Not as something that comes after the project, but as a prerequisite for the investment to keep creating value.
A good maintenance agreement should not be a standard package. It should reflect the solution’s actual needs, risk and importance to the organization.
Want to discuss what a sensible maintenance model could look like for your solution? I’d be happy to talk.
