Manage Uncertainty
in System Development

Vendor lock-in and project blowups are the biggest traumas for executives.

We explain the function of "transparency" that keeps you ready to withdraw at any time and avoids those risks.

1. Cost simulation for withdrawal

Sunk costs cloud executive judgment.

Compare the loss when stopping a project under a traditional fixed-bid contract vs a flexible DaaS/staff-augmentation model.

Cumulative cost comparison

Move the slider to change the month you decide to exit (cancel).

Exit timing:

Traditional (fixed-bid) risk

Termination penalties and buyout obligations for interim deliverables often apply, maximizing sunk cost exposure.

DaaS (flexible contract) risk

You pay only for work performed. Because you can stop anytime, you can decide to exit before the damage grows.

The ability to cancel at any time incentivizes the vendor to keep quality high.

2. The anatomy of vendor lock-in and "transparency"

Lock-in fear comes from not seeing what's inside.

Compare the elements that prevent a black box and restore autonomous control.

Traditional Vendor
📦

Black-box development

The detailed spec lives only in the vendor's head

  • Ambiguous code ownership

    Custom frameworks and libraries make it hard for another team to take over.

  • Missing documentation

    You get a working product, but not the "why" behind it.

  • People dependency

    If a key person leaves, the system can stall.

Recommended Model (DaaS)
🔍

White-box development

Keep the system ready to be handed over anytime

  • Standard technology selection

    Choose widely adopted languages and frameworks to keep replacement options.

  • Always shared in GitHub etc.

    Commit daily into the client's repo so progress and quality are visible in real time.

  • Exit strategy defined upfront

    Design an internalization/transition plan from day one.

Evaluation axes for partner selection (Risk Radar)

When selecting a partner, evaluate the five axes below, not only the price, to measure reversibility.

  • Transparency: Access to information
  • Standard tech: How common the tech stack is
  • Contract flexibility: Ease of cancellation
  • Documentation: Recorded design intent
  • Self-sufficiency support: Willingness to help internalize

3. Break free from dependence: Exit Strategy

Shift from contract lock-in to a value-based relationship.

Define the roadmap for smooth withdrawal and handoff when needed.

Step 01 Secure asset ownership

Ensure source code, design data, and documentation IP are owned by the client.

The client creates the repository (GitHub, etc.) and invites the vendor.

Step 02 Make knowledge non-personal

Document not only meeting notes but also code comments and ADRs.

Leaving the context of "why" minimizes handoff cost.

Step 03 Overlap period

When internalizing or switching vendors, allow 1-2 months of overlap.

Use pair programming and code reviews to transfer authority at the working level.

Goal Full independence

A state where the system keeps running without external partners.

This is the final goal of risk management - a healthy development posture.