The DXP Catalyst Update - Jan 31, 2025

INTRO
Welcome to This Week’s DXP Catalyst Update

This week, I’m diving into a key question that keeps coming up - is composable architecture actually the right fit for your business? While the shift toward modular, API-first ecosystems is undeniable, composability isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution. In this issue, I’ll explore when composability makes sense, when it doesn’t, and what factors to consider before committing to a fully best-of-breed approach.

In other news: The new Gartner DXP Magic Quadrant dropped this week, and I’ve been hearing a lot of buzz over the past few weeks about some major shakeups in the rankings. While I don’t personally use Gartner (or Forrester, or any other third-party source) for platform evaluations, it’s always compelling to read these reports. I’ll be digging into it over the weekend - expect a breakdown in next week’s newsletter.

Now, let’s get into this week’s topic: composability - when it works, when it doesn’t, and the alternatives businesses are considering.

LEADERSHIP GUIDANCE
Is Composable Architecture Right for Your Business? Key Considerations & Alternatives.

Composable architecture is no longer just a vision for the future - for many enterprises, it’s already here. Over the last 4-5 years, we’ve seen a shift from monolithic platforms to modular, API-first ecosystems, enabling businesses to integrate best-of-breed solutions tailored to their specific needs.

At industry events like last year’s MACH Three in NYC, conversations with enterprise leaders confirm that composability isn’t just hype - it’s being actively adopted at scale. Businesses are assembling their digital capabilities like building blocks, fundamentally changing how they approach platform selection and technology strategy.

However, composability isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution. The decision to adopt it must be strategic - grounded in business goals, technical maturity, and long-term vision.

What This Topic Covers:

• What composable architecture is.

• When composability makes sense - and when it doesn’t.

• Key considerations when deciding on a composable approach.

• Alternatives to fully best-of-breed composability, including composable suites.

What is Composable Architecture?

Composable architecture breaks down digital platforms into modular components, where different capabilities (i.e. CMS, commerce, CDP, search, personalization, etc.) function independently but integrate seamlessly via APIs.

Unlike monolithic platforms, where all capabilities are tightly coupled within a single vendor ecosystem, composability offers:

• Flexibility – Swap or upgrade tools without full replatforming.

• Best-of-Breed Selection – Choose the best solution for each function, rather than relying on a single vendor’s offerings.

• Scalability – Expand digital capabilities as business needs evolve.

• Reduced Vendor Lock-In – Gain control over technology choices, avoiding reliance on a single roadmap.

However, while composability enables modularity, it also introduces complexity -multiple vendors, API-driven integrations, and governance challenges. This is why businesses must evaluate whether composability aligns with their digital maturity and operational readiness before committing to it.

When is Composability Right for your Business?

Composable architecture offers scalability, agility, and flexibility, but not every organization is ready to take full advantage of it. One of the most important factors to assess is digital maturity - a combination of technical capabilities, operational processes, and strategic alignment that determines an organization’s ability to effectively manage a composable ecosystem.

If a business lacks the necessary governance, integration expertise, or long-term vision, composability can introduce unnecessary complexity rather than delivering value. However, for digitally mature businesses, composability can provide a competitive advantage through adaptability and innovation.

Enterprises with Complex Digital Ecosystems

Large enterprises with multiple brands, business units, or international operations benefit from composability because they:

• Require different capabilities across teams or regions – A centralized monolithic platform often fails to meet the unique needs of various business units.

• Need modularity for M&A and evolving business needs – Enterprises frequently acquire new companies or restructure teams, requiring technology that can adapt without a complete overhaul.

• Want to scale incrementally without full replatforming – Composability enables phased modernization, allowing businesses to swap out outdated components without disrupting the entire tech stack.

Businesses That Frequently Evolve Their Customer Experience

Industries that rely on rapid experimentation, personalization, and omni-channel engagement benefit from composability by:

• Launching new features and integrations faster – Adopting new tools and innovations without waiting for vendor roadmaps.

• Running A/B tests without disrupting core systems – Experimentation tools can be integrated into a composable DXP, enabling data-driven decision-making.

• Continuously optimizing digital experiences – Refining personalization, AI-driven search, and content strategies in real time.

Organizations That Want to Avoid Vendor Lock-In

Many companies choose composability to avoid being tied to a single vendor’s ecosystem, giving them greater control over their tech stack.

