Migrating off a legacy abstract system without losing your volunteer committee

The situation

The legacy abstract platform worked until it did not. Contracts renew, support slips, and the committee starts saying the portal timed out again during peak review.

The last migration attempt failed for a reason that had nothing to do with CSV columns: volunteers refused to learn a second system mid-cycle.

What breaks

• Dual-run through an entire review season (burnout)
• Historical data trapped in exports nobody trusts
• "We'll migrate next year" turning into a five-year plan

A society we migrated last season had binders of reviewer notes they were afraid to lose. The technical cutover was easy. Earning trust that old decisions were still visible took longer.

What good looks like

Phased cutover: read-only history in the old system, single write path for the upcoming cycle, training on workflows that mirror how chairs already think (tracks, scores, conflicts).

How teams solve it

Successful migrations sequence people before pixels: committee champions, one pilot track, then the full programme. Preserve decision history reviewers expect to cite. Trim admin clutter nobody opens.

FAQ

Should we migrate data or start clean?

Preserve reviewer-facing history (scores, decisions, comments). Trim admin clutter. Committees need continuity more than perfect schemas.

How long should dual-run last?

As short as possible. Ideally zero write dual-run. Read legacy for reference; write only in the new system for the upcoming CFP.

Next steps

Request a demo