Composable vs. Monolith: A Pragmatic Migration Roadmap

Jul 1, 2025

Picture this: you’re a CTO at a mid-market brand, and every morning your inbox is flooded with vendor pitches touting “composable” as the silver bullet for ecommerce. Composable architecture is the buzzword du jour fluentcommerce.com, promising to future-proof your business. Meanwhile, your trusty monolithic platform is chugging along, albeit with some creaks and groans. The stakes are high – choose the wrong path, and you could waste millions or stifle your growth. Choose wisely, and you set your brand up for scalable success. Before you hit “archive” on the latest composable pitch or, conversely, jump headfirst into a costly rebuild, let’s cut through the hype. In this guide, we’ll pragmatically compare monolith vs. composable commerce and map out a realistic migration roadmap. The goal: help you make an informed architectural call that balances risk and reward.

Monolith vs. Composable Snapshot

Let’s start with plain-English definitions. A monolithic ecommerce platform is an all-in-one system where your storefront, product catalog, checkout, CMS, and so on are tightly integrated in a single codebase. Classic examples include Magento/Adobe Commerce and legacy platforms that handle everything under one roof. Monoliths are often easier to kickstart (one vendor, one code stack) and have lower upfront costs. However, as your business grows and you pile on customizations, the monolith can get brittle – small changes require touching a big, interconnected codebase skillnetinc.com. Over time, many monoliths accrue technical debt and “diminishing performance, efficiency, agility” as workarounds pile up skillnetinc.com. In other words, the very simplicity that helped early on can turn into a liability at scale.

By contrast, a composable architecture (often synonymous with microservices or MACH architecture) breaks the commerce platform into a suite of independent components connected via APIs. You might use a separate best-of-breed CMS, search engine, checkout service, PIM, etc., all orchestrated together. This modular approach promises more flexibility and scaling efficiency : you can upgrade or replace one piece without overhauling everything. The trade-off? Composable commerce usually means higher initial complexity and cost. Instead of one system, you’re stitching together many – which requires strong technical governance. Think of monolith vs. composable like buying a pre-furnished house versus building one from custom parts.

Two Myths, Debunked: It’s easy to fall for industry myths. First, “Composable always means a faster website.” Not necessarily! Performance comes from good implementation. In fact, one retailer actually moved from a headless “composable” front end back to a monolithic front end (using Magento’s Hyvä theme) and “performance improved hugely” as a result unified.co. A well-optimized monolith can outrun a poorly executed composable setup. Second, “Monoliths are inherently outdated.” False – modern monolithic platforms can be modular and API-friendly. Adobe Commerce, for example, is viewed as a “flexible toolkit” with significant composability, even if it’s not fully microservices business.adobe.com. Many successful brands still run monoliths, and monolithic architectures have “not totally fallen by the wayside”cortex.io. The key is recognizing when you’re hitting the limits. In practice, composable commerce tends to have a higher upfront cost but better long-term agility , whereas monoliths are cheap to start but can become fragile to change. As one tech analyst put it, “Monoliths have a low upfront cost, but are expensive to develop and scale. Microservices come with a significant upfront cost, but their scalability makes it cost-effective in the long run.”cortex.io In short: you pay now or pay later. The art is knowing which cost curve your business is ready to ride.

The 5-Question Composability Litmus Test

If you’re on the fence about sticking with your monolith versus breaking it up, start with a simple litmus test. Ask yourself these five questions:

• 1. Are we targeting rapid GMV growth in the next 1–3 years? High-growth brands often push monoliths to their limits – whether it’s traffic spikes, adding new channels, or quickly rolling out new features to capitalize on opportunities. Composable setups can scale specific services independently (for example, autoscaling just the checkout or inventory service) to handle rapid growth cortex.io. If you’re aiming for, say, 50% year-over-year ecommerce growth and expansion into new markets, a composable architecture might handle the strain more gracefully than a monolith whose all-or-nothing scaling could become costly or slow. Conversely, if growth is steady and modest, a well-tuned monolith might suffice for now.

