Thinking I Blog

Frank Schwab

Professional Board Member, Strategic Advisor & Speaker

From Oversight to Architects of Digital Resilience - DORA Reshapes the Board's Role

The financial sector faces escalating cyber threats in its digital evolution, prompting the introduction of DORA, the Digital Operational Resilience Act, aimed at fortifying defenses. DORA requires supervisory boards to pivot from mere compliance to becoming architects of digital resilience, orchestrating robust risk management strategies. It emphasizes the importance of understanding and addressing third-party dependencies while fostering a culture where resilience is ingrained, enabling boards to navigate digital disruption with strength and agility.


The accelerating pace of digital transformation in the financial sector has fundamentally altered the landscape of risks faced by banks. Operational disruptions caused by cyberattacks, technology failures, or third-party dependencies have the potential to trigger systemic crises across the interconnected financial system. In response to these evolving threats, the European Union's Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) represents a watershed moment, establishing a harmonized framework to enhance the sector's ability to withstand and recover from digital disruptions. For supervisory board members of banks, DORA signifies a call to action, demanding a renewed focus on digital operational resilience and a comprehensive oversight approach.


DORA goes beyond existing cybersecurity regulations by mandating in-depth ICT (Information and Communication Technology) risk management across the entire financial ecosystem. Supervisory boards hold the primary responsibility for ensuring their institutions are adequately prepared for the challenges posed by DORA. This entails a profound understanding of the regulation's core principles, a strategic recalibration of risk management approaches, and a commitment to fostering a culture of resilience across all organizational levels.





One of the most critical functions of supervisory boards in the wake of DORA is the implementation of a robust ICT risk management framework. Board members must not only approve ICT-related policies and procedures but also actively monitor their effectiveness. This requires a shift in mindset, recognizing that ICT risk is not a purely technical issue but a fundamental business risk. Boards need to ensure a holistic view of the institution's digital footprint, mapping critical business functions and identifying potential vulnerabilities stemming from internal systems, external dependencies, and the ever-evolving threat landscape.




Effective ICT incident management is another cornerstone of DORA compliance. Supervisory boards must play a crucial role in defining incident reporting thresholds, escalation procedures, and communication protocols with both internal and external stakeholders. DORA emphasizes the need for swift and decisive action in the face of disruptions, as well as thorough analysis of root causes to prevent future recurrences. Board oversight in this area helps drive continuous improvement in the institution's ability to manage operational crises.




Furthermore, DORA spotlights the interconnected nature of risk within the digital financial ecosystem. The reliance of banks on a complex web of third-party ICT service providers introduces a unique dimension to risk management. Supervisory boards must ensure that meticulous due diligence processes are in place for the onboarding of new third-party providers and that contractual agreements explicitly address issues of ICT risk and operational resilience. The oversight role must extend beyond initial contracting, demanding the institution maintains continuous monitoring of its third-party relationships.




The implementation of DORA goes beyond technical compliance; it necessitates a culture where digital operational resilience is a top priority. Supervisory boards are best positioned to lead this cultural transformation. Through communication, incentives, and accountability mechanisms, board members can promote resilience-focused behavior across the organization. This translates into investing in robust technologies, proactively identifying and mitigating risks, and emphasizing the importance of effective incident reporting and response.





Effectively navigating the requirements of DORA requires board members to expand their knowledge and expertise. This may mean including individuals with deeper technical backgrounds in cybersecurity or digital risk management or seeking external advisors to support the board's decision-making. Additionally, remaining abreast of evolving regulatory expectations, industry best practices, and the changing threat landscape is essential for informed and proactive oversight.




In conclusion, the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) marks a significant milestone in the evolution of the European financial regulatory landscape. For supervisory boards of banks, it demands a shift in focus and strategy. By embracing the core principles of DORA, fostering a culture of resilience, and driving the development of robust ICT risk management frameworks, supervisory boards can safeguard their institutions and contribute to the overall stability of the financial system.





Published in DORA, digital, banking, digital, banking, supervisory, board  on 15.04.2024 19:07 Uhr. 0 commentsComment here

5 Imperatives for Board Leadership in Digital Banking Transformation 

In an era where digital transformation in banking is non-negotiable for survival, board leadership faces unprecedented challenges and opportunities. Discover five crucial imperatives shaping the future of financial institutions, from embedding digital strategy at the core to fortifying cybersecurity defenses.



