AI, event-driven architectures, cloud-native standards, and modern security patterns are moving faster than legacy platforms can follow. By 2026, the gap will be wide enough that some organisations will face a simple choice: rebuild or fall behind.
Cost and complexity are rarely the real blockers to rebuilding.
Platform Attachment Syndrome is.
The same behaviour you see with the car you’ve had for years.
You bought it when everything was new.
You took care of it.
You fixed things yourself.
You replaced the alternator, the clutch, and the brake lines.
You know every rattle, squeak and quirk.
You have stories and memories attached to it.
And even when it becomes unreliable, you keep repairing it.
Not because it works.
But because it used to work, and you’ve already poured so much time and money into keeping it going.
That is exactly how organisations treat their legacy platforms, and I’ve been there myself.
The pattern is the same every time.
It used to be brilliant.
The platform launched a major proposition, supported growth and carried the business forward.
Then the years happened.
More features, more patches, more quick wins, more “temporary fixes” that, as usual, became permanent.
Now it sits there like that old car on your driveway: fine on the surface, but unpredictable under pressure.
And you start hearing the familiar lines:
“Can we work around it for this release?”
“We know it’s not ideal, but it works well enough for now.”
“That area of the codebase is sensitive.”
“Replacing it is part of a bigger conversation.”
These are not strategy statements.
They are signals of a team, understandably, trying to avoid risk, avoid cost and avoid acknowledging that the old investment is holding them hostage.
An old car is great for short, predictable journeys.
It looks fine.
It starts most days.
It reminds you of the stage of life you were in when you bought it.
But if you need to drive 400 miles this weekend, you are not choosing that car.
You are choosing something modern, safe and dependable.
Holding on to a legacy platform is rarely about sentiment. It’s about…
There’s always a belief somewhere in the organisation that keeping the old thing running is the sensible, low-risk option.
On paper, it looks cheaper to maintain than replace, but that view rarely holds up for long.
The old car still needs parts, attention and constant compromise.
Being familiar with its noises doesn’t make the bills any smaller.
Legacy platforms behave the same way. They become expensive simply because you’ve stretched them far beyond the point they were designed for.
Declaring tech debt bankruptcy is not admitting the platform was a mistake.
It’s acknowledging that it’s the wrong vehicle for where you are going next.
Some leaders take years to make that call.
By then, the platform is consuming budget, blocking delivery and frustrating every engineer who touches it.
Others call it early.
They thank the old car for the miles.
Then they invest in the thing that can actually take them forward.
The difference in delivery pace afterwards is always immediate and obvious.
Are we maintaining this platform because it serves our future, or because we’re too invested to let go?
If the honest answer leans toward the latter, you already know what needs to happen.
Declare tech debt bankruptcy.
Retire the old car with respect.
Then build the platform that can handle the next hundred thousand miles without fear.
And if you think you’re reaching that point, here are a few ways to handle the worries that naturally come with it:
These steps do not remove the challenge, but they make it manageable. Even in industries where risk tolerance is low, legacy systems tend to stay around longer than they should.
But 2026 will be a year of growing expectations. It may be the moment to decide if the old motor can take another journey or if it is time to invest in something built for the road ahead.
Follow me on LinkedIn