• 2. Do we have (or plan to hire) in-house technical depth? Be realistic about your engineering muscle. Composable commerce “offers the most flexibility and specialization but is the most complex to manage,” often necessitating a larger, highly skilled team skillnetinc.com. If you have strong architects and developers experienced in API integrations, cloud DevOps, and managing multiple systems, you have the talent footing to go composable. If not – and if budget or hiring pipeline won’t change that – you might lean monolith or at least a gradual approach. Many failed composable projects stem not from the tech itself but from teams underestimating the learning curve and coordination needed. (Gartner famously predicted that “90% of organizations attempting microservices will fail” to fully deliver the expected benefits medium.com, largely due to operational complexity.) No in-house team yet? Consider delaying composable until you secure a partner or staff up, or opt for a hybrid approach that eases your team into it.

• 3. Are we frustrated by slow feature rollouts or IT bottlenecks? This is a common pain with monoliths. Because everything is intertwined, even minor changes can require full regression testing and scheduled deployment windows. If your business teams joke that even adding a field to a checkout form is a herculean task, that’s a red flag. Headless and composable architectures can decouple development streams , so front-end improvements or new micro-features can be deployed without redeploying the entire platform cortex.ioskillnetinc.com. In practice, companies often find that moving to composable speeds up feature deployment – one report noted 3–4× faster deployment of new features post-migration coderapper.com. If agility and time-to-market are top priorities, composable is appealing. On the other hand, if your current platform still lets you launch new campaigns or site updates fast enough, the urgency to change is lower.

• 4. Do we need robust omnichannel orchestration? Monolithic platforms excel at running an online store out of the box, but when you start connecting multiple channels (brick-and-mortar POS, marketplaces, mobile apps, social commerce) the cracks show. Composable setups shine in omnichannel because you can integrate specialized systems: e.g. a unified inventory service feeding both ecommerce and stores, or a best-of-breed order management system orchestrating orders from web, Amazon, and wholesale. If your vision involves a seamless “buy anywhere, fulfill anywhere” experience, a monolith will likely require heavy customization or bolt-ons to get there. In contrast, composable architecture is almost a prerequisite for true omnichannel, as it allows you to slot in purpose-built services for each channel. So if multi-channel integration and real-time data flow between systems are a headache today, that leans toward a composable roadmap. (If you’re still primarily operating a single online storefront with maybe one additional channel, a monolith can usually handle it.)

• 5. Is the team (and leadership) prepared for a bigger up-front budget in exchange for greater agility later? This question often separates the contenders. Composable migrations require significant investment up front – licensing multiple SaaS services or building custom APIs, integration work, possibly running two platforms in parallel for a while. The payoff is potential agility and efficiency down the road, but you must have the stomach (and pocketbook) for it now. Monolithic upgrades or replatforms tend to be cheaper initially (and you pay one vendor), but might cost you in slower improvements later. Essentially, are you willing to invest now to save (or move faster) later? If yes, you’re culturally and financially aligned with a composable strategy. If your CFO balks at a 6- or 7-figure project without near-term ROI, you may need to stick with incremental improvements on the monolith for the time being. It’s crucial to get business buy-in at the executive level for the upfront costs of composable. A honest ROI model (we’ll touch on next) can illuminate this trade-off.

This five-question test isn’t a strict scorecard, but it clarifies your situation. If you’re answering “yes” to most of the above, the case for exploring composable is strong. If you have more “no” answers, it might be prudent to optimize your monolith a bit longer while laying groundwork (like hiring or data cleanup) for a future transition.

Migration Timeline Framework

So you’ve decided (or are seriously considering) a move toward composable commerce. How do you get there without blowing up your business? Below is a pragmatic migration timeline broken into key phases. This isn’t a theoretical ideal – it’s a field-tested sequence that mid-market brands have used to move off a monolith with manageable risk. We assume here a phased migration (not a “big bang” flip overnight). In fact, many organizations choose a hybrid parallel run , keeping the old and new systems running side by side for a period while gradually shifting functionality coderapper.com. This lets you validate as you go and avoid a do-or-die launch day. Each phase below includes its purpose and some practical tips:

