Composable

For many, the name "commerce software" evokes a monolithic system, perhaps extended through plugins, that realizes all the necessary functionality in a single codebase. And it's no surprise, as such systems are simpler to set up and easier to reason about. But they have a critical shortcoming: should you need to change a single component in any way, you may need to change the entire system.

Higher Adaptability

Any function that is not achievable through the core feature set or via delegation APIs (plugins, extensions, etc.) either becomes a compromise you accept or disqualifies the entire system. And re-platforming the whole organization is a painful process.

Anecdotal evidence shows that many organizations underwent these platform changes in a cyclical fashion, where the commerce solution was rebuilt from scratch every five to ten years. Internal pressure wanted the platform to change more often as it lacked the functions necessary to maintain a competitive edge. Meanwhile, leadership pushed for longer periods as every change was costly and detrimental to the organization's health.

We believe for larger companies, a more modular architecture is a better approach. If monolithic software is a single program, composable architectures are like an operating system with multiple programs running. Each specializes in its area of responsibility and delegates other tasks to the remaining systems.

Of course, this modularity comes at a cost: with more moving parts, some complexity is inevitable. However, when one of the components is deemed insufficient, you only need to replace that single component and its connections to the adjacent systems. Through clever application of the strangler pattern, the architecture can be evolved without disrupting other teams and business units. It's not free or painless, but the scope of every change is much smaller, the timelines shorter, and the risks involved are easier to contain.

This, in turn, can lead to greater autonomy and efficiency of organization units. The benefits of enabling teams to pick their tools can quickly outweigh the one-time cost of integrating them.

Shared Responsibility

Changing platform internals can make an otherwise small customization carry the maintenance and security burden of the entire commerce system. BoxNCase avoids that tradeoff by keeping the platform managed and exposing stable extension contracts for the workflows customers need to own.

Composable architectures create clear boundaries between those responsibilities. Each system can be upgraded independently as long as its API and event contracts remain intact. You can combine managed services with your own storefronts and integrations without taking responsibility for operating the commerce platform.

Lower TCO

This last benefit is crucial for another reason. For most organizations, owning software is not a goal; it's a compromise. Unless you work for a software house or a software conservancy, maintaining software and the necessary infrastructure is a recurring cost that is best applied sparingly, where it helps to differentiate your business and benefits your customers directly.