1) Reliability, Rapid Development, Recommended Approach
2) If the solution is required to demonstrate a leading edge, state of the art system, it is important to recognize that existing legacy systems are unlikely to be well-aligned to this approach.
3) If the stakeholders require a quick win, consider the competing need for closed integration with in-house legacy systems.
In this case, it is unlikely that the rapid prototyping approach a quick win is the most appropriate.
4) Where the required solution is a robust error-free system, when time-to-market and new features and functionality are of less importance than reliability, then closer integration with existing legacy systems may be possible
5) Where the required solution to develop a system to anticipate future developments as far as possible and to allow for easy integration and minimum maintenance when new developments are introduced, a core system that can support future modules is likely to be the most desirable
approach.
6) Where time-to-market is less critical and the integrity of the system and approach is paramount, the cautious approach to developing a robust system has clear advantages. However, the danger of this approach is a constant state of Research and Development that never actually goes into production.
7) Where financial considerations enable today's technologies to be applied quickly for maximum business benefit, an approach that allows each solution to be discarded once it has past its 1) sell-by or 2) business-benefit date and replaced by the next new solution may be the most commercially appropriate solution. 8) : a) Easy integration of new features and functionality b) Low Maintenance