1. Discovery & ROI Modeling

Every journey starts with a map. In the discovery phase, you conduct a thorough audit of your current platform and define the business case for change. Map out your current commerce ecosystem – all the integrations, extensions, and pain points. Gather input from across departments: Where is your monolith slowing things down? Where are people using manual workarounds or shadow IT? This is also the time to project the ROI of going composable. Quantify potential benefits such as faster page speed (and the conversion lift that might bring), improved deployment frequency, or richer omnichannel capabilities. For example, if post-migration you can deploy new features 3× faster and run more sales experiments, what revenue uplift could that drive? Some companies have reported dramatically faster deployments and lower operating costs after going composable coderapper.com – use such data points to build a realistic ROI model. Don’t forget to include the cost side: new licensing fees for SaaS components, additional cloud infrastructure, integration development costs, and potentially maintaining two systems in parallel for months. The outcome of this phase is an ROI-backed roadmap and executive buy-in. Essentially, you’re answering: why are we doing this, and what’s the payoff over 3-5 years? Secure leadership’s commitment by presenting composable migration as an investment with measurable returns (e.g. “We anticipate +15% conversion from faster site speed, which equates to $X million, against a project cost of $Y million”). This business case will be your North Star when tough budget decisions arise later.

2. Data Extraction & PIM Groundwork

One of the smartest early moves in a composable migration is tackling your data layer. In a monolith, a lot of data (products, content, customers) is entangled in the platform’s database. Begin by extracting and cleaning this data, and decide what new systems will own it. Many mid-market brands start by implementing a Product Information Management (PIM) system before anything else. A PIM serves as a central product catalog, independent of your ecomm platform. By migrating your product data into a PIM early, you achieve two things: (a) you untangle product content from the old platform (making it easier to feed a new front end or multiple front ends), and (b) you improve data quality and consistency across channels. Similarly, consider where customer data will live (perhaps in a CRM or customer data platform) and how orders will flow. During this phase, develop a detailed data mapping between the legacy monolith and the new composable components coderapper.com. For instance, map how a “product” entity in your monolith translates to the PIM’s schema, how customer accounts map to a CRM, etc. It’s also crucial to establish data sync processes – if you’re running systems in parallel for a while, you may need nightly syncs of inventory or orders so both old and new platforms stay in sync coderapper.com. Nail down your source-of-truth for each data domain (e.g., “the PIM is master for product info; ERP is master for inventory and pricing; our legacy platform is master for order history until we cut over”). This groundwork lays a stable foundation for the build phases. It also derisks the migration by handling one of the hairiest parts – data – upfront. By the end of this phase, your core data should be clean, consistently structured, and ready to feed into new composable services.

3. Parallel Build and Early Integrations

With data streams sorted, you can start building out the composable services in parallel to your existing platform. Often, brands will begin with one or two components to pilot the approach – for example, standing up a new headless CMS for content management, or deploying a new search service (while the monolith continues to run everything else). This “strangler pattern” approach lets you gradually replace pieces of the monolith with microservices coderapper.com. Key activities in this phase include designing your target state architecture and selecting vendors for each component. For each service (CMS, search, cart, checkout, etc.), define clear API contracts and integration points. It’s wise to also set up your CI/CD pipeline and testing framework early – you’ll want automated tests for each microservice and for the integrated whole. Tip: Run the new components in a production-parallel environment (with sample data or even live sync data) as early as you can. For instance, if you spin up a new CMS, have it publish content to a staging site that mirrors your current site. This lets your team get familiar with managing multiple systems and surfaces integration issues early (e.g. authentication, API rate limits). Many teams at this stage start with essential flows – “checkout, PIM updates, cart events” etc. – to prove out that the new architecture works on mission-critical processes coderapper.com. It’s an iterative build/test hardening phase. You haven’t switched customers over yet, but you’re running the new stack in parallel to validate it. This phase can last several months as you incrementally add more composable components behind the scenes.

4. Soft Launch & Monolith Feature Freeze

Now for the exciting part – bringing the new platform out to play. Soft launch is a technique to deploy the new composable storefront (or whatever portion is ready) in a limited, controlled manner. Rather than a grand public reveal on Day 1, you might start with an internal beta or a “friends & family” release of the new site. Alternatively, some brands launch the new site for a single region or a secondary brand first. The idea is to collect real-world feedback and ensure stability before the full switch. A phased rollout or soft launch greatly minimizes riskcontentserv.com. For example, you could route 5% of traffic to the new experience and 95% to the old, then ramp up as confidence grows. During this period, it’s critical to institute a feature freeze on the monolith. That means you stop making feature changes to the old platform (beyond urgent fixes) so you’re not constantly playing catch-up on the new system. Freezing the monolith ensures your teams focus on polishing the new platform and prevents divergence where, say, marketing launches a new promo feature on the old site that isn’t implemented on the new site. In practice, a feature freeze might last a few weeks to a couple of months leading to full cut-over. Use this window to do final data migrations (e.g. port over the latest customer reviews or open orders), run load tests, SEO checks, and usability testing on the new site. It’s also a time to double-check that every business-critical scenario is covered in the new world (fraud checks, tax calculations, email notifications – all those nitty-gritty things). Fix any gaps quickly, or decide what workarounds you’ll use if something isn’t ready by go-live. The soft launch culminates in gradually increasing traffic to the new platform – for instance, 0% to 20% to 50% over days or weeks – while monitoring like a hawk. By the end, you should be confident the new composable stack can handle full production load and real user behavior.

