When Murray became CIO of New York City-based AIG, no one knew howmuch money the $46 billion financial services company was spending onmaintaining its legacy systems. He organized a total cost of ownershipstudy that served as a benchmark for the cost of maintenance andillustrated how much AIG could save in terms of money and efficiencyif the company migrated to a Java-based system. The figure Murray cameup with got the attention of his executive board. (Murray declined toshare that figure with CIO.) "I told them that we could be saving 30percent of what we were spending on maintenance if we moved frommainframe to thin client," he says. "Their jaws hit the floor. Theysaid, 'It costs us that much?"

Murray presented his board with the ROI of migrating over a five-yearperiod and showed how the project would increase employees' efficiencyby reducing the hours spent on manual processes and maintenance. Thestudy indicated that a migration would drastically improve AIG's speedto market and its customer service. That, Murray says, made thebiggest impression. "The executive team liked hearing how the projectwould improve the business," he says. "And they gave us the money weneeded."

In a cost-cutting environment, the theory that migrating now willprovide a competitive advantage later needs to be advanced withcaution, says Wayne Kernochan, managing vice president of platforminfrastructure at the Aberdeen Group, a consultancy inBoston.

"CEOs and CFOs have to look at the issue in both the short and longterm," Kernochan explains. In order for them to believe that their CIOunderstands their position, the CIO must acknowledge that the ROI ofinfrastructure modernization will not immediately be realized even ashe demonstrates that spending now will reduce maintenance costs. Atthe same time, the CIO can argue that "once we're out of the downturn,the advantages of revamping business practices now will become veryclear," says Kernochan.

Plus, the pain of migration, in both cash and time, is not what itonce was.