Organisations continue to invest heavily in Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) platforms, expecting greater visibility, stronger compliance, and faster contracting processes. Yet many discover that implementing a new platform is only the beginning. The real challenge, and often the deciding factor between success and disappointment, lies in the quality of the contract data that powers it.

This reality is becoming increasingly important as legal departments face mounting pressure to deliver business intelligence, manage risk proactively, and demonstrate measurable value. A modern CLM platform can only be as effective as the repository beneath it.

The numbers tell a compelling story:

• Between 70-80 % of business relationships are governed by contracts
• According to a WCC study, an average of 9.2% of annual revenue is lost due to contract mismanagement
• Nearly half of businesses lack a defined process for storing contracts after execution
• More than 70% of organisations report being unable to locate at least 10% of their agreements

Despite these challenges, many organisations still view legacy migration as a technical exercise rather than a strategic opportunity. That mindset can undermine the very value a CLM investment is intended to deliver.

The Hidden Risk in Migrations

A common assumption is that contracts can simply be transferred from one repository to another. In practise, when organisations adopt a new technology or tool to assist with a day-to-day function, many ‘unknowns’ emerge with experience over time, such as:

• How should contract status be reflected in the repository for master and child documents?
• How do we ensure having a unique account name for all the counterparties to avoid multiple accounts being created in the CLM?
• How do we account for name changes due to assignments, mergers, or reorganisations?
• How will evolving reporting needs impact data structure and field dependencies?

Organisations frequently encounter these questions only after migration has begun, or worse, after it has been completed. By that point, remediation becomes significantly more expensive and disruptive.

The most successful organisations recognise that legacy migration is not about moving contracts. It is about creating a trustworthy system of record that enables better business decisions.

Migration Is Often the First Contract Health Assessment

One of the most overlooked benefits of legacy migration is the visibility it provides into the overall health of an organisation’s contract portfolio.
As contracts are reviewed and organised, recurring issues often emerge:

• Critical agreements cannot be located in signed form
• Legacy templates contain outdated legal or commercial provisions
• Auto-renewal obligations are not adequately tracked
• Pricing mechanisms no longer reflect current business realities
• Contract families contain conflicting or inaccurate status information

These issues may remain hidden for years within legacy repositories. A migration initiative creates a unique opportunity to identify and address them before they become material business, operational, or compliance risks.

Viewed through this lens, migration becomes more than a technology project and is an opportunity to strengthen contract governance across the enterprise.

Why Technology Alone Cannot Solve the Problem

Many migration challenges stem from business decisions rather than system limitations.

For example, determining the status of a contract family often requires legal and operational judgment. A master agreement may have expired, while active statements of work continue to govern ongoing engagements. Different organisations may choose different approaches depending on their contracting model, reporting needs, and risk tolerance.

Similarly, seemingly minor configuration decisions can have outsized downstream effects. Dependencies between fields may prevent important information from being surfaced to users. Missing metadata can stop automated renewal reminders from triggering. Reporting structures may not align with how the business actually manages contractual relationships.

These are not technology problems. They are governance decisions that require a combination of legal, operational, and technical expertise.

The Case for a More Consultative Approach

The organisations deriving the greatest value from CLM investments are those that approach migration as a strategic design exercise rather than a data-loading exercise. That means validating assumptions early, testing real-world data before full-scale migration, establishing clear business rules, and anticipating how contractual information will be used long after implementation is complete.

At Elevate, we have seen that the most effective migration projects begin long before the first contract is loaded into a system. They start with collaboration between legal, business, and technology stakeholders to define how contracts should be managed, governed, and leveraged in the future.

This consultative approach often uncovers opportunities to improve not only the repository itself but also the broader contracting ecosystem, from governance and reporting to compliance monitoring and operational efficiency.

Ultimately, thoughtful legacy migration lays the foundation for organisations to realise the full value of their CLM investment and transform contract data into a strategic business asset.