Replacing useful software is hard. Naming things is hard. Somehow naming projects to replace software seems easy.
If your system is called [X], the replacement project is called New [X] or Next Generation [X].
These names aren’t “easy”, they are a sign that your project is poorly thought out and likely doomed. This is especially true in SaaS where your customers are paying for this generation.
New [X] is a sign that your project is inward looking and hasn’t considered your customer’s needs. Do they need “New” or do they need specific features?
New [X] invites scope creep: new idea + new [x] = features in new [x]. Does the new idea fit in with the purpose of New [X]? Well, it’s new!
New [X] turns up the pressure on the release. It’s new! We couldn’t ship the features to customers incrementally, we have to do a grand reveal and make a splash!
A poorly considered project, with lots of scope creep, and the pressure of making a splash combine to doom New [X].
It is completely fine to replace useful software with a better design and new technology. Even if you do it iteratively, the end goal is a new version of the same system. And it turns out that there is a simple naming system you can use!
If your system is called [X], the next iteration of the system is called [X][int++].
Your customers don’t care if you replace MySaaSBackend with MySaaSBackend2. They shouldn’t even notice.
