When is SXA the right course for a project, and when is a conventional build the right way to go? The answer is, “it depends”.
For smaller projects, where a conventional Sitecore build was too large an undertaking, SXA changes the equation by reducing the build time and technical burden. Customers building smaller sites can now reap the benefits of Sitecore’s engagement and marketing automation capabilities, instead of limiting themselves to a less capable CMS tool.
For large enterprises that face a range of challenges, the choice between SXA and a conventional build becomes more nuanced. In a development-lead culture, or where heavy functional functionality is required, a conventional build may be best. But SXA is a viable, even desirable, choice for organizations experiencing a digital transformation and orienting to a marketing- and business-forward approach.
Organizations with a large amount of web presence can use SXA to “pace layer” their solutions into more manageable groupings that develop at different rates and have different orientations. SXA reduces the friction for building smaller, more nimble projects. An enterprise might have a classic build for portal or corporate sites, and an SXA model for brand sites, location sites, and campaign sites. This allows nimble execution for time-critical marketing demands, alongside a more rigorous model for times when fidelity and precision are crucial.
For battle-scarred managers who have survived painful and expensive builds, SXA is a welcome relief. Those who’ve survived those rocky projects in the past would gladly embrace a more prescriptive process that starts with “best practices”.
