The term brownfield site means real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Does the term brownfield software system have merit?
I’m not sure. Let’s step back and explore.
I thought my use of the term “brownfield software system” was new, but a quick web search yielded a paper by Janet Lavery and Cornelia Boldyreff who use the term. In their paper, Lavery and Boldyreff say,
“Throughout the UK there are thousands of sites which have been contaminated by previous industrial use, often associated with traditional processes which are now obsolete, which may present a hazard to the general environment, but for which there is a growing requirement for reclamation and redevelopment.” This quote was taken from the UK Government Environment Agency web site [1] and refers to land based brownfield sites. It could also refer to the challenges facing the software engineering industry today in transforming legacy systems with their dated software, distributed data, and entrenched business processes into useful, web accessible systems. Unlike the derelict land brownfield sites chosen for reclamation and redevelopment, software brownfield sites are usually functioning systems supporting an ongoing institution or business in its continued existence while not fully supporting or adapting to the changing needs of their user communities.
It seems to me that the Y2K crisis treated software systems similar to how government agencies treat brownfield sites, such as toxic waste dumps, so the concept is growing on me. I’m struggling with whether a maladaptive system is like poison. I think it is. It harms the people who use the system. If the Y2K problems weren’t corrected, the brownfield software systems would have harmed people.
Do you think some legacy software systems are like brownfield sites? Post a comment. I would like to know your opinion.
Leave a Reply