The pace of BFSI technology modernisation in Australia and New Zealand is relentless – delivering shareholder value, winning customers, meeting regulatory requirements and transforming open banking demands into business opportunities.
While technology investments are growing year on year and AI is now paying off with productivity gains, organisations are still finding that technology delivery is taking longer and costing more than original business cases and delivery plans suggested.
The reasons may vary on the surface. The underlying issue tends to be the same: Out of date integration thinking remains locked into modern BFSI programmes.
The point where delivery starts to stall
Most BFSI programmes start planning integration from the outset. However, the real shape of the integration environment rarely reveals itself at the start. It emerges a few months in, when inflight delivery exposes dependencies that nobody had factored in, or changes that looked contained turn out to affect systems that nobody had mapped.
Soon, the issue is no longer whether the programme can keep moving. It’s what has to be reworked, resequenced or reconsidered to keep delivery on course.
What makes this pattern particularly difficult to break is that it compounds across overlapping programmes, and delivery predictability is destroyed.
The word dependency may appear technical in nature, but the real problem is that technical dependencies create people and communication dependencies. The result is hordes of delivery teams, as well as layer upon layer of management, stuck in continuous resequencing activities, meetings, and heightened levels of issue reporting.
The early decisions most programmes leave too late
One of the biggest challenges with integration starts with the approach taken at programme scoping. Despite use of the most modern integration reference architectures, scoping still treats integration as a set of simplistic point-to-point connection tasks rather than a complex web of technology, team, and time-bound dependencies. Often this is because leaders have considerable access to architecture diagrams and architects but still lack visibility of the state of the integration landscape, the full risk picture, and the decision levers at their disposal.
The second challenge is that BFSI organisations lack capability to improve interoperability.
- Interoperability is the ability of business and technology systems to work together.
- An interoperable architecture makes integration and programmes simpler, faster, and cost-effective.
- A poorly interoperable architecture makes integration and programmes slow, complex, and high-risk.
So BFSI organisations are still typically structured to develop integrations at the cost of weakening interoperability. Even adoption of modern financial interoperability standards hasn’t eliminated uncertainty about whether interoperability is on the right trajectory.
The third challenge is that the vendor pitch of “Our solution is easy to integrate” still lands with BFSI buyers. Whether this statement is true or not, it’s a statement relating to the capabilities of the vendor platform - not a statement encompassing the complexity of connecting the solution to the buyer’s complex and fluid enterprise architecture. Whether the programme outcome is a whole new technology core or simple SaaS solution, the huge task of integration is left to be figured out later - after the business cases are approved and contracts signed.
The misaligned workforce making matters worse
The more difficult piece is organisational. Integrators in most BFSI organisations are capable and experienced, but they're also distributed across technology teams and stretched – maintaining live systems, supporting planning and testing activities, and progressing delivery simultaneously. There's rarely enough bandwidth for them to step back and design a better approach before a programme starts. Plus, integrators are often left to choose their own adventure when faced with design and delivery options. So individual integrations are delivered non-cohesively, increasing architectural complexity and putting a drag on future change.
The cost of carrying integration complexity
The result is a gap between what the programme assumes integration will look like and what it actually is – and by the time that gap becomes visible, the programme is already carrying the cost of it.
The commercial consequence isn't just a delayed programme. It's a programme that runs longer, costs more and leaves other programmes and the wider business with another layer of complexity to unwind.
In an environment where compliance obligations, elevated AI ambition and customer expectations are simultaneously putting pressure on the technology infrastructure, the cost of compounding integration complexity is rising.
What strong programmes do from the start
They don't have more time or more budget. They choose a different starting point and goals that set them apart:
- Technology and programme leaders are equipped with end-to-end visibility of the health, performance and impact of their integration landscape – enabling them to proactively manage the looming risks arising from the integrated web of technologies, teams, and time-bound dependencies.
- Programmes are structured and accountable for improving interoperability – so that as programme outcomes are delivered the architecture is left in a state that simplifies and speeds future change.
- Rapid enablement and AI-assisted guardrails are in place for integrators – making it easy for integrators of varied skills and experience to tame dependencies while delivering efficiently, cohesively and strategically at pace.
Following this approach, programmes and integrators are set up for success and then guided throughout the journey – increasing efficiency, improving programme predictability and contributing to a more interoperable future.
The questions worth answering before the next phase begins
Before the next phase of your programme moves forward, it’s worth being honest about the following questions:
- Is your programme still relying on an out-of-date approach to integration?
- Do you have the end-to-end visibility of the health and performance of your integration landscape that you need to proactively manage and de-risk the web of complexity?
- Are you confident that interoperability is improving?
If your answers indicate challenges, there's a conversation worth having before unplanned costs and delays become impossible to absorb.
Fusion5 has two decades of integration transformation and delivery leadership – with BFSI experience spanning the largest organisations of the region, the thriving mid-market, as well as high-growth niche players.
We bring value-focused integration thinking and specialist delivery experience to programmes where the foundation matters as much as the build.
If you're looking to reduce delivery risk and get integration right before your next phase begins, get in touch with the Fusion5 team today.
Book an integration risk review
In a 30-minute conversation, a Fusion5 integration specialist will review your proposed or current programme structure and give you a clear read on where integration risk is most likely to surface – and what needs to be addressed before it becomes a delivery problem.
No preparation required. No commitment beyond the call.
In this article