„Digital banking transformation is not a choice—it's imperative for survival.“


The banking sector stands at the precipice of unprecedented change, driven by the inexorable march of digital transformation. In this era, where adaptation is synonymous with survival, the role of board leadership in steering financial institutions towards a digitally empowered future cannot be overstated. Proactive board leadership is crucial to help financial institutions not only keep pace but lead the way in crafting the bank of the future.


In my experience the following five imperatives for board members are crucial for effectively navigating the digital landscape, ensuring not only the relevance but also the leadership of their institutions in shaping the bank of the future.





1️⃣ Digital as Core Strategy


In the digital age, strategy cannot afford to treat transformation as an ancillary endeavor but must integrate it as the very essence of the institution's trajectory. Board members must be the vanguards in this endeavor, asking pertinent questions, driving alignment, and identifying requisite digital talent. Key performance indicators (KPIs) such as Digital Channel Adoption Rate, Digital Sales Percentage, and Cost-to-Income Ratio serve as crucial barometers in assessing the efficacy of digital strategies.





2️⃣ Cultivating a Culture of Innovation


The ethos of innovation must permeate every facet of traditional banking institutions, necessitating a cultural metamorphosis. Board members play a pivotal role in championing agility and collaboration, fostering an environment conducive to rapid experimentation and cross-functional partnerships. KPIs such as Time-to-Market for New Products/Features, Employee Engagement with Innovation Initiatives, and Customer Feedback on New Features are instrumental in gauging the institution's innovation quotient.




3️⃣ Evolving the Customer Experience


In the digital realm, customer experience reigns supreme, and board members must prioritize its enhancement. Advocating for the voice of the customer, championing seamless journeys, and tracking KPIs such as Net Promoter Score, Digital Self-Service Resolution Rate, and Channel Abandonment Rate are imperative in ensuring that the institution remains attuned to evolving customer expectations.






4️⃣ Leveraging Data as a Strategic Asset


Data emerges as the linchpin in the digital banking paradigm, necessitating a strategic approach guided by board leadership. Establishing robust data governance policies, fostering insights-driven decision-making, and tracking KPIs such as Data Quality Index, Insights-to-Action Time, and Customer Personalization Effectiveness are pivotal in harnessing the transformative power of data.




5️⃣ The Cybersecurity Imperative


As banking operations traverse the digital realm, cybersecurity assumes paramount importance, demanding unwavering vigilance from board members. Oversight, a proactive stance, and adherence to compliance standards become non-negotiable imperatives. Tracking KPIs such as Number of Security Incidents, Incident Response and Recovery Time, and Compliance with Security Standards are indispensable in safeguarding the institution against cyber threats.


Conclusion


In conclusion, the digital revolution presents both unparalleled opportunities and formidable challenges for the banking sector. Board leadership, armed with a keen understanding of the imperatives outlined herein, holds the key to navigating this tumultuous terrain successfully. By embracing digital transformation as a core strategy, fostering a culture of innovation, prioritizing customer experience, leveraging data strategically, and fortifying cybersecurity measures, board members can chart a course towards a future where their institutions not only survive but thrive in the digital age.



Published in digital, transformation, digital, banking, KPIs, customer, satisfaction, innovation, supervisory, board on 25.03.2024 19:31 Uhr. 0 commentsComment here

Navigating the Maze of Legacy IT Landscape of Banks - Exploring Four Approaches

Banks struggle to balance modernization with the limitations of legacy systems. While no single approach dominates, considerations like a bank's size, goals, and risk tolerance will shape their transformation strategy. Success hinges on not just technology, but also effective change management and adaptability within the organization.



Banks today face a critical challenge: how to evolve and thrive in a rapidly digitizing landscape while grappling with the inertia of their often aging, complex legacy systems.


In a recent LinkedIn poll, I asked my community about the best approaches for banks to handle legacy technologies. While none of the three options (gradual modernization, complete overhaul, or ecosystem integration) emerged as a clear favorite, there was a general dislike for the idea of a complete overhaul. This article reflects the valuable insights shared by several contributors, with special thanks to Ewan MacLeod for suggesting the Greenfield Approach.




Charting the Course: Considerations for a Successful Transformation


The optimal approach for each bank depends on a unique blend of factors, including size, risk appetite, budget, strategic goals, and the complexity of their legacy system. Careful consideration of the benefits, challenges, and pitfalls presented by each approach is crucial for informed decision-making. While gradual modernization might suit larger banks prioritizing stability, smaller, more agile players might favor greenfield development. Ecosystem integration offers a collaborative avenue, but complete overhauls require meticulous planning and significant resources.


Let’s have a look at the 4 approaches




1️⃣ Gradual Modernization - Minimizing Disruption with Measured Steps


The gradual modernization approach prioritizes a measured climb, tackling key areas like customer-facing applications or core processes in stages. This strategy offers the advantage of minimizing disruption to ongoing operations and the customer experience. It leverages existing investments in legacy systems, allowing for targeted improvements in areas with demonstrably high impact. However, this measured approach can be a slow and piecemeal process, potentially hindering overall effectiveness. Integration issues may arise between new and old systems, and perpetuating outdated functionalities can hinder the adoption of truly innovative solutions. The pitfalls of this approach lie in a lack of a clear long-term vision, leading to a patchwork of solutions without synergy, and delaying crucial upgrades, which can render the bank less competitive in the long run.


Many incumbent banks are following the path of gradual modernization, such as Deutsche Bank, Barclays Bank, or Citibank.




2️⃣ Bold Overhaul - Embracing a Future Unburdened by the Past


The complete overhaul approach takes a more audacious path, aiming for a clean slate by replacing the entire technology stack with modern, integrated systems. This bold move unlocks several benefits, including fostering agility, scalability, and future-proof technology. Streamlined operations and potential long-term cost reductions are alluring prospects. However, this disruptive and resource-intensive process carries significant implementation risks, with high upfront costs and the potential for delays and budget overruns. The loss of institutional knowledge and expertise embedded in legacy systems also presents a challenge. Poor planning and execution can lead to chaos and operational downtime, while neglecting employee training and change management can breed resistance and hamper adoption.


Some incumbent banks, such as the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, are known for successful bold overhauls, albeit at very high costs, while others, like Deutsche Bank, didn’t succeed.




3️⃣ Collaboration for Innovation: Harnessing the Power of the Ecosystem


Instead of a complete overhaul, the ecosystem integration approach focuses on weaving legacy systems into a broader digital tapestry. This strategy leverages the expertise and innovative solutions of fintech partners, enabling faster time-to-market for new features and functionalities. It allows banks to utilize their existing legacy systems while adding modern capabilities. However, finding compatible partners with secure and reliable solutions is crucial. Managing data security and privacy concerns when integrating with external systems presents another challenge. Potential vendor lock-in and dependence on external partners must also be carefully considered. This approach can stumble if clear governance and collaboration frameworks are not established, leading to confusion and inefficiencies. Overreliance on external solutions can weaken internal development capabilities.


Spanish BBVA and Singaporean DBS are well-known banks pursuing an ecosystem strategy.


BBVA is recognized as a pioneer in open banking and boasts a successful ecosystem approach. Their robust API platform has spurred numerous fintech partnerships, fostering innovation in their customer offerings. While specifics may evolve, BBVA's commitment to collaboration positions them as a driving force in shaping the future of finance.


DBS boasts one of the most comprehensive and accessible API platforms in the banking industry, with over 200 APIs spanning various financial services. Their dedicated focus on collaboration and developer enablement has made them a leader in open banking, particularly within the Asia-Pacific region.





4️⃣ Building a Greenfield Bank: Unburdened by History, Empowered by the Future


The greenfield development approach takes the most radical path, starting from scratch to build a new technology infrastructure, free from the constraints of legacy systems. This offers unparalleled flexibility and scalability, allowing banks to design systems tailored to their specific needs. It fosters a culture of innovation and agility from the ground up. However, this significant undertaking requires substantial upfront investments and carries the risk of abandoning past investments. Banks may lack the institutional knowledge and expertise needed to build and maintain complex systems, and this approach often carries a longer implementation timeframe compared to others. Ignoring lessons learned from legacy systems can lead to repeating past mistakes, and underestimating the complexity of building and integrating entirely new systems from scratch is a significant pitfall.


When I consider examples like Revolut, Starling, J.P. Morgan's Marcus, Commerzbank's ComDirect, or Deutsche Bank's Bank 24, among others, my takeaway is this: a Greenfield approach works well for startups, but there's no track record