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.
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.
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+
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.
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.
>> a year or so ago I "upgraded" this very computer to Win7 from XP
Really, no takers? I thought this was one of the best pieces of troll bait to be spun through Slashdot this month.
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.
"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.
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.
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