5. Full Cut-Over & Debt Clean-up

This is the moment of truth: you fully cut over all traffic and operations to the new composable platform. Often, teams will choose a low-traffic period (like middle of the night or a weekend) to do the final switch, and communicate a maintenance window in case things go long. If you’ve executed the prior phases well, the full cut-over is actually a non-event for customers – they simply start using the new site, which has been running in parallel and tested. Still, have your war room ready: all hands on deck from IT, support, and key business stakeholders to watch metrics (page load times, error logs, conversion rates, etc.) like a live heart monitor. It’s wise to have a rollback plan just in case , but assuming all goes well, congrats – you are live on the new architecture!

Now, immediately after cut-over begins the debt clean-up phase. First, decommission or archive the old monolithic system. This might involve running read-only access for a short time (for historical data queries) but shutting down any active processes to reduce confusion. Make sure any remaining data that wasn’t migrated (e.g. older order history) is stored in a data warehouse or accessible in your BI tools so you’re not losing institutional memory. Next, address any “to-dos” or shortcuts that were postponed during the migration (we all make them). Maybe during crunch time you hard-coded a tax rule or skipped rebuilding an edge-case feature; now is the time to pay down that tech debt. It’s also crucial at this stage to assign clear ownership for each of the new composable services in your stack (if you haven’t already). Post-migration, teams can sometimes be unsure who owns what, since responsibilities shifted away from one centralized platform. Avoid this by confirming, for example, who is the product owner of the front-end experience, who owns the PIM or search service , etc. (A best practice is to have appointed “capability owners” earlier in the process coderapper.com so there’s continuity.) Finally, don’t underestimate user training and operational readiness. Your staff (from customer service to content editors) might have new tools and workflows in the composable world – ensure they are trained and confident now that the old system is gone. The migration is complete, but your work isn’t done – it transitions into an ongoing improvement cycle on the new platform.

Case Study: HanesBrands’ Hybrid Approach

Caption: HanesBrands piloted a composable architecture by integrating Adobe’s Edge Delivery Services with their Adobe Commerce (Magento) platform, yielding one of the fastest ecommerce sites in the world.

Real-world examples help illustrate these concepts. Let’s look at HanesBrands Inc. , the company behind Hanes, Maidenform, Champion and other apparel lines. HanesBrands operates at a global scale, and they were running on Adobe Commerce (a modern monolithic platform). The tech team, led by CTO Leo Griffin, faced a common monolith challenge: their sites were decently fast but not lightning-fast, and they wanted to significantly improve performance and personalization. Rather than throwing out their entire platform, HanesBrands took a pragmatic hybrid approach – layering composable services onto their monolithic core. Specifically, they worked with Adobe to implement Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) Edge Delivery Services as a new, decoupled front-end layer on top of Adobe Commerce. Essentially, they kept Adobe Commerce handling commerce logic and data, but introduced AEM’s edge-based, headless CMS and CDN capabilities to serve ultra-fast page content. The pilot was Maidenform, one of Hanes’s brands. The results were astounding: the Google Lighthouse performance score for the Maidenform site went from a miserable 1 (out of 100) to a perfect 100 overnight after the new Edge architecture launched business.adobe.com. Pages that once took several seconds to load became near-instant. In fact, the site became so fast that initially their analytics flagged some user sessions as bots because no human was thought to browse that quickly! business.adobe.com. HanesBrands essentially leapfrogged to having one of the fastest ecommerce websites in the world.

