In recent years, IT leaders in asset-intensive industries have been increasingly faced with costly migrations of their core systems to cloud or newer vendor versions.  

These migrations are not all created equal and may involve different levels of complexity and adaptation, between lift-and-shift, replatforming or refactoring. However, some things never seem to change: The vendor often insists the move is unavoidable and will ultimately bring a slew of new features but it also often comes with a long journey and uncertain timelines.  

The prospect of being an early adopter in a regulated environment is also hardly reassuring. This is not a routine upgrade: It is a wholesale shift in architecture that demands fresh validation, new licensing models, re-training of staff and often a reimplementation of integrations built up over years.  

In practice, the cost of this vendor-mandated migration may rival, or even exceed, the cost of switching to a different EAM platform altogether - and, by choosing a platform like HxGN EAM, you may find a simple, better solution is at hand.

The Pain Points Execs Already Know

Senior leaders do not need reminding that traditional enterprise software comes with complexity. Yet in this case the pain is amplified.  

Companies report:

• Cloud price hikes: Moving to the “new” version often involves a shift to a SaaS pricing model. On paper this may promise flexibility, but in reality, annual costs increase sharply. Some providers have already announced price hikes of 20% or more. For large user bases whose licensing bills can run into the millions, the increase can be significant and stretch budgets.
• Integration rebuilds: Over years, firms have customized interfaces to ERP, MES, procurement and quality systems. These integrations rarely port cleanly.
• Training and adoption: Plant staff already find legacy interfaces cumbersome. Introducing a new version risks further alienation unless training is extensive. The challenge extends to the IT level: every time a core system is shifted onto a new technology stack, internal teams must acquire a different skill set and skill shortages cut deep. That creates dependence on external consultants, higher labour costs and longer project timelines.
• Being the guinea pig: Early movers shoulder the risk of software immaturity, including bugs, missing functionality and weak documentation that are typical in the first years of such a major platform shift. Few executives relish being a test case. 

None of these issues are hypothetical. Industry forums are full of practitioners voicing frustration with forced migrations that add cost and risk without delivering clear operational benefit.

Large vendors present forced migration as a binary: move to the new version or be left unsupported. In reality, there is a third option: switch provider. Given the costs, the marginal difference between migrating within the vendor’s ecosystem and adopting a different system is shrinking fast.

For many companies, the greater risk is not in switching, but in committing vast sums to a migration that delivers no competitive advantage and locks them into higher costs for the next decade. In an environment where uptime, compliance and cost control are paramount, executives cannot afford to squander capital on being a captive customer.

The Case for Looking Beyond

If the cost and disruption of migration rival those of a full switch, it is fair to ask whether loyalty still makes sense. Executives are justified in exploring whether moving to a more modern platform like HxGN EAM could deliver more value with none of the pain.  

A few points strengthen that case:

• Usability. HxGN EAM was designed with field technicians in mind. Its interface is simpler and mobile-ready, which reduces the friction of entering accurate data. That tackles a core failing of legacy systems where clunky screens drive poor compliance.
• Cloud maturity. Unlike older tools being pushed to the cloud, HxGN EAM was built as a cloud-ready solution. It offers steadier pricing, smoother updates and APIs that integrate cleanly with ERP, MES and historians.
• Compliance support. HxGN EAM includes validation accelerators, pre-configured controls and audit-ready reporting for standards such as ISO 55001 and ISO 9001, as well as industry-specific rules in sectors like power, transport and chemicals. This lowers the cost and risk of keeping systems in a controlled state.
• Faster innovation. Legacy stacks carry decades of code and customisations. HxGN EAM, backed by active R&D investment, advances faster in areas like predictive maintenance, IoT telemetry and analytics you can act on. Despite what billion-dollar marketing budgets could have you believe, they also provide a much faster route to deploying AI on proven use cases.
• Independent recognition. Analyst firms increasingly give HxGN EAM top (or even perfect) scores, citing strong customer satisfaction and successful deployments across asset-intensive industries. Executives can take confidence that it is a proven, mainstream option. 

The Strategic View

Asset management is not a back-office function. It determines plant reliability, product quality and ultimately the profitability of capital-intensive industries. An EAM that technicians actually use, that is simpler to keep compliant and cheaper to run will show up in availability, OPEX and risk.

A forced migration should trigger a hard review. If the business must spend heavily either way, step back and compare options. Sticking with the familiar (or, in this case, the big-name incumbent) may feel safer, but familiarity will not offset higher licensing fees, integration headaches and a workforce frustrated by clunky tools.

Executives who look beyond the default option may find that the grass really is greener. Platforms like HxGN EAM are easier to adopt, quicker to connect and proven across regulated sectors. They deserve a serious look before a scarce budget is committed to a migration that may only recreate yesterday’s problems under a new contract. Click here to learn more.