When we ask, “Is this architecture composable?”, the conversation often gets stuck in an either-or debate: composable versus monolithic. But here’s the thing—no architecture is purely composable or entirely monolithic. Composability lives on a spectrum, and the real challenge is figuring out where your organization fits. Spoiler alert: it’s not a one-size-fits-all answer. Let’s break it down.
How Granular Do You Go?
Let’s start with granularity. Think of a typical ecommerce brand. They might use a CMS, a PIM, a CRM, an ERP, a CDP, an inventory system, a pricing engine—you get the idea. The question is, how do you define these capabilities?
Take the CMS, for instance. Is it one big package, or do you break it down further? Content management, delivery, workflows, SEO tools, A/B testing—the list goes on. If your goal is flexibility, do you swap out the entire CMS, or just a piece of it?
Here’s the short answer: it depends. If your CMS handles the basics but struggles with personalization, maybe you keep it and add a specialized tool for that one need. On the other hand, if you’ve outgrown several of its functions, replacing the whole thing might be the smarter move. Either way, the level of granularity matters.
One Vendor or Many?
There’s a common belief that buying a suite of tools from one vendor makes your architecture monolithic. But that’s not necessarily true. What matters is how tightly those tools are coupled—and whether you can swap them out when needed.
For less digitally mature brands, an all-in-one platform might be the most practical option. It’s “good enough,” reduces complexity, and avoids the dreaded swivel-chair effect of jumping between tools. But as organizations grow and their needs become more specialized, sourcing best-in-class tools for individual capabilities often makes more sense.
The key is knowing when the convenience of “one-stop shopping” outweighs the benefits of a more tailored, composable approach—and vice versa.
"The current reality of the enterprise technology landscape is that these brands own a mix of all-in-one suites, legacy systems and composable solutions. There is no way for us to eliminate the legacy systems or the all-in-one suites overnight. In fact, I'd argue that there are times when you don't need to eliminate your existing technologies at all!" - Sana Remekie, Co-Founder and CEO, View Post Here
Not every piece of your stack needs the same level of flexibility. For instance, your all-in-one commerce platform might excel at core functions like order management and product catalogs, but its CMS or search features could feel underwhelming. In that case, keep what works and enhance the rest with specialized tools.
It’s all about understanding where flexibility adds the most value—and where you can afford to keep things simple. Budget, timelines, and specific goals will guide these decisions.
Backend vs. Frontend Flexibility
One of the biggest draws of composable architecture is the ability to create dynamic, engaging frontend experiences across multiple channels. But many all-in-one platforms come with templated frontends that limit creativity.
Composable architectures give you the freedom to bring your own frontend framework while keeping your existing backend systems intact. That’s assuming, of course, that your backend systems offer APIs with the granularity and control you need. If they don’t, you’re back to square one.
MACH Products vs. MACH Architecture
Here’s where things get tricky. There’s a misconception that using MACH (Microservices, API-first, Cloud-native, Headless) products automatically makes your architecture MACH-certified.
The MACH Alliance certifies products, not architectures. It’s perfectly fine to have a hybrid stack—mixing MACH products like headless CMS, CDP, or DXO with a more traditional DXP or commerce platform. The goal isn’t to tick boxes; it’s to build something that works for your organization, not against it.
"Compostability": A Fresh Take on Flexibility
Yes, that’s an intentional play on words. Real composability isn’t just about piecing things together—it’s about being able to take them apart just as easily. This means creating an abstraction layer between your frontend and backend systems, as well as between your backend systems themselves.
Here’s where many composable stacks fall short: They’re connected in overly rigid ways, defeating the purpose of flexibility. “Compostability” is about staying modular, adaptable, and ready for whatever comes next.
The Real Question: What Does Your Composability Look Like?
There’s no silver bullet here—and that’s the point. The question isn’t whether composability is important (spoiler: it is). It’s about figuring out:
How composable does your stack need to be?
Where in your architecture does flexibility matter most?
Are you ready to navigate the challenges that come with it?
At Conscia, we built our Digital Experience Orchestration (DXO) platform to help brands answer these questions on their own terms. Whether you’re connecting existing systems, extending their capabilities, or planning for future growth, DXO makes composability practical, scalable, and—most importantly—work for you. Let’s talk about how we can help.
Komentáře