If you change an existing system, new perspectives (or a breath of fresh air) are essential. This is often perceived as an attack by the existing “architect” or team. Furthermore, without knowing the previous steps and evaluated options, sensitivity is often not enough.
This is not about a necessity with regard to technical implementation, rather the human being and his decision-making power are being put to the test. You have, for example. trusts his advisor and is now disappointed that one should question this trust due to changed circumstances or simply a lack of communication – confronted with new technologies. Or worse, you just didn’t care and can now only look at your own misjudgment in silence.
The view of the customer and his presentation in the event of a problem (e.g. backup of their own data by an existing server) and the view of the collegial IT company in the event of a problem (commissioning of the server) can also be an indication of possible communication difficulties.
If you as a consultant are willing to create clarity, this often means for large agencies: agreeing with customers where possible, addressing difficulties but not allowing criticism per se to become the dominant factor in communication. In short: iron everything clean.
If it’s your turn as a small agency and has direct customer contact (i.e. not part of the machinery of a large agency), from my point of view this primarily means evaluating willingness for new perspectives. If this is available, a change is probably possible. If this is blocked by a lack of understanding, maybe a team member with a stronger technical understanding can help out and create a bridge.
Regardless of this, there MUST be a willingness to take a new perspective on an existing system, otherwise the point in time and the time invested will not serve anyone.