At a glance
Client | An enterprise client in the DACH region with field service operations at significant scale |
Scope | A Java/Jersey-based mobile integration platform: the bridge between field service apps and back-office systems (ERP, CRM, scheduling, identity, document management) |
Analysed codebase | ~170,000 lines of Java in ~1,100 source files; 124 REST endpoints across 5 versioned mobile API generations |
Integration landscape | 11 backend integrations; 4 active mobile app generations in production operation |
Method | 7P Legacy Fast Check – Scan. Score. Strategise. |
Tools | 24 automated analysis tools, AI pipeline, expert walkthrough, coding agent walkthrough |
Time to verdict | Scans completed in hours; full assessment delivered in around three weeks |
Deliverables | Assessed current-state report, prioritised top-10 list, Jersey-to-Jakarta migration assessment, mobile API inventory & compatibility matrix, strategic evolution roadmap, service transition checklist |
The company
The client runs field service operations on a large scale. While technicians work on site, scheduling and core processes are managed via back-office systems. Work orders, status updates, asset data and customer-related information flow continuously between the two systems. The mobile integration platform plays a critical business role here. It connects mobile applications with central back-end systems, ensuring that processes in the field interact smoothly with the company’s core systems.
The initial situation
Over many years, the platform evolved from an initially pragmatic integration layer into a business-critical system. It was originally designed to reliably connect mobile applications in the field with central backend systems. However, over time, new requirements, additional integrations and individual process logic were added. What was initially sensible and understandable made changes in live operation increasingly challenging.
At the same time, it was only possible to assess the actual condition of the platform to a limited extent. Technical interdependencies were no longer fully documented, yet dependence on the system continued to grow in day-to-day business. Therefore, before the client could invest in stabilisation or modernisation, a reliable basis for decision-making was required.
Before approving a budget for modernisation, the client needed clarity on three things:
- Transparency
A fact-based assessment of maintainability, security posture, dependencies, architecture and operational risk, based on metrics and code findings. - Options
A sound selection of evolution paths with clearly defined trade-offs, such as continued operation, stabilisation, modernisation, replatforming or rebuild. - Transition path
The certainty that an external partner can assume operational responsibility or stabilise the platform in parallel without months of discovery.
This is precisely the gap that 7P’s Legacy Fast Check closes.
The solution
Rather than assessing the platform in isolation from a single perspective, 7P examined it holistically as a business-critical integration system. To achieve this, automated code and security analyses, AI-supported evaluations, and expert reviews were combined. This approach quickly produced a comprehensive overview of the system’s technical quality, security posture, architectural condition, and operational maturity.
The key factor was not merely identifying individual weaknesses. As part of the ‘Legacy Fast Check’, a management-ready decision framework was derived from the large number of technical findings. The question was: which risks are relevant in the short term, and which structural limits determine the platform’s further development?
The Legacy Fast Check followed a three-stage approach:
- Scan: Analysis of the codebase, dependencies, security posture, API structure, and operational maturity.
- Score: Evaluation of the findings based on risk, maintainability, and technical future viability.
- Strategise: Development of concrete action plans for the future of the platform.
Senior Solution Engineer
Voice from the project
‘Although the platform was well suited to its original purpose, it had developed into a highly complex system over the years. The Fast Check revealed where the acute risks lay and which questions really needed to be clarified before modernisation could begin.‘
The result
The Fast Check revealed that, while the platform continued to fulfil its business function, its technical foundation posed clear risks and had obvious structural limitations. Notably, many of the findings were not limited to individual weaknesses. Over the years, a situation had developed in which old technical decisions continued to affect live operations, making changes increasingly difficult to predict.
Technological starting point
While the platform was stable enough for ongoing operation, changes were associated with increasing uncertainty. The underlying stack was clearly outdated, key dependencies were not consistently up to date, and the potential migration path to Jakarta was significantly more challenging than initially anticipated.
Architectural development
Over the years, the boundary between the integration layer and business logic had become increasingly blurred. Consequently, it became increasingly challenging to isolate the impact of individual changes. What had worked well in day-to-day operations for a long time turned out, from a further development perspective, to be a structural burden.
Operational perspective
Traceability and technical transparency were not available to the required extent for a business-critical integration system in the long term. This made one thing clear to the client: a decision on stabilisation, modernisation, or handover could only be made on the basis of an overall picture that was robust enough.
What the client received
Assessed current-state report | Maintainability, security posture, tech stack verdict and the platform’s DevOps maturity level. Every finding is traceable to its source. |
Top 10 immediate actions | The ten findings to address first, prioritised by impact and effort. |
Jersey-to-Jakarta migration assessment | A concrete view of namespace migration effort, dependency blockers and runtime implications. Not a yes/no recommendation, but a sized decision. |
Mobile API inventory & compatibility matrix | All 124 endpoints catalogued across 5 versioned generations, with explicit mobile app compatibility rules. |
Strategic evolution roadmap | Six explicit options (continued operation -> stabilise -> API facade -> strangler fig -> lift and shift -> full rewrite) assessed by effort, risk, time to value and long-term cost. |
Service transition checklist | A structured handover document for operations, CI/CD, runbooks and team transfer, ready for immediate use. |
Interactive dashboard | A central basis that the client can navigate, search and present internally. |
Would you like this result for your system?
The Legacy Fast Check offers reliable external insights, including structured scores, a comprehensive risk register and prioritised recommendations for action. Act now!
You are currently viewing a placeholder content from Hubspot Embedded Content. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou are currently viewing a placeholder content from HubSpot. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou are currently viewing a placeholder content from Hubspot Meetings. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More Information