When Systems Stop Talking: How Companies Realize Their Software No Longer Works
Why I wanted to bring this topic up:
Even in an era of digitalization, AI, and automation, I still see companies operating without the basics: no shared CRM, no central file system, no clear usage policies.
Critical information lives in silos, sometimes literally under one “keeper” who might leave one day, taking years of history with them. There’s no guarantee the full story, data, or context survives.
In other cases, companies use multiple systems that don’t speak to each other. People compensate with manual work, duplicate entries, spreadsheets, and workarounds, burning time and energy on tasks that should already be automated.
What’s interesting is that it’s often not IT who first notices the problem. Today, IT is frequently external support, focused on tickets rather than business flow.
Instead, the signal often comes from HR, Marketing, Finance, or the COO, someone who suddenly realizes that clients, documents, invoices, or approvals live in parallel universes.
That moment, when systems stop talking, is what I wanted to explore.
So I invited an experienced professional from a business-oriented software company, LTECH - Head of Corporate Strategy and IT Projects, Juris Bergmanis to share your perspective and real-life experience.
Understanding the moment of realization
What’s the most common moment when companies realize their software setup no longer fits their business?
Sometimes there is a “big moment” when companies understand it. But more often it happens through small, everyday problems. Employees usually notice that systems are slow, they must do many things manually, and it becomes harder to respond to new business needs. Step by step, companies see that the software is not helping them grow anymore - it is holding them back.
I will give an example - let's say the business team asks for what sounds like a very small improvement. They want a shortcut in their daily system so they do not have to click through five screens every time. Today, this process takes up to three minutes, and they repeat it many times a day. From the business point of view, it looks like a small usability change.
But when IT starts to analyze this request, they quickly see that it is not just a “button change.” It shows a much bigger problem.
First, three minutes for such an action is already a huge red flag. It shows that the search and navigation are outdated. They were designed for a very different way of working - with less data, fewer integrations, and mostly manual processes.
Second, this screen is not independent. It is strongly connected to several old system modules:
The search function is built into old code that cannot be changed separately;
The user interface is directly connected to backend logic;
Even a small change requires updates in multiple parts of the system.
So, to add a shortcut safely, IT is not just adding a new feature. They would need to partly rebuild this whole section, retest related processes, and make sure they do not break compliance or reporting functions that depend on the same logic.
This is only one example, but many similar requests appear over time and create long, connected IT backlogs. This is usually the moment when companies realize that their software no longer fits their business needs.
2. In reality, who usually notices first that something isn’t working, IT, or another team? Why?
The first signal usually comes from a business-facing team such as product, operations, partnerships, or compliance. Only later does it become a discussion for the IT team. This happens because business teams use the system every day for their daily operations.
In parallel, it can happen that business teams do not realize that things could be better, or they are so busy with daily work that they simply accept the situation. However, notices can also come from leadership, such as the CEO, CTO, or CIO. They may notice that competitors can do the same tasks much faster. After deeper analysis, they realize that competitors are using more modern technology.
A third example could be that sometimes the company wants to introduce a new product or service. On paper, it looks simple. But business teams discover that even small changes require many manual steps, workarounds, or support from IT. What should take days or months.This shows that the system is no longer fit for current business needs.
Last but, not least - partnership teams may also want to connect with new vendors or platforms. They expect a quick integration, but IT explains that each connection must be custom-built. This makes cooperation slow and costly, which is a sign of an outdated architecture.
To summarize this question, I would say that usually the first signs come from business teams because they use the system every day and feel the problems directly. Sometimes leadership notices this by comparing with faster competitors or their previous work experiences. Other times, issues appear when launching new products or integrations becomes slow, manual, and expensive. All these signals show that the technology is outdated and no longer fits business needs.
The “systems don’t talk” problem
3. We often hear stories where customer data, invoices, or documents live in different systems that don’t communicate. Why does this happen so often?
This problem is extremely common worldwide and also in Latvia, and it is usually not caused by one bad decision now or before. It is the result of organization history, growth, and technical debt building up over many years.
The most typical answer to this question from my experience is that organizations might first implement lets say accounting software for invoices, later a CRM, then a document management system and so on - till they have systems for all their business functions. Each was designed for its own task, not to share data with future systems.
In the public sector and traditional industries - often digitized processes step-by-step Digitalization happened, but integration between these solutions came later, so data still sits in multiple places even though everything is “digital.”
A simple way to explain it: systems don’t communicate because they were designed to solve individual problems, not to act as one ecosystem.
4. What are the early warning signs that a company is paying for many tools but still doing a lot of manual, repetitive work?
This is a good question, but the answer can be different for each company. To understand the situation, we need to know the company’s stage, what tools it uses, how many tools there really are, and whether the manual work is related to the tools they already pay for.
Speaking in general, there are several common warning signs.
