
Start from the real process, not from a piece of software: one high-friction pilot, software that mirrors the workflow you already use, APIs into your existing systems, and the old method kept as a safety net until the numbers say to extend.
You digitalise without disruption by starting from the real process, not from a piece of software to adopt: map how the work is actually done, pick one high-friction pilot process, build software that mirrors that workflow using the vocabulary already in use, connect it via API to the existing management systems so nobody has to retype data, keep the old method as a safety net for a few weeks, measure the results, and only then extend to the next process.
For Codebaker — a software house based in Bologna, founded in 2019 — the principle is a single one: the software adapts to the company, not the company to the software. Almost every digitalisation project an SME remembers badly is one where the opposite happened: a standard product imposed its own workflows, people had to relearn their own trade inside screens that did not speak their language, and six months later somebody started keeping a spreadsheet on the side “because it is faster”. That parallel spreadsheet is the signal that the software did not respect the process.
Below you will find the comparison between the big bang and incremental approaches, the seven steps of the method, a table of the processes worth starting from, and the numbers from projects we put into production without stopping our clients' operations.


A business owner's most concrete fear is not the cost: it is the day the new system fails and orders stop. That is why we never move a company from old to new on a single date. The digitalised process goes into production alongside the existing method, which stays available as a safety net throughout the dual-running period: if something does not add up, people keep working as before while we fix it. This reversibility completely changes the psychology of the project — nobody is betting the company on trying out some software — and it is what makes the change acceptable even to someone who has done the same job on the shop floor for twenty years and has no intention of becoming a test subject.


Custom software has one advantage no standard product can replicate: it can call things the way you call them. If in your company an urgent order is called a «fast pass», the screen says «fast pass», not «priority order». If the correct sequence is quality control first and warehouse declaration second, the interface follows that sequence. If a field is not needed, it is not there. It sounds cosmetic and it decides adoption instead: when someone opens the software and recognises their own process, training takes half an hour instead of three days and nobody feels they have to change trade. It is why, before writing any code, we spend time with the people who actually do the work — not only with those who describe it in meetings.
The difference between the two approaches is not a matter of taste: it changes the risk profile, the time to return and the odds that people actually adopt the new tool.
| Criterion | Big bang (replace everything on one date) | Incremental (the Codebaker method) |
|---|---|---|
| Risk of operational freeze | High and concentrated on a single day | Low: the previous method stays running in parallel |
| Reversibility | Almost none: going back costs as much as going forward | Total during the dual-running period |
| Training | Mass training across the company, before anyone has used the system | One department at a time, on the process it already knows |
| Resistance to change | Maximum: everything changes at once, with no trial | Contained: the first success convinces the sceptics |
| Time to first benefit | At the end of the project (months or years) | A few weeks, on the pilot process |
| Budget commitment | All upfront | In stages, each justified by the previous one's results |
| Requirements found mid-flight | Surface at final acceptance, when they cost most | Surface on the pilot, on a small scope |
| When it makes sense | When a system must be switched off on an externally imposed date | In almost every other case, for an SME |
This is the sequence we apply in digitalisation projects: every step produces something verifiable before moving to the next.

Observe how the work is actually done: who touches an order, which spreadsheets exist in parallel, where data is retyped by hand. The real process is almost always different from the official procedure, and it is the one to digitalise.

Start from a bounded process that wastes time every day and whose result is measurable, not from the core of the system. You need a visible success within weeks, not a project that shows up in a year.

The screens mirror the steps and the vocabulary already in use: the same field names, the same sequence, the same documents. People must recognise their own process, not learn a new one.

The new software connects via API to the management system and the systems already in use, so data is entered once. If digitalising adds one more place to retype the same data, adoption stops.

For a few weeks the paper process or the spreadsheet stays available as a safety net. Reversibility removes the fear of an operational freeze and is what makes the change acceptable on the shop floor.

Set two or three indicators before starting — time to fulfil an order, data entry errors, administrative hours — and compare them after the pilot. Numbers, not opinions, decide whether to extend.

With the pilot in production, move to the adjacent process, reusing the master data, authentication and integrations already built. Every release is small, reversible and funded by the previous one's results.

