Slashdot Mirror
51 Percent of Financial Services Companies Believe Existing Tech is Holding Them Back (betanews.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Legacy technology can be a major obstacle to digital transformation projects and, according to a new survey of financial services technology decision makers carried out for business consultancy Janeiro Digital, almost 51 percent say existing technology is holding back innovation. Three of the biggest roadblocks are seen as lack of support for change (34 percent), legacy technology and infrastructure (31.6 percent) and a lack of in-house technical skill (29.5 percent). As a consequence 23 percent of respondents believe their company is behind in digital transformation compared to others in the industry. Only 47 percent are currently implementing new technologies, with 12.6 percent wanting to do so but not having started. That leaves 40 percent not innovating which could see them lose out in a world where consumers want better, faster financial products.
Blame you're implementation of them. Improperly trained Bosses and ingrained static procedures often are the reason the tech you have isn't working for you.
And now they are complaining because their infrastructure has become "old" and difficult to maintain. Sounds to me as if they just want to blame something else for the bad business decisions they made.
They’re the source of their own problem. Whenever they manage to hire brilliant people, they hold them back with arcane process and lengthy byzantine procedures (mostly enacted to internally cover the bosses’ asses).
Instead of complaining about legacy tech "holding them back", maybe these "financial service" companies should invest in some better tech instead of using those record profits for stock buybacks and bonuses to C-level management. You've been eating out on the backs of taxpayers all through this last decade of the government giving you free money. Maybe it's time to do something that won't, you know, bring down the fucking economy again.
Just a thought.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Just more crap. They state lots of exact percentage numbers, but talk 100% vague about "legacy technologies". Please define "legacy technology".
And please be very specific about 1) what you're using now, 2) what / how you're being limited, and 3) what the new advanced world-saving technology is and how it will solve all of your (perceived) problems.
Then I will tell you about how much productivity you'll lose while people 1) sit in "training" classes, 2) have problems opening up that old document, .xls, etc., and 3) how these "new technologies" actually slow us down.
Case in point: a year or so ago I "upgraded" this very computer to Win7 from XP. XP was great because I could click on the lower-right network icon and get right to "properties". Now I have to click more times, go through several windows, etc. Time wasted. Stupid. Going backwards we are.
I used to work for a finance company deploying and automating the deployment of finance software. There's a couple I know of. Talisys out in Denver is one, but the 800 lb gorilla is a piece of software called Beta. It's freaking ancient. Like, core parts still in use today are from the 1970s. I think they've written some API front ends for it, but you have to pay through the nose for every feature, and especially for the fancy features. Beta was written... back in the 1970s perhaps? It doesn't lend itself to modern development methods very well. But it works and has a solid, proven track record, which is exactly what risk adverse finance companies like, especially when they are signing four and five nine uptime SLAs. Talisys is a little newer, developed in the early (1992?) 1990s and came to market around 2002 as production ready, but it's still based on 1998 era technology and were crawling in to the modern age offering Windows Server 2012 R2 support in 2015. There was actually a two year gap between when WS 2003 microsoft windows extended service support ended and when they supported a newer version of windows (2012 R2) and yes you read that right some big (not huge) companies are running financial software on top of Windows.
Other financial technology companies like Robinhood are written cloud-first and cloud-native with APIs in languages like Python and Go and Ruby and what have you. They're just going to eat up these old companies as their overhead costs are much lower and their code better documented and aligned more closely with modern programming practices. Their most modern competitors are running windows software designed in the 1990s. It's ripe for disruption and companies like Robinhood are absolutely going to grind these old companies in to a fine paste in the next ten years.
moox. for a new generation.
...their unwillingness to invest in upgrading it, because it will affect the bottom line in the short term.
In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
So a consulting company held a survey and found that 51% of companies believe that legacy technology is the biggest hurtle they face. That's good news for this consulting company that sells "solutions" to that problem. Oddly enough, my banker thinks I need a credit card and that car salesman insists that my old (2007) car is about to fall apart and I should buy a new one.
Legacy technology and technical debt is a problem that is often overlooked and not budgeted for because it won't affect the stock price this quarter. Still, forgive me if I don't believe that this survey accurately outlines the problems that companies actually have to this degree.
Their definition of "Innovation" is ripping more people off faster with financial shell games. Anything that impedes the "financial services" sector from "innovating" is a good idea.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Serverless Blockchain Containers orchestrated by Kubernetes and deployed by Jenkins, Terraform, Vagrant and friends are the savior the financial sector needs!!!!!! Buy CloudWeasel CI/CD today! Any workload, any toolchain, any cloud!
