This is a frustrating thing as a software developer: not enough people outside the industry know how to audit what they&#x27;re buying.  The expectation is that you reward a developer for simply implementing X, and no attention is given to whether or not the implementation sucks.  A lack of open-source mandates may be one factor, and a lack of quality regulation may be another.<p>It is entirely possible to implement a &quot;working&quot; system that will require Herculean efforts to make the slightest change: a system that will collapse in on itself entirely if anything is touched anywhere else.  And if you already spent a lot of money to get this far, you may assume a lot more is required to patch it.<p>Sadly, although we as an industry <i>do</i> know how to build hardened systems that are a lot more likely to adapt with the times and provide stable operation, people outside of the software industry really don&#x27;t seem to know the difference.  And if better software comes at a premium up front, cheap organizations may always pick the lower bid because they&#x27;re thinking of software like an office chair and not a bridge that&#x27;s holding up a road.