Legacy .NET Modernisation
for European Businesses

For you if: You suspect the estate is a problem but nobody has established whether it actually is, or whether now is the moment to spend money on it.

• A 45-minute call — with me, not a salesperson — about what the system does and what is prompting the question.
• A short written summary afterwards: which .NET version you are on, whether it is still in support, and where that leaves you.
• The two or three biggest risks as they stand, named specifically rather than as general warnings.
• A straight answer on whether modernisation is worth doing yet. Sometimes it is not, and that is a useful thing to know for free.

What this is not: This diagnoses. It does not plan. A migration plan requires reading your code, which is the paid assessment below — anyone offering you a costed plan off the back of one call is guessing, and the guess will be wrong in your favour until the invoice arrives.

For you if: The assessment is done, the phases are agreed, and you want the first one delivered against a scope and a price that were both worked out by reading your code rather than estimated from a description.

• A fixed price for the agreed phase, produced by the assessment rather than quoted off a conversation.
• The phases delivered section by section, with your existing system running throughout.
• Architecture and code review by me on every phase — that part does not get delegated.
• Tests written alongside the work rather than promised for later, and a build that fails on warnings.
• A working, deployed system at the end of each phase, not just at the end of the project.

What this is not: There is no published price band here on purpose. Anyone quoting you a range before reading your code is guessing, and the guess runs in their favour until the invoice arrives. The assessment produces the number; once it is agreed it is fixed, and work beyond the written scope is quoted separately rather than absorbed silently.

For you if: The system is business-critical, the people who built it have gone, and you need someone who knows why it works the way it does to still be there in two years.

• Bug fixes, security patching, framework and dependency upgrades, and performance work on a system I already know.
• A named person — me — rather than a ticket queue and a rotating cast.
• Continuity of context. The reason clients stay is that we are the ones who remember why a particular calculation works the way it does.

What this is not: Not a lock-in: the minimum term is a single month, and it runs rolling after that. The figure depends on what the system is and what keeping it healthy actually takes, so it is set after reviewing it rather than published as a band. And a retainer is not an unlimited change budget — new capability is scoped and quoted as project work, while the retainer keeps what exists running and current.