(OK, in all seriousness...if they're talking about mainframes and COBOL underpinning almost everything they do, I might agree.) This just sounds like a study by a consulting firm [[looks-- oh yes, it is!]] planting the seeds of doubt in executives' heads to get the purse strings loosened. Traditional companies are totally in Fear of Missing Out mode and the consulting companies are cashing in on that.
there are rules about how they change their tech to keep them from pulling all sorts of tricks and shenanigans with their software. They're hoping to make those rules go away. Believe me, you do not want this. Yeah, you'll get your new tech, but you'll get an unstable financial system and a crash that makes 2008 look like a happy memory.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What consumers/customers want (even if they don't know how to pronounce it) from financial products is:
So, in other words, not to have to deal with financial institutions at all.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
And they also complain that they have a lack of in-house technical skill. The longer you work with your technology that has become old, the more skilled you will become at using it. Changing it too often just leads to chaos.
Unless, what they meant was that they had a lack of *IN-HOUSE* technical skill, in which case, stop outsourcing it!
They're gonna keep complaining like this until someone makes a computer that will learn to use itself. Then they will complain that it isn't fast enough.
Consultancy specializing in "digital transformation" (i.e., popular new buzzword) does self-serving survey that miraculously finds that their services are needed.
I especially like the finding that 29% of companies are whining about not having the needed skills in-house. I predict that the survey did not ask companies whether they were investing in any training for their IT staff and, if they had, the responses would range from "Hell, no!" or "No" to "Huh? What is this `training' thing you asked about?"
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I'm not much of an expert in finance, but I know a fair amount about IT, and I'd say it's a safe bet that crappy technology, legacy tech, and vendor lock-in is holding back a lot of efficiency and innovation.
I mean, technology in general is adding a lot of innovation and efficiency. For sure. But I see a lot of businesses depending on some weird custom-built application that was built in the '90s and doesn't support any OS past Windows XP. I see a lot of simple, common problems going completely unaddressed, while all the computing talent is focused on building the next crappy Snapchat clone. Microsoft seems intent on using all of their expertise on forcing advertising down everyone's throat. Apple is just making things thinner and lighter without making them more useful or reliable. The FOSS community is so wrapped up in everyone reinventing their own wheel, and so you end up with a bunch of half-finished clunky wheels.
It kind of makes me regret that I gave up programming, because maybe I could fix some of these problems. Of course, if I hadn't given up programming, I'd probably have just ended up being yet another person trying to develop a Snapchat competitor rather than fixing real problems.
The real problem is not existing products destroying innovation.
The real problem is patent hoarding destroying the ability to innovate altogether.
Go ahead. Try and invent something. I dare you.
I deal with tech a lot where I work, an instantly recognizable financial business.
Our core transaction processing systems run COBOL. When your Python app can settle as few trillion transactions nightly with deadlines met within minutes and downtime measured in seconds per year, present it. Someone will listen.
The stuff I deal with daily now uses Cassandra for a db backend, all is hosted within LAMP stacks (we said goodbye to WebSphere a while ago), and is tolerating all major browsers for internal and external users. Our constraints aren't tech, they are resources; we decide to support a certain range of demand, and so size the systems according to budget. When our users begin complaining, we will resize.
I've noticed a bunch of internal apps moved to interesting containers, and using two- or three-factor authentication. Our security methods treat employees as strangers, and internal systems as threats. Nothing is trusted until it is authenticated, carefully. This security problem is the source of much of the apparent lack of innovation in the industry, as we where I work are a top 50 target. Maybe top 10, we have not been told of a breach. We spend as much on testing our security as we do on the security.
Our single biggest repository is on a custom Linux system, some our own software. It handles the volume you would associate with Google. It has to be secure.
And we of course have document storage, but that's on old stuff based on Wang systems, which you cannot outperform yet. No you cannot.
Yet we are faced with demand for flexibility, new and innovative solutions to new problems, and creative products. We've delivered a blockchain based international settlement system with a respected partner, at the same time as we've spun off a product that made all the sense in the world but didn't sell and are turning off one that just isn't working for anyone.