Performance wasn’t the only win. By moving to a composable front-end, the HanesBrands team found it “significantly easier and faster to update the site” as well business.adobe.com. They also layered on Adobe’s personalization and customer data components (Adobe Real-Time CDP and Adobe Target) to orchestrate data-driven experiences. This composable addition paid off in conversion: after implementing Edge Delivery and personalization, retargeted customers became three times more likely to make a purchase on HanesBrands sites business.adobe.com. That’s a 3× lift attributed to faster pages and more relevant content. Importantly, HanesBrands didn’t rip out their core commerce platform – they augmented it. Griffin described Adobe Commerce as “the right solution for us because of its modularity and composability… The biggest drawback was speed, but Edge Delivery has completely eliminated that trade-off.”business.adobe.com In other words, by adding a composable service on top (for speed), they got the best of both worlds: the robust commerce engine of a monolith and the front-end performance of a microservice. This case study shows a pragmatic path for a mid-market or enterprise brand: you don’t always have to replatform 100% on day one. You can target a specific pain point (in Hanes’s case, page speed) and use composable tech to solve it, then gradually build on that success. HanesBrands is now extending this edge architecture across its other brand sites, confident that the composable approach has proven its value in practice business.adobe.com.

Other companies on Magento/Adobe Commerce have taken similar incremental steps. Some have introduced a Hyvä front-end theme (a modern, streamlined monolithic front-end) to breathe new life into their site speed and developer experience without a full replatform. The common thread is choosing modernization projects that deliver tangible improvements – whether it’s site speed, omnichannel capability, or developer agility – and iterating from there. HanesBrands’ story underlines that composable commerce isn’t an all-or-nothing flip; it can be a strategic evolution , keeping what works in your monolith and replacing what doesn’t with better components.

Risk Matrix & Mitigations

Adopting composable commerce is not without pitfalls. In fact, it introduces new complexities that, if unmanaged, can derail the project. Below we detail four common failure patterns seen in monolith-to-composable migrations – and how to mitigate them:

• Risk 1: Over-Customization of Composable Components. When “composable” promises infinite flexibility, there’s a temptation to rebuild every wheel. Teams sometimes over-engineer the new system to replicate every nuance of the old platform, or they heavily customize each microservice beyond recognition. This can negate the benefits of composability and create a Franken-platform. Mitigation: Resist the urge to customize everything out of the gate – just because you can doesn’t mean you should. As one report noted, in a composable architecture “because you can customize everything, it leaves room for teams to make the wrong decisions accidentally.”cdn.builder.io Set clear guiding principles for your migration: configure before customize, and only build truly unique capabilities that drive competitive advantage. Leverage the out-of-the-box strengths of chosen platforms (e.g. use your search service as intended, instead of bending it backwards with custom code). If you find yourself writing extensive custom logic to glue services, ask if there’s a better way or a different component. Early architecture governance (code reviews, design approvals) can catch over-customization before it proliferates. In short, guard against recreating the monolith’s complexity in microservices clothing.

• Risk 2: Team Skill Gaps and Siloed Knowledge. A composable stack can fail simply because the team isn’t equipped to manage it. Microservices, APIs, cloud deployments, devops pipelines – these require expertise. If your developers are used to one integrated system, the shift can be jarring. You also risk silos if each microservice team only focuses on its piece without understanding the whole. Mitigation: Invest in people and training as much as tech. Bring in experienced solution architects or partners to guide initial implementation and mentor your team. Provide training on the specific platforms (CMS, PIM, etc.) and on general microservices best practices (like monitoring and CI/CD). Also, foster a “systems thinking” culture – ensure everyone understands the end-to-end customer journey so they appreciate how their service fits in. Some companies create a “migration SWAT team” mixing legacy system experts with new tech experts to cross-pollinate knowledge. Finally, don’t be afraid to slow the project timeline to let your team catch up the learning curve. It’s better to achieve a controlled, well-understood rollout than to rush and end up in firefighting mode. The fact that the majority of failed microservice initiatives stem from operational missteps reinforces that team readiness is keymedium.com.

• Risk 3: Unclear Data Models and Integration Chaos. In a monolith, data consistency is often handled by a single database. In a composable architecture, one of the biggest dangers is inconsistent or poorly integrated data across services. If product data doesn’t sync between PIM and frontend, or customer records fragment across systems, you’ll create a mess that frustrates customers (and your staff). Similarly, point-to-point integrations built ad-hoc can become fragile “spaghetti” that breaks easily. Mitigation: Design a unified data model and integration strategy from day 1. Clearly define which system is the system of record for each data entity (product, price, customer, order, etc.). Document how data flows will work before you build them. For example, decide that the PIM will push product updates to the e-commerce engine and CMS via events, rather than each system polling randomly. Implement an integration layer or middleware if appropriate (many teams adopt an event-driven architecture or an iPaaS – integration platform as a service – to manage flows). The goal is to avoid sneaky mismatches like a promotion existing in one system but not another due to a sync failure. Also, prioritize data governance : establish data validation rules and audit logs when data moves between services. By treating data architecture as a first-class citizen in your migration (and not an afterthought), you prevent one of the most common sources of failure. A clean, well-mapped data foundation is the backbone of a stable composable ecosystem.

