Executive Summary

When Apptio, a multi-national SaaS company, acquired the Cloudability product suite, they inherited a challenge common to all acquirers: how to extract value from a monolithic architecture where multiple products were locked in a single codebase.

Cloudability contained multiple distinct products including cost reporting, governance, right-sizing, container management, and commitment optimization that Apptio needed to extract for use in other offerings, integrate with newly-acquired products, and scale across independent development teams. The traditional approach would require 12+ months per product to extract and reintegrate.

Olio created Switchboard, a modularization framework that transformed Cloudability's monolith into reusable components that could move seamlessly across the company's entire portfolio.

The results:

• 15+ products modularized (from an initial target of 1)
• Integration time reduced from 12 months to 3-4 months per product
• Development velocity increased 10x for new features
• True portfolio flexibility where products can move across the company's entire suite
• Less experienced teams access structured, scalable architecture and best practices
• Teams can launch new products independently

The Business Context

Enterprise software companies acquiring multiple point solutions face a critical integration dilemma.

They can choose to:

1. Keep products separate and miss cross-sell opportunities while duplicating infrastructure.
2. Attempt complete rewrites and face 12-24 months per product at enormous expense and risk.
3. Bolt products together and watch technical debt accumulate while products never truly integrate.

When Apptio absorbed Cloudability, the strategic imperative was clear: move Cloudability products into other company offerings, and integrate other products' features into Cloudability. Additionally, they wanted to be able to integrate pending acquisitions, scale development teams without coordination overhead, and build new features rapidly without legacy constraints.

The timeline pressure was immense. With additional acquisitions planned and 15+ products to modularize, spending 12 months per product was economically infeasible. The math told a sobering story: 15 products × 12 months = 180 months of engineering time. At an average loaded cost of $200K per engineer per year, the company faced a potential $30+ million integration challenge.

The Technical Challenge

Cloudability's monolithic architecture presented a deceptively complex problem. While the suite appeared as a unified product to users, it contained distinct products: cost reporting and analytics, cost sharing and chargeback, governance and policy enforcement, right-sizing recommendations, container cost management, and commitment management. These products were all tightly coupled through shared authentication, navigation, component libraries, and interdependent API calls.

The acquirer initially attempted to use Piral on its own, an open-source microfrontend framework, but encountered critical limitations. The implementation was complex with a steep learning curve and difficult configuration. Documentation was inadequate, leaving teams struggling with extensive trial and error. Most critically, Piral lacked a straightforward way to: share data between modules, do data caching, and support standardized patterns. Each module made redundant API calls, especially for authentication, creating performance problems and poor user experience.

The immediate trigger came with another acquisition. The company needed to integrate this product into Cloudability with specific requirements: it must look and feel like native Cloudability, require no re-authentication when users navigate to it, share user context and permissions, preserve all existing functionality, and integrate as fast as possible to realize acquisition value.

Without a proper framework, the engineering team estimated 12 months of custom integration work. This was an unacceptable timeline that would delay value realization and set a discouraging precedent for future acquisitions.

The Olio Solution: Switchboard

Olio's innovation began with asking the right question. The original directive was simple: “Integrate one product into Cloudability.” But Olio asked instead: “How can we solve this in a way that creates lasting value?”

The insight was strategic. This wasn't a one-time problem. The acquirer would continue acquiring products, need to move existing products to other suites, and want to build new features rapidly with modern technology.

The investment decision was clear: build a reusable framework at approximately the same cost as a one-off solution.

Switchboard's core concept revolves around hosts and extensions. Hosts are the main product shells, like Cloudability or other company suites. Extensions are modular products that plug into any host. Think of it like extensions are components and hosts are the canvas where they're placed.

The technical architecture delivers five critical capabilities:

• Simplified Configuration: Switchboard wraps around Piral to simplify complex configuration into “plain English” setup, abstracting away implementation complexity and providing standardized patterns any team can follow.
• Data Sharing Layer: Olio's key innovation not available in Piral—hosts provide context to all extensions including authentication, user information, and permissions, while extensions share data with each other, eliminating redundant API calls.
• Shared Caching: API responses are cached across all extensions, so when users navigate from Reports to Right-sizing, there's no re-fetch of user data, dramatically improving perceived performance.
• Configuration File Approach: Extensions define requirements in a simple config file, register with the host in a standardized way, and appear seamlessly in navigation while users remain unaware they're using separate applications.
• Extension Template: A starter project for new extensions with modern tech stacks, built-in best practices, and pre-configured Switchboard integration that any team can clone and use immediately.

Implementation

Implementation occurred in two phases. Phase one built the framework with two senior engineers over 3-4 months while solving the first integration, delivering both the Switchboard framework and the first successfully integrated extension.

Phase two scaled across the portfolio by documenting the approach, creating the extension template, and training other teams. The current state shows 15+ extensions created, with new acquisitions integrated in 3-4 months versus the original 12-month estimate.

The “modern by default” strategy gives teams freedom. Extensions can use any technology stack—they just need to match the visual design through theming, implement the Switchboard config file, and register with the host. This means teams can build with modern frameworks instead of working in 20-year-old legacy code, dramatically improving both development velocity and engineer satisfaction.

Business Impact and Results

The quantified outcomes demonstrate exceptional ROI.

• Integration Speed: Improved from approximately 12 months per product to 3-4 months per product—a 67-75% reduction in integration time.
• Scale Achievement: Exceeded all expectations: the project started with a target of 1 extension and currently has 15+ extensions operational, with the framework cost amortized across all 15+ uses.
• Development Velocity: Increased 10x for new features using modern tech stacks, with engineers consistently preferring modern tools over legacy systems.
• Portfolio Flexibility: Products can now move across the company's entire suite, new acquisitions integrate in months rather than years, and individual products can innovate independently without coordination overhead.

The strategic value creation extends across three dimensions:

1. For M&A Strategy: Rapid integration demonstrates acquisition success to stakeholders, the company can assess targets for Switchboard compatibility during due diligence, and product teams can mix and match products across suites based on specific customer needs.
2. For Product Organization: Product-specific teams now own their extensions, multiple teams work simultaneously without conflicts, and teams choose their own tech stacks within extensions.
3. For Customer Value: Users experience a seamless product rather than a franken-platform, innovation happens faster without legacy constraints, and the company can deliver best-of-breed functionality from multiple acquisitions.

Lessons for M&A Execution

The Switchboard experience yields critical insights for acquirers.

Think architecture, not just integration. Don't solve only the immediate problem—ask how you can enable your future M&A strategy. Build frameworks, not one-off solutions, because ROI multiplies with each subsequent use.

Balance speed and quality. Thoughtful architecture can be delivered quickly and create lasting value. Switchboard delivered the first integration in 3-4 months while simultaneously building a reusable framework.

Enable team scaling. Modularization allows parallel development where product-specific teams can own and innovate independently.

Plan for future acquisitions. If you're acquiring one company, you'll likely acquire more. Build integration playbooks based on repeatable frameworks and assess targets for architectural compatibility during due diligence.

Conclusion

Olio was asked to solve one integration problem. Instead, we built a framework that has been leveraged 15+ times at approximately the same initial cost as a one-off solution. The company started with a 12-month integration timeline per product and now completes integrations in 3-4 months. They started with a monolithic architecture that prevented value extraction and now have true portfolio flexibility where products move seamlessly across their entire suite.

This is the Switchboard advantage: solve today's problem while enabling tomorrow's strategy. That's the difference between consulting and partnership.