Maintenance and modernisation

Maintenance and modernisation is the work that makes an existing Laravel app safer to run and easier to change.

That can include Laravel and PHP upgrades, dependency updates, deployment fixes, queue and scheduled job repairs, performance work, bug fixing, security clean-up, logging, monitoring, and test coverage around the parts of the system that would be expensive to break.

I separate business risk from ordinary mess. Untidy code is annoying. Unsupported versions, broken backups, failing jobs, vague ownership, and payment or access-control bugs are the parts that need attention first.

Yes. A lot of my work starts with an existing Laravel app built by another developer, agency, supplier, or internal team. I do not need the codebase to be neat before I can help, but I do need to understand what the business depends on before making changes.

The first pass is usually practical: code structure, database shape, deployments, queues, scheduled jobs, logs, integrations, permissions, backups, and the areas people are nervous about touching. From there I plan smaller changes that reduce risk while still moving useful work forward.

That was the shape of the Can Studios platform work: keep an inherited Laravel product stable, deliver commercially important changes, and move old infrastructure back onto supported ground.

Not by default. A rewrite is sometimes the right answer, but it is also one of the easiest ways to spend a lot of money recreating the same hidden business rules in a new place.

I usually start by separating risk from frustration. If the app is slow to change because of unsupported versions, fragile deployments, missing tests, unclear data ownership, or one dangerous workflow, those can often be improved in stages.

The better question is what would give you more control soonest: stabilising the current system, replacing one risky area, extracting a workflow, or rebuilding with a clear migration path.

That is the goal, but a safe upgrade starts before touching the version number.

I look at the Laravel and PHP versions, dependencies, server setup, queues, scheduled jobs, deployment process, logs, tests, and the parts of the app the business relies on most. If the app has little or no test coverage, I normally add focused protection around critical paths before changing the foundations.

The work is often staged: reduce obvious operational risk, make the upgrade path visible, move through supported versions, and check the important workflows at each step.

I try to understand the business job before choosing the technical shape.

For a new build, that means mapping the users, rules, data, permissions, integrations, reporting needs, and manual fallbacks. For an existing app, it means reviewing the code, deployments, logs, queues, schedules, environments, known weak spots, and the workflows people are afraid to break.

The output should be a sensible first slice of work, not a huge speculative plan. I would rather start with a useful release that reduces risk or removes a real bottleneck than spend weeks designing a perfect version nobody has tested against the business.

Yes. I can work independently on a defined part of the system, or alongside your in-house team, agency, designer, product owner, or infrastructure supplier.

The important part is agreeing ownership early. I want to know who reviews code, who approves releases, how environments work, where decisions are documented, and what needs to be handed back when the work is done.

I am UK-based and remote-first. In practice that usually means focused calls when decisions need discussion, async updates when progress needs visibility, and planned handovers so the work does not become another mystery dependency.

That depends on the project, but the work should not become mysterious the moment it goes live.

For a focused piece of work, I normally leave notes on the important decisions, setup, deployment steps, risky workflows, and anything the next developer or internal team needs to know. If the system needs ongoing help, we can plan follow-up improvements, maintenance, or support around the parts that matter most.

The useful handover is not a giant document nobody reads. It is enough context for the business to operate the software, understand the trade-offs, and make the next change without starting from scratch.