The software adapts to the company, not the company to the software. Whenever a technical decision forces a person to change the way they work with no obvious benefit, that decision needs revisiting.
It is the same approach we describe in our development method and apply in business process digitalisation and end-to-end digital transformation for SMEs.
These are the processes that, in Italian SMEs, give the best ratio of friction removed to effort required. The “disruption risk” column indicates how much the process touches long-established ways of working: always start from the low values.
| Process | Current friction | Typical benefit | Disruption risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Order taking by email and phone | High: manual transcription, errors, no history | Orders entered by the customer, tracked and synced with the management system | Low |
| Data entry from paper documents | High: hours of repetitive typing | Automatic field extraction and writing into the management system | Low |
| Multi-site internal communication | Medium: information out of sync between sites | Targeted notifications by role and department, searchable history | Low |
| Production progress on paper | High: data available only the next day | Real status of jobs in real time | Medium |
| Reporting rebuilt by hand in spreadsheets | Medium: days of work every month | Dashboards updated automatically from the source data | Low |
| Manual user and permission management | Medium: load on IT, risk of error | Automatic provisioning on hiring and on termination | Low |
| Accounting and invoicing | Variable | Often already covered by the existing management system | High: not advisable as a pilot |
For the second row of the table — the hours lost retyping data from invoices, delivery notes and paper documents — there is a concrete shortcut: extracting document data with AI and LLMs. For the first row, the route is integrating your management system, e-commerce and other software through APIs.
In every one of these cases the company kept working throughout the project and kept the systems it already used.
Orders handled by email, phone and paper. The AS400 system stayed exactly where it was: the new digital channel syncs to it in real time. 5,000+ customers a day, 300,000+ orders a year, live in 6 months.
Internal communication across several sites, digitalised while keeping the by-role and by-department logic already in use: 20+ boards managed with one click, 1 month of requirements analysis, 5 months to release.
A repetitive administrative process automated by integrating the existing systems (SAP, HR, Active Directory, Office 365): 2,000+ users, -95% IT onboarding effort, 5 years in production.
Precise tracking of assets that used to be counted by estimate: 25 million crates, -99.9% losses, 3 years in production.
You digitalise without disruption by starting from the real process, not from a piece of software to adopt. In practice: map how the work is actually done, pick one high-friction pilot process, build software that mirrors that workflow using the vocabulary and the sequence already in use, connect it via API to the existing management systems so nobody has to retype data, keep the old method as a safety net for a few weeks, measure the results with two or three agreed indicators, and only then extend to the next process. The principle is that the software adapts to the company: if people have to change the way they work to keep the software happy, the project is set up wrong.
For an SME the incremental approach is almost always preferable. A big bang — a single large release replacing everything on one date — concentrates the risk in one day, requires mass training on a system nobody has ever used in production and is not reversible: if something fails, operations stop. The incremental approach releases one process at a time, keeps the old method as a safety net, produces value from the first weeks and lets you correct course on a small scope. A big bang only makes sense when an existing system must be switched off on a date imposed from outside.
From the process that combines three characteristics: it wastes time every day, it is bounded (one department touches it, not the whole company) and it has a measurable outcome. In Italian SMEs the recurring candidates are order taking by email and phone, internal communication across multiple sites, manual data entry from paper documents, production progress recorded on paper and monthly reporting rebuilt by hand in spreadsheets. What you avoid is starting from the accounting core, or from the system that stops invoicing if it goes down.
Resistance does not come from technology but from the feeling of losing control over one's own work. It shrinks with four concrete measures: involve the people who perform the process every day right from the analysis, so the software reflects their vocabulary; keep the old method running in parallel for a period, so nobody is presented with a fait accompli; show a useful result within weeks instead of announcing a big future project; and never use digitalisation as a way to monitor people, only as a way to take repetitive work off their hands. In the Agribologna project, for example, we digitalised the notice boards while keeping the by-department and by-role logic the company already used.
No — and doing so is in fact the fastest way to make digitalisation fail. In the vast majority of cases it is better to keep the existing management system or ERP and connect the new software to it via API, so the data stays in a single source of truth. We did exactly that at Conor, where a new B2B e-commerce syncs in real time with the AS400 system already in place and handles more than 300,000 orders a year, and at Granarolo, where a bespoke Identity Management system integrates with SAP, the HR system, Active Directory and Office 365. Replacing the management system is a separate decision, to be taken on its own merits and not as a side effect.
A bounded pilot process goes into production within weeks; a broader path is measured in months but produces value long before the end, because every release is already in use. From our projects: Agribologna's digital notice board required 1 month of requirements analysis and 5 months overall for more than 20 boards managed with one click; Conor's B2B platform went into production in 6 months. If a supplier proposes reviewing the results in a year's time, ask what goes live within the first quarter.
A first digitalised process, bounded and without complex integrations, typically falls in the €5,000-15,000 band; a path with several connected processes and integration into existing systems falls in the €15,000-50,000 band; multi-site platforms go beyond €50,000. These are the bands we publish openly. The incremental approach also has a financial advantage: the budget is committed in stages, and each stage can be funded by the savings measured on the previous one rather than by a single upfront investment.
Digitalising means moving to a digital medium an activity that used to live on paper or in a spreadsheet: the same steps, but tracked and shared. Automating means having the software perform steps a person used to perform: calculations, checks, notifications, writing data into another system. In a well-run path the two arrive in that order: first you digitalise the workflow as it is, then you automate the repetitive steps that the collected data has made obvious. Automating a process nobody has properly understood yet is the fastest way to set an error in stone.
With the incremental approach the cost of a mistake stays small and reversible: each release is scoped to one process, the previous method is still running during the dual-running period and the agreed indicators tell you with numbers whether the benefit is there. If the pilot does not deliver the expected result, you correct the workflow or change the starting process, without having committed the whole budget or stopped operations. That is precisely the risk a big bang project concentrates on a single date.
Tell us which activity costs you the most hours every week, and which systems you run today. We will propose a bounded pilot, with agreed indicators and your current method kept as a safety net. The preliminary analysis and the quote are free.