A previous CIO lamented that a third of our projects failed. That's actually pretty good in the business world at large. But it's really not good enough. And new tech by itself will not do it. Better planning, better management, and better infrastructure will. And we are building those. I can name a few competitors that are clearly not, and I relish the opportunities we have to drink their milkshakes.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Three of the biggest roadblocks are seen as
lack of support for change (34 percent),
legacy technology and infrastructure (31.6 percent)
and a lack of in-house technical skill (29.5 percent).
Item number 1 is a symptom of item number 2. Item number 2 is a symptom of item number 3. Item number 3 is a symptom of outsourcing everything to India.
You get what you pay for.
"That leaves 40 percent not innovating which could see them lose out in a world where consumers want better, faster financial products".
Actually, it turns out that consumers want a good life; a happy, healthy family and friends; interesting work that (ideally) helps others; respect and appreciation; healthy, tasty food and drink; plenty of interesting exercise and sporting activities; enough money to enjoy all those things...
"Better, faster financial products" come absolutely nowhere on the list of things that sane, sensible, well-balanced consumers want.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
a lack of in-house technical skill (29.5 percent)
It's a free market. Keep bumping up the offer until you get what you want. If the market isn't working for you then you're not trying hard enough.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
...And they also complain that they have a lack of in-house technical skill. The longer you work with your technology that has become old, the more skilled you will become at using it....
Unless those who have the technical skills start retiring. (think: COBOL)
The technology is only part of the issue though. Organisational politics are a major factor. But then there are the hidden issues too. Such as "our order flow system does X, y, Z, and a,b, and in some cases c." Each of those areas has subtle and often undocumented/unspoken requirements and interdependencies. Replacing the overall system is highly desirable, but nothing can meet all the requirements out of the box, and sometimes modifying or building a system has extreme costs with zero benefits. I mean why pay a large amount of cash to get a system that does exactly what we have now, just so we can say we have modern technology. How do you justify that expense to shareholders and/or customers. And because the issues is large and ill-defined, managers would rather focus on the smaller well defined issues they have on their plate. There are better ways. But it's a judgement call if it is in a company's economic best interest to embrace the pain of adopting that better way.
At the 'better documented' comment. The cool kids say the code is the documentation.
These are financial services companies. They're not upgrading because there's a huge perceived risk taht the upgrade will fail in a manner that destroys the company. Certainly, the kids believe that COBOL is obsolete and inherently bad, but the existing code base is giving 5 nines of uptime, and new code might fail.
How about before you paper-shufflers master the technology you already have, specifically in securing it properly so all our very-much-personal information isn't constantly being stolen, before we give you any new toys to play with? I think I speak for everyone else when I say we're all sick and bloody well tired of companies being irresponsible.
How would they know. I still can't find a bank using proper MFA, good password rules, a solid web and mobile app UI, etc. Most of them are stuck in 2005 or 1998!
"according to a new survey .. almost 51 percent say existing technology is holding back innovation. "
How about they stop relying on the industry standard Microsoft Windows.
--
I'll bet you're the kind of guy that hangs round Reddit fapping off over pictures of furries and yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin
Why does everyone give business a 'pass' when they complain about something? If this situation is not their own fault, after years of cheaping out on IT, making it a poor career choice, etc then who's fault is it? Furthermore, who the heck are they complaining to that they feel will have more power to change this then themselves? Why do they choose some arbitrary cap for salaries that is below what the market dictates? Why does nobody put up a mirror?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
In complex systems some parts depend upon other parts. So it is very difficult to change those at the bottom without upsetting everything.
So the solution is to work around the core issues. For example, a web based banking interface does not attempt to store additional information in the ancient COBOL core. Instead, it copies information into its own database, and then syncs via complex protocols. Over time more and more of these work arounds make the system harder and harder to change.
This is why a small, new bank, with a tiny IT staff and clean, new systems can compete with a large established bank with huge staff. (Plus Parkinson's law of course.)
The foolish consumers may want "better, faster financial products.", but that's nearly a contradiction, and is one if better includes more secure.
FWIW, I don't want my financial data going over the internet in any way. Well, I can't stop that, but I can restrict the amount of exposure I give myself. You'd think nobody had ever heard of Spectre or Meltdown. I've given up all purchases over the internet until those are widely patched. And I've never been willing to do on-line banking, despite the ads promoting it.
P.S.: To the extent that a "financial service" thinks of me as a consumer rather than a customer, I'd rather not do ANY business with them.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
51 Percent of Financial Services Companies Believe that Non-Existent Tech Can Help Them
Unless those who have the technical skills start retiring. (think: COBOL)
Unless those who have the technical skills were downsized.