First, employees spend a lot of time moving data instead of using it. They often rely on Excel for daily work because information does not flow automatically between systems.
Second, it is a clear sign when processes still depend on emails instead of workflows. Invoices, approvals, and documents are sent manually because the systems cannot trigger actions on their own even if the company has the necessary tools for such activities.
Third, simple daily tasks take much longer than expected. Work that should take minutes - like creating reports, onboarding customers, or checking data - takes days or even weeks because of manual steps.
Finally, the biggest warning sign I often hear when talking to clients is: “This is how we have always done it.” This shows that workarounds have become normal, and inefficiencies are hidden even though technology and tools the company already owns should solve them.
Organizational vs technical roots
5. Is it fair to say that software problems are often organizational problems first, not technical ones? Why?
Yes, very often software problems start from organizational issues, not from technology itself.
I think it is fair to say that software is built by people and teams, right? So if teams do not communicate well, if roles are unclear, or if every department works separately, these problems show up in the software. The systems become complicated, slow to change, and difficult to connect with each other.
Many companies think they need new tools, but the real issue is how work is organized. When there is no clear ownership, too many approvals, or different goals between business and IT, even good technology cannot work well.
I will give a short example: Let's say a company has separate teams for sales, operations, and IT. Each team uses its own system and makes changes without talking much to the others.
Then sales starts promising customers faster delivery but operations cannot see these promises in their system, so they continue working with the old timelines. IT is then asked to “fix the software” because the data does not match and reports are wrong.
The company then thinks the systems are the problem and plans to buy a new platform. But the real issue is that the teams are not aligned, there is no shared process, and no one owns the full workflow.
6. Many companies start with standard tools and keep adding more over time. At what point does “adding another tool” stop being helpful?
New tools usually are bringing improvements in overall company life - they automate tasks, support growth, or add missing functionality. But over time, companies may start adding tools just to “patch” problems. For example, instead of simplifying a workflow, they introduce another system to manage exceptions, manual steps, or data mismatches.
This turning point usually becomes visible in everyday work. Employees find themselves entering the same data into multiple systems, increasing the risk of errors and wasting time. Information is scattered across different tools, making it difficult to know which source is accurate or up to date. Connections between systems grow more complicated, requiring ongoing effort and cost just to keep them running. Onboarding new staff takes longer, as they must learn a wide range of platforms instead of a clear, unified workflow. Gradually, teams realize they are spending more energy maintaining and navigating tools than actually improving the business itself.
This usually should be the warning sign that a company has too many tools and it is no longer helpful. This is the point where new tools no longer solve a real business need, but instead try to compensate for unclear processes or poor coordination.
Custom vs standard decisions
7. How do you help decision-makers understand whether a problem can still be solved with a standard solution or if custom development is the smarter move?
The first step is to change mindset from technology to business impact. Instead of asking, “What can this tool do?” You should ask the decision-maker, “What does the business really need to achieve?”
With the mindset mentioned above, decision-makers should be guided through three questions they need to answer to get an idea what to choose:
Is the process common or unique?
Are we adapting the business to the software - or the software to the business?
Will the complexity and needed functionality grow over time?
In practice, the choice between a standard solution and custom development is based on long-term value, not just initial cost. Companies compare the total effort required to use and maintain a standard tool - including licenses, configuration, and ongoing adjustments with the option of building a solution that fits only what is truly needed.
Flexibility also matters. Systems must adapt as the business changes, and solutions that require constant workarounds can slow progress. Finally, organizations look at how important this capability is to their strategy. If it directly supports what makes the business competitive, a tailored approach may be justified; if it is more of a supporting function, a standard solution is usually sufficient.
If I need to answer this question in very short form, without deep dive into many factors, I would say that companies should use standard software for common functions and choose custom development when the process is business-critical, unique, and would otherwise be forced into an unnatural shape.
Security and system integration should not be underestimated. Custom solutions allow authentication, data flows, and integrations to be designed around the organization’s exact architecture, reducing long-term dependency and integration friction.
Risk, security & ownership
8. Security is often underestimated until something goes wrong. How does software fragmentation increase security and data risks?
I believe that the best people to provide a detailed answer to this question are information security leaders or IT architects, because dealing with security and data risks related to software is part of their day-to-day responsibilities.
So no comment…. I do not have an opinion regarding the statement “Security is often underestimated until something goes wrong”.
In my experience, data and security risks play a major role in projects and are often prioritized even before the business functionality itself. This is logical, because if a company does not pay enough attention to security, it can face serious consequences at some point.
9. What role does system integration play in reducing both security risks and everyday frustration for teams?
In general, system integration plays a very important role because it connects tools, data, and processes into one coordinated environment instead of many separate ones. Today, it is a basic expectation for companies to have their systems working together.
From a security perspective, proper integration creates better control and visibility. The main advantages of good integration are:
Data moves through defined and monitored paths instead of being copied manually;
Access rights can be managed centrally, reducing the risk of forgotten or unnecessary permissions;
There are fewer uncontrolled exports, spreadsheets, or duplicate databases;
Security policies can be applied consistently across the organization.
From an everyday operations perspective, integration reduces manual work and makes life easier for teams:
Employees no longer need to enter the same information into multiple systems;
Data stays consistent, so teams can trust reports and avoid double-checking;
Processes move faster because systems “talk to each other” automatically;
People spend less time fixing errors and more time doing meaningful work.
To summarize, integration plays a huge role. It is not just a technical improvement - it creates a smoother employee experience, better data reliability, and stronger control over risk.
Decision-making & maturity
10. From your experience, how does organizational maturity influence software decisions?
Organizational maturity has a strong influence on how companies choose, implement, and manage software.In less mature organizations, software decisions are often reactive. Tools are selected to solve immediate problems, usually by individual departments, without considering the long-term impact.
More mature organizations take a broader view. They align software decisions with business goals, define clear processes before choosing technology, and consider how new solutions will fit into the existing environment. Instead of asking, “What tool can fix this quickly?” they ask, “What solution will support us as we grow?”
The higher the organizational maturity, the more software decisions are strategic rather than tactical - supporting sustainable growth instead of short-term fixes.
However, it is important to understand that every company goes through stages of maturity, and as it grows, its needs also increase. When founding a new company, the primary focus should not be on building the perfect IT architecture - unless the business is directly related to it - but rather on creating its product and delivering value.
11. What’s a common mistake companies make when they rush software decisions under pressure?
A common mistake is choosing a solution that fixes the immediate problem but does not fit the long-term needs of the business.
When software decisions are made too quickly, companies often introduce tools that duplicate functionality already in place or fail to integrate properly with existing systems. As a result, employees begin relying on manual workarounds soon after implementation, which reduces efficiency rather than improving it. Over time, the company faces higher costs to adjust, replace, or rebuild what was rushed. This also leads to growing frustration among teams, as the new solution does not truly support the way they need to work. While the initial urgency may be justified, skipping proper evaluation often creates more challenges than it resolves. So rushing software decisions may solve today’s issue, but it often creates tomorrow’s complexity.
Of course, every case must be evaluated individually, and nothing in the world is purely black and white. Taking into account the earlier point about an organization’s stage of maturity and other factors, there may be situations where there is an immediate need for a new system that is not fully planned, well known, or easily integrated with others. It is not completely wrong to make such a decision, if it is an absolute must for the company current needs to operate further. But in such cases, all potential risks related to its operation and future development should be identified, documented and accepted by the decision-makers together with all involved parties.
Practical closing
12. If a company suspects they’re “working around” their systems too much, what’s the first step they should take before investing in new software?
If a company is “working around” its system, this is already a red flag that something is not being done correctly. Either the system does not support a specific task, or it is too complicated to use.
I think the first step is always to step back and understand the problem before looking for a new solution. Ideally, the company should map out the current workflow and document how all processes run from A to Z - how employees actually perform their work in practice. This includes identifying manual steps, duplicate data entry, spreadsheets used outside the main systems, and frequent exceptions.
This kind of review helps answer key questions:
What is the real business need behind these workarounds?
Is the issue caused by the software, unclear processes, or lack of training?
Are all features of the current system being used properly?
Where are the biggest delays or frustrations?
Often, companies discover that the problem is not missing technology but misaligned processes or underused functionality. Fixing these can deliver value faster and at lower cost than introducing another system.
Before buying new software, understand the workflow, identify the root cause, and decide whether the issue is truly technological - or organizational.
13. What advice would you give to non-technical leaders who feel something is wrong but can’t fully explain it yet?
Feeling is a good thing, but decisions based on facts and data are even better. That is why it is very important to listen to the signals coming from the company’s departments and teams. As mentioned earlier, it is the teams who are usually the first to realize that something is not working as it should.
If teams rely heavily on manual steps, maintain their own spreadsheets, complain about duplicate work, or struggle to get clear information, these are strong indicators that something in the processes or systems is not aligned with the business. You do not need to diagnose the technology - focus on understanding where time is lost, where frustration appears, and where decisions are delayed.
The best advice I can give to leaders is to spend a few hours each month and organize a meeting with their teams to ask a few simple questions:
What is the biggest time-waster for the teams?
Is there any process step that is unclear or unnecessary?
What prevents teams from working faster?
Do we lack information or knowledge anywhere to make decisions?
Of course, the answers may vary, but this exercise is very useful because it creates a list of potential issues that can then be turned into observable patterns that both business and IT can analyze together.
Leaders do not need to know the technical answer. The most important part is to understand and highlight where the company is struggling so the real root causes can be investigated and solved later by the IT department or IT custom software development companies like LTECH. 🙂
