Busting 4 myths about composable architectures
Gartner coined the term composable commerce in 2020, and in three years, this tech architecture has become widely popular for its numerous benefits.
While composability is the future of business digitization, many executives and senior business leaders in the B2B arena still view composability with skepticism and reluctance. Certainly, while transitioning to a composable architecture from the traditional monoliths & on-premises systems is the future, worries regarding complexity, cost, resources and time are impeding the shift. Besides, some misconceptions about composability are still restricting major industry players from switching.
To expedite the much-required change in process, I will attempt to bust four of the common myths associated with composable structure in this article.
Myth 1: Headless is not composable
Are terms like modular architecture, curated commerce suite and microservices architecture synonyms of composable? Yes.
Is headless and composable the same? No.
Simply put, headless is one of the many elements that make composable.
Headless refers to tech stacks where the front end and back end are decoupled and function independently. Backend structures like a content management system (CMS) or a customer data platform (CDP) are integrated into numerous API frontends.
Composable structuring is a step forward and combines multiple modular structures for different functions operating within an open ecosystem.
Myth 2: Developing omnichannel experience is challenging with composable
Not quite. Consider this: How does Netflix maintain continuity as you switch between devices while watching a show? Two words: Composable Architecture
According to a Salesforce report, seventy-six percent of customers look forward to consistent platform interaction. So, no wonder Netflix, with its quality content and experience consistency, is the binge-watch platform of choice for many.
As companies shift from a "multi-channel" approach to an omnichannel strategy, composable architecture allows businesses to interlink their diverse presence across platforms seamlessly while ensuring agility and customizability for customers.
Myth 3: Implementing a composable architecture is expensive
The cost of adopting composable commerce depends on the business complexity level. It's not uncommon for composability to lower long-term operational costs by reducing the frequent need for upgrades and development. For instance, Elastic, a popular data analytics company reduced their operational cost by 78% after adopting Contenstack’s composable solution.
Going composable reduces the maintenance and operational running costs significantly, impacting the total cost of ownership. The resources can thus be routed to enhance innovation and development.
Myth 4: Going composable requires only technical skills
Going Composable extends beyond technical prowess; it's about developing a composable mindset –a pivotal requirement in delivering the desired customer experience through a multi-component approach. The teams must understand customer needs and then select MACH-compliant composables that seamlessly integrate to address those needs. Simply put- composables create a customer-first culture, preparing teams to use the best of technology to solve customer problems. However, this doesn't sideline technical proficiency in the composable journey; upskilling the team to adopt and apply these composables adeptly is just as essential.
Further, companies can freely enhance the skills of their tech teams as required, taking shorter steps toward their digital maturity and iterating changes along the way.
Composable architecture powers technological advancements
Though composable brings multi-fold benefits for businesses, it may not be the ideal solution for every organization. While some brands may benefit from adopting a 360-degree commerce platform, other companies might require a customized structure.
To make the most out of the migration to composability, companies must identify the technological pain points that are preventing them from achieving their future goals. This necessitates proactive engagement from leadership in identifying areas with sluggish technological advancement.
Share on