• Select best-of-breed solutions for each capability (i.e. CMS, commerce, CDP, personalization, etc.).

• Reduce dependency on a single provider’s roadmap and mitigate risk.

• Negotiate better pricing and flexibility by maintaining the ability to swap vendors when needed.

Companies Modernizing from Legacy Systems

Many businesses exploring composability are transitioning away from monolithic platforms, but the right approach depends on existing infrastructure.

• Legacy systems lack API connectivity – Businesses can start by API-enabling components before transitioning to composable.

• A full replatforming is too risky – Gradual modularization allows integration of new technologies over time.

• A hybrid model is needed – Some organizations retain core legacy systems while adding composable elements.

When is Composable Not the Best Fit?

While composability is the present and future, not every business is ready to adopt it today. Without the right preparation, it can introduce unnecessary complexity, higher costs, and operational burdens that outweigh its benefits.

Your Digital Needs Are Stable

If your platform doesn’t require frequent updates, integrations, or experimentation, a fully composable model might be unnecessary complexity.

• Some businesses - especially those with highly predictable digital experiences - may find that a pre-integrated SaaS DXP meets their needs without requiring them to manage a modular ecosystem.

• In these cases, composability may add more complexity than value, as a simpler, vendor-managed solution could offer lower overhead and faster time-to-market.

Your Internal Teams Lack API & Integration Expertise

Even with agency or consultancy support, businesses need internal knowledge to sustain a composable stack.

• Who will maintain the ecosystem after the agency hands it off? Most companies don’t outsource all their marketing operations, so ongoing platform maintenance is critical.

• Do internal teams have experience managing APIs, integrations, and vendor relationships? Composability requires strong governance and API-first operations.

• Is there a governance framework in place to ensure consistency across platforms? Without it, managing multiple modular components can lead to fragmentation and inefficiencies.

How Agencies & Consultancies Factor In:

• Agencies can build and integrate the composable stack, but the business must have the operational readiness to sustain it post-implementation.

• Enterprises with strong IT teams may be able to manage a composable ecosystem in-house, but most companies may require ongoing external support.

• If internal expertise is lacking, a composable suite or hybrid approach may be a better fit, reducing the need for extensive technical oversight. More on that topic later.

Budget Constraints & Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)

While composability reduces vendor lock-in, it also comes with financial trade-offs:

• High upfront integration costs – Each component must be integrated separately, increasing initial investment.

• Ongoing API maintenance – Ensuring smooth data flows between systems requires dedicated resources.

• Potentially higher long-term costs – Managing multiple best-of-breed tools can increase TCO over time.

For businesses with limited IT budgets, a fully composable approach may not provide enough ROI to justify the investment. Instead, a gradual transition, modular “as-a-service” platform, or hybrid solution might be the smarter investment.

Industries That Struggle with Composability

In my experience, certain industries face greater challenges in adopting composability due to regulatory, legacy, or operational constraints.

• Healthcare & Life Sciences – Strict compliance regulations make multi-vendor integrations complex, requiring additional security, auditing, and oversight.

• Manufacturing & Industrial – ERP-heavy, monolithic architectures dominate, making API-driven composability a more extensive (and expensive) rework.

Digital Maturity & Composability

Digital maturity isn’t just about technology - it’s about having the right people, processes, and governance models to sustain a composable ecosystem.

If your organization is not fully digitally mature:

• Consider an alternative approach rather than a fully best-of-breed strategy.

• Work with agencies and consultants but ensure there’s an internal team capable of sustaining the ecosystem post-implementation.

• Focus on gradual API enablement rather than a full replatforming all at once.

Composability is powerful but not a universal solution. The right approach depends on your business needs, technical capabilities, and digital readiness.

Key Considerations When Making a Composability Decision

Choosing a composable architecture isn’t just about technology - it’s a business choice that impacts operations, budget, and long-term sustainability. While composable architecture, headless CMS, and modern front-end frameworks are popular among developers, the decision must extend beyond technical preferences. Before committing, organizations must evaluate four critical areas:

1. Business Alignment - Does composability align with long-term strategy?

   • Is your business in an industry that demands constant digital innovation?

   • Will this model support future growth initiatives?

2. Operational Readiness - Can your team manage API-driven integrations?

   • Does your business have internal expertise in API governance and multi-vendor orchestration?

   • Will this increase operational complexity beyond your team’s capacity?

3. Integration Complexity - Will composability simplify or complicate existing workflows?

   • Is your business integrating too many disconnected tools?

   • Alternatively, would a composable suite reduce complexity while maintaining flexibility?

4. Cost & ROI - Can your business support the upfront investment in integrations and governance?

   • Is there a clear business case for modularity that offsets implementation costs?

   • How will long-term maintenance impact total cost of ownership?

If these factors aren’t properly addressed, composability can become a burden rather than advantage.

Alternatives to Fully Best-of-Breed Composability

Where Composable Suites Fit in the Composable Landscape

A fully best-of-breed composable approach involves selecting separate vendors for CMS, commerce, CDP, search, personalization, orchestration, and beyond, integrating everything via APIs. While this approach offers maximum flexibility, it also increases complexity, requiring businesses to manage multiple vendors, integrations, and governance structures.

Enterprises with strong IT teams and deep technical expertise are more likely to take this vendor-agnostic approach, selecting components purely based on capabilities rather than committing to a single vendor ecosystem.

However, some organizations are instead opting for composable suites - platform ecosystems that offer modular capabilities with pre-integrated components, reducing the complexity of building a fully custom best-of-breed stack.

Some Examples of Composable Suites

• Optimizely – A composable suite (“Optimizely One”) integrating CMS, personalization, customer data management, experimentation while allowing flexibility in selecting additional tools (or swapping components). Some capabilities, like B2B commerce, remain standalone.

• Squiz – Provides a composable architecture with an integration layer, making it easier to swap in other tools while maintaining a unified interface - reducing the need for multiple UIs and logins.

• Contentful & Contentstack – Sort of - initially native headless CMS vendors, now evolving into composable suites through acquisitions and integration of other DXP capabilities.

Not Every Vendor Offers a Truly Composable DXP

It’s important to note that not all platforms marketed as a composable DXP are fully modular. Some vendors have expanded their SaaS portfolios but still operate as loosely connected applications with separate UIs and logins, rather than providing a fully integrated ecosystem. While they may be on the path toward composability, they aren’t truly interchangeable at a modular level.

Alternative Approaches

Some organizations take a hybrid approaches, using headless CMS solutions or open-source CMS solutions as central content hubs while integrating best-of-breed tools through an orchestration layer like Uniform. This enables businesses to modernize gradually, introducing composability without requiring a full replatforming effort.

Unlike composable suites, this approach still requires governance and integration efforts but can be a cost effective way to transition from monolithic architectures while maintaining control over technology choices. Just as an aside, Uniform does have a relatively new CMS, adding a layer to its capabilities. However, its core strength remains enabling composability across multiple platforms rather than being a full DXP replacement.

Why Some Organizations Prefer Composable Suites

For businesses that want flexibility without the full complexity of a best-of-breed approach, composable suites provide a pragmatic middle ground.

• Pre-integrated capabilities reduce complexity – The platforms within the ecosystem work together out of the box with less need for custom integrations.

• Flexibility remains – Unlike a monolithic platform, components can still be swapped when needed (if it’s truly composable!).

• Faster implementation – Compared to a fully best-of-breed approach, a composable suite accelerates time-to-market while still offering modularity.

For many businesses, composable suites strike a balance between customization and ease of implementation, making them a realistic alternative for modernizing their digital experience ecosystem.

Conclusion

Composable architecture represents both the present and the future of digital experience technology. For digitally mature organizations with complex ecosystems, rapid innovation cycles, or a need for vendor flexibility, it offers unparalleled scalability and agility. However, composability isn’t an automatic fit for every business. Stable digital operations, lack of API expertise, budget constraints, and industry-specific limitations can make fully best-of-breed composability unnecessarily complex or cost-prohibitive.

For many businesses, composable suites provide a balanced approach, combining modularity with pre-integrated capabilities, making modernization more manageable without sacrificing flexibility. And for others, hybrid approaches leveraging orchestration layers can serve as stepping stones toward greater composability.

Ultimately, the decision to adopt composable architecture should be driven by business needs, technical capabilities, and strategic vision - not just industry trends. The key is aligning technology decisions with long-term goals to ensure your digital experience stack remains scalable, adaptable, and future-ready.

WHAT’S NEXT
Upcoming Topics

• Next Week: Thoughts on the new Gartner DXP Magic Quadrant