• Risk 4: Lack of Ownership and Accountability for Services. In a monolithic world, it’s usually clear who “owns” the platform (often a single product manager or IT Ops team). With multiple composable components, ownership can fall into a gray zone – everyone assumes someone else is watching that service. The result: neglected updates, inconsistent user experiences, or slow response to incidents because no one was clearly in charge. Mitigation: Establish a governance and ownership model along with your migration. Each major component or domain should have an owner (or owning team) who is accountable for its success. For example, assign a product owner for “Digital Checkout & Cart,” another for “Content & CMS,” another for “Product Catalog/PIM,” etc. These owners drive the roadmap for their component and coordinate changes with others. During the migration planning, identify these roles – as recommended, “appoint capability owners early” in the processcoderapper.com so they can champion the new systems. Additionally, set up an integration or platform oversight group that ensures all the moving parts work together (some companies call this a Center of Excellence). This group can enforce standards, monitor cross-service KPIs, and serve as the glue between silos. By clearly delineating who is responsible for what (both during the project and in steady state), you reduce the risk of things falling through the cracks. Ownership also drives pride – when teams own their services, they’re more likely to proactively improve them and fix issues quickly.

In summary, forewarned is forearmed. By anticipating these failure modes – over-customization, skill gaps, data issues, and ownership voids – you can put controls in place to mitigate them. Many successful composable migrations share a common trait: the teams treated the project not just as a tech swap, but as an organizational transformation. Process and people considerations got as much attention as code and cloud. Do likewise, and you’ll greatly increase your odds of a smooth transition.

Budget Benchmarks

Let’s talk money. How much should you budget for a migration to composable commerce, or for ongoing modernizations of your platform? While every business is different, a useful rule of thumb is to allocate a percentage of your gross profit to platform improvements. In fact, The Ecommerce Growth Playbook (see Chapter 4.3) suggests treating platform modernization as a line-item investment, much like marketing or operations. A pragmatic benchmark for mid-market brands is around 10% of gross profit reinvested into technology and platform upgrades. For example, if your gross profit for the year is $20M, setting aside about $2M for platform modernization (whether that’s a major replatform project or incremental feature enhancements) is a healthy target. This ensures you’re funding the infrastructure needed to scale and innovate, without starving the rest of the business. Some years it might be a bit less, other years more – especially if undertaking a big migration, you might concentrate a couple of years’ budget into one major project. Another way to sanity-check the number is as a percent of revenue: many mid-sized companies spend roughly 3–5% of revenue on ITtechvera.com, and our suggested 10% of gross profit falls in that zone when translated. The key takeaway is to plan for platform spend intentionally. Don’t just react to emergencies or let the platform decay due to under-investment. By earmarking a consistent portion of profits for technology, you create a sustainable cadence for upgrades (cloud hosting, new features, security patches, etc.) and avoid the scenario of “no budget until the system breaks.” In the long run, treating your commerce platform as an asset to invest in – with a clear budget guideline – will yield higher growth and fewer unpleasant surprises. (For a deeper dive into budgeting and ROI frameworks, see Chapter 4.3 of the upcoming playbook.)

Up Next: Executing in 90 Days

You’ve made the big decisions – now it’s all about execution. How do you actually get moving in the next quarter? Stay tuned for next week’s post , where we’ll drill into a 90-day action plan for ecommerce replatforming. We’ll cover the quick wins and critical first steps once you’ve chosen monolith or composable (or hybrid). Whether it’s rallying your team, engaging solution partners, or tackling that first integration, we’ll show you how to build momentum immediately. The journey to a modern commerce platform might seem long, but with the right 90-day sprint, you can hit the ground running and set yourself up for success. Coming up: “Day 0 to Day 90 – Launching Your Ecommerce Platform Transformation.” Keep an eye out – the adventure continues!