Enterprise AI
Software Factory
Enterprise software modernization beyond the demo
September 24, 2026 - 2 minute read
A migration can produce a large patch while leaving the hardest question unanswered: whether the new system preserves the behavior customers depend on. Enterprise software modernization needs a clear destination and a reviewable record of how the implementation got there.
Comarch’s published case study describes using Factory for bounded migrations, re-platforming, and new builds. Its engineers retain customer context, architecture decisions, and authority over what ships while Missions carry out long-running execution.
Scope enterprise software modernization around behavior
Comarch reported completing an XSLT modernization in 45 days after estimating the work at 10,000 person-days. It also described a database migration estimated at 45 days that a Factory mission completed in six hours. These are separate projects, with estimates as their comparison points, not a controlled benchmark or a promised conversion rate.
The same account describes an airline customer-story implementation moving from an 18-month estimate to a one-week MVP. Preserve the word “MVP” when using that example. It does not establish that a complete production system was delivered in a week.
Comarch calls background execution the “night shift.” Chief AI Officer Dr. Łukasz Bolikowski describes the handoff:
“Humans work with joy throughout the day. Factory finishes the work, which is then picked up by the human the next morning.”
For a new project, make that morning review concrete. Identify the behavior that must remain stable, representative inputs, integration boundaries, and the evidence the reviewer will inspect. Include known exceptions instead of leaving an agent to discover them halfway through the migration.
Validate enterprise software modernization independently
Factory’s Missions architecture separates orchestration, implementation, and validation. The orchestrator defines a validation contract before breaking work into features. Workers implement bounded changes, while independent validators assess whether the requested behavior works.
That architecture article records validation results for a Slack-clone mission. Those results illustrate independent verification, not Comarch’s project metrics or private systems.
Factory’s Missions planning documentation gives teams a concrete starting point for scoping this work. The useful deliverable is a change another engineer can verify, with a reproducible check for each important requirement.
Keep data access and release permissions separate from task execution. Define rollback expectations before a migration runs. A passing test against a development fixture should not silently become permission to modify production records.
You.com’s published account shows why reproductions matter even outside migrations. Droid created an isolated Docker environment, wrote tests, and traced an MCP timeout to client-side behavior. The result let the team correct integration guidance rather than keep changing the wrong server configuration.
Start with a bounded slice of modernization whose current and intended behavior can both be checked. Measure accepted completion and reviewer effort, then decide whether the next slice is ready for the same workflow.
Discuss a migration with Factory, its validation requirements, and where Missions could fit.
