Challenges of custom developing a core banking system (Part I – defining the system expectations correctly)

Challenge I – defining the system expectations correctly

I think the key question here is how likely we think it is that the organization of the bank is capable to accurately and comprehensively define the expected analytical account management operation, taking into account the extremely diverse context. In other words: what is the delivery capacity of the team of business analysts available to us?

‍

Avoiding documentation chaos

In my view, pinpointing expectations is not an easy task at all. For better or worse, but this challenge has already been solved by suppliers of universal core banking systems for banks operating in a production environment.

During the execution of similar tasks, I encountered two different types of challenges. One was caused by the lack of appropriate custom tools, and the other was due to the alluring depths of process-, data-, architecture-,interface- and other modeling solutions.

At one endpoint of the first approach, a large number of Word documents and Excel spreadsheets were generated during the requirement gathering. These went through a predefined approval process in a Sharepoint repository and then were handed over for execution after the final consent.

Minor changes were undocumented or took months to approve, none of these can be considered an ideal solution. With this approach, the traceability of interrelations and alterations is not possible or very difficult to maintain. It is recommended to employ solutions that can use links, such as a wiki tool (e.g. Confluence).

When the planning phase is mainly based on the preparation of textual documentation, then in the case of complex systems such as the core banking (or account management) solutions, I recommend using a tool that supports change tracking natively.

According to the other method, we use a modeling tool to track the interrelations between the information. Here, although the model was able to grow with the increase in the complexity of the task, two different problems may appear.

If the staff involved in the assessment is not using the selected modeling tool in a uniform fashion, an even more complex and difficult to overview material can come into existence than with the text-based approach. To prevent this, it is recommended to hold methodological trainings for employee sat several times at the beginning and during the execution of the task. During these, it should be emphasized that the goal is to fully model business capabilities and data, with consistent use of terminology and detail. In addition, a regular forum should be set up where those involved in modeling can discuss the interesting professional tidbits that arise.

‍

Finding the ideal level of detail

The other challenge is that it is difficult to find the ideal level of detail in the modeling. Since the information needed to be registered when performing a task of such complexity is overwhelming in quantity and diversity, a methodology built on this in itself can slow down the process of the planning tasks so much that for an outside observer it will be indistinguishable from walking in place.

An experienced and determined methodological lead can help with this problem. With strong professional leadership and continuous monitoring, repetitive training can create the expected professional uniformity and prevent the modelling from becoming infinite in depth.

In my view, both approaches can be used in practice. Without a modeling tool, the traceability of interdependencies and modifications must be ensured. With modeling solutions, special care must be taken to ensure consistency and avoid over complication.

Personally, I recommend to use modeling tools to accurately and fully define the operations of the analytical core banking, because it provides a much greater chance to assess and continuously maintain the interdependencies.

‍