Alot of enterprise software is both, it is more akin to a "super framework". Where you start with the base system that provides commons functions but then it extendable.

Most ERP platforms are like this. over the decades it is not uncommon for little of the original platform to be used.

My org.s ERP is like that, we use probably 10% of the commercial code, and 90% of functions are custom in house written code.

Often, even more complicated: the ERP software vendor is one party; then there's the consulting VAR who does the customer's "customizations", and then the in-house team which does the "administration" and some "configuration". The VAR may or may not have a continuing relationship and of course the three groups have ample opportunity for finger-pointing; and the "administration" team is often under-resourced and doesn't really have the right skills to continue or maintain the work.

It's worse than a framework because most frameworks are designed for people to do some form of software engineering with. But with some "configurable" tool, you end up with something that you need to do software engineering but it doesn't have the tools, power or affordances to do so.

I've done some Jira consulting and worked in MDM and I'm of the firm belief that "buy vs. build" isn't the real dichotomy: it's "build" vs. "buy and build", and the effort of building on top of the platform is usually underestimated and undervalued.

We have a team of in house devs that do all of our customization but yea out-sourcing is still all the rage with many other companies VP's looking for that next bonus...

Companies are allergic to headcount

Even a SaaS poster-child like Salesforce is like that--between partners and in-house development of various sorts. I think it may be the largest tech conference these days and it's not because everyone buys a standard Salesforce subscription.

> The article says it is off-the-shelf software? But in other news reports, they make it sound like it was developed in-house.

Working in enterprise, there is a lot of “modifiable off-the-shelf” software; ideally, this provides basic functionality out of the box, but also the alignment to custom business needs of in-house software.

(Often, it seems like it combines the up-front and ongoing external licensing cost of COTS software, with the internal development and maintenance costs of in-house software, and the combined problems of both.)

If it's anything like an ERP, then that sounds about right. There's the out of box part that does the most generic things, and then heavy customization to integrate and customize it to fit the particular business.

> So they are blaming SkySolver software. The article says it is off-the-shelf software?

The article actually says "SkySolver, an off-the-shelf piece of software that Southwest has customized and updated".

It probably was - massive customizations would have had to have been done to make it fit for purpose.

Good luck replacing it, on an operational airline that can’t shutdown. How you would do this is to me, just mind-boggling.

AA does shut down for about 5-10 mins to run their solver and upload new assignments after a major event.

So what year was it introduced? Is GE still in the software bix? Who knew.