Refusing to "mess with something that already works" is a recipe for disaster. What companies often learn too late is that there are basically two options: 1.

Refusing to "mess with something that already works" is a recipe for disaster. What companies often learn too late is that there are basically two options: 1. Make maintenance -- both in terms of upgrading underlying software, and addressing accumulated technical debt -- a regular, required part of their process, or 2. Occasionally face a potential existential threat from the unbounded cost of staying fixed in perpetuity to a stack that "already worked" once upon a time but no longer does due to lack of upstream support and available developers to keep it limping along. The genuine problem is that "what does this do for next quarter's results" is the only concern, which means long-term thinking is actively discouraged.