Modernization in the public sector is often framed as a clean break from the past. Old systems are labeled “legacy,” and nascent solutions are presented as a fresh start—new technology, new platform, new way of working.
It’s an appealing idea. But for cities, modernization rarely works that way in practice.
The systems that last and deliver better results over time aren’t the ones that wipe the slate clean. They’re the ones that build forward on what already works, using a foundation that understands how cities really operate.
Old vs. New: The False Binary
When a system is accused of being “legacy,” the inference is that it's old. Emergent vendors like to paint foundational systems as being stagnant or monolithic. These claims can sound convincing, but they can be misleading.
Innovation isn’t blocked by age; it’s blocked by architecture. Many long-standing platforms evolve continuously, accumulating integrations with courts, finance systems, vendors, and local processes over many years, often more quietly and more responsibly than startups.
Further, foundational systems are hardly monolithic. Calls to “break-up” functionality fail to recognize that many older systems are modular under the hood…while some newer platforms are tightly coupled despite cloud branding.
Foundational systems are the result of years of real-world learning: adapting to new policies, responding to legal challenges, adjusting to leadership changes, handling edge cases and exceptions, integrating with an ever-expanding list of technologies, and optimizing in partnership with users to improve revenue over years.
The problem with dismissing an older system as being “dated” is the risk of failing to fully detail scope, leading to painfully delayed implementations, workarounds, and creep. That’s when platform shifts start to feel harder and riskier than expected.
Why Modernization Takes Time and Why It Matters
“Starting over” is often described as a moment:a cutover date, a launch, a fresh start. In reality, it can be a lengthy transition, and that transition has real costs.
Replacing a core system typically stretches over many months. Data must be migrated and validated. Workflows and integrations need to be rebuilt and tested. Staff must be trained, retrained, and supported as they learn new tools. For long stretches, cities may end up running two systems at once, maintaining the existing platform while paying for and standing up the new one.
That overlap is rarely free. It brings additional vendor costs, added operational overhead, and a steady drain on staff time and attention. That cost is rarely factored into switching costs.
Requirements definition is often made at a level removed from daily operations, which can unintentionally skew priorities. Critical, but less visible capabilities that frontline staff rely on, such as handling exceptions, appeals, and high-volume workload, may get missed. The truth is long-standing systems tend to support more than anyone remembers at the outset, including essential special rules, custom processes, and informal workarounds designed directly with frontline staff. Many of these dependencies only come into focus once the transition is underway, when changing courses is hardest.
Underspecified Scope, Low Bids, and the Reality of Creep
One of the less discussed risks in modernization projects is how early uncertainty shapes costs. When the full scope of a system isn’t visible because integrations are undocumented, edge cases are buried in daily workflows, or frontline realities haven’t been fully surfaced, vendors are often forced to bid based on partial information. That can make proposals look attractively lean at the outset.
But as implementation unfolds and the true complexity comes into focus, scope expands. Timelines stretch. Change orders appear. Costs rise. This is rarely the result of bad faith; it’s the predictable outcome of selecting and pricing a system before its full functional footprint is understood. The risk is not only higher costs but also eroded trust and a project that becomes harder to govern as assumptions unravel midstream.
During these extended transitions, operations such as enforcement, noticing, hearings, and auditing, slow or pause. Queues lengthen. Policy changes get postponed. Months and even years pass before the new parking system is stable and delivers its full value.
Because these systems sit at the center of day-to-day operations, the risk of disruption extends beyond technology alone. Revenue risk is the most obvious concern. Slowdowns during transitions can quietly flatten enforcement and collections performance, but it’s rarely the only concern. Extended cutovers can strain frontline staff, increase error rates, and create inconsistencies that ripple into appeals, audits, and public perception.
When citations are challenged, payments are delayed, or processes feel unreliable, trust erodes—not just in the system, but in the program itself. For cities operating under public scrutiny, those operational hiccups can quickly become reputational issues, drawing attention from oversight bodies, elected officials, or the media. That’s why modernization decisions aren’t just technical choices; they’re risk decisions that affect revenue, credibility, and public confidence all at once.
Platforms that allow cities to build forward by adding new capabilities without forcing a full stop or a full reset, shorten modernization and mitigate risk. They minimize overlap, limit scope surprises, and let value arrive earlier as opposed to later or not at all with nascent platforms.
A Strong Foundation Makes Change Easier, Not Harder
There’s a common belief that solid foundations slow innovation. In practice, the opposite is usually true.
When the core system is stable and trusted, teams can move faster. New tools can be added without fear of breaking what’s already working. Improvements can happen in steps instead of all at once. And change feels less risky because it is.
Foundations don’t prevent modernization. They make it safer and more sustainable.
They also preserve flexibility. As priorities change, leadership turns over, and technology evolves, cities keep their options open instead of being locked into a single path forward.
Modernization as Evolution, Not Replacement
Across cities, the modernization efforts that hold up best tend to follow a similar pattern. They keep what works, fix what doesn’t, and add new capabilities over time. Progress is steady. Risk stays manageable. Improvements compound instead of resetting.
None of this means that systems should never be replaced. Sometimes change is necessary. The difference lies in how transitions are approached. When modernization is grounded in a clear understanding of existing workflows, integrations, and frontline needs, transitions can be fast, controlled, and low risk.
At Trellint, we've seen this firsthand. We have successfully transitioned off incumbent systems in less than 30 days, not because the environments were simple, but because the work was anchored in a deep understanding of how the system was actually used and detailed conversion plans. Successful transitions don’t start with a clean slate; they start with respect for what’s already there. When that foundation is acknowledged, replacement becomes evolution—not disruption—and value arrives quickly instead of months down the road.
This isn’t about resisting change. It’s about changing in a way that respects how complex public-sector operations really are.
Rethinking What “Modern” Really Means
Real modernization isn’t about how quickly one system replaces another. It’s about how confidently a city can keep improving, innovating without disrupting operations, increasing financial risk, or rebuilding governance from scratch.
Modern systems might be the newest, but they often don’t need to be. True modern systems are dependable foundations that make ongoing improvement possible.
Modernization without memory isn’t progress; it’s repetition. And the future cities want is best built on a foundation that already understands how cities actually work.
Where Trellint Fits
Trellint's view of modernization has been shaped by years of working inside real city operations alongside frontline staff, finance and operational teams, and leadership where systems don’t live in isolation and change can’t afford to be theoretical.
We’ve seen firsthand that the fastest, lowest-risk path forward usually isn’t starting over, but building upon a foundation that already works. And when replacement is the right answer, we believe it should be done with discipline and respect for what’s already in place.
That approach is why we’ve been able to transition cities off incumbent systems in days or weeks, not months without disrupting operations or pausing progress. We recognize that modernization isn’t about chasing what’s new. It’s about helping cities move forward confidently, delivering value early, managing risk thoughtfully, and leaving them stronger than where they started.
A City Checklist for Capturing Scope Before Issuing an RFP
Modernization projects succeed or fail long before an RFP is released. The more clearly a city understands its own operations, dependencies, and transition requirements, the more accurate proposals will be and the fewer surprises will surface later.
Download the Modernization without Surprises: A City Checklist Before Issuing a RFP to help your city define scope before procurement. This guide ensures vendors price the same reality, keeps costs under control, and helps you manage transitions in a deliberate way instead of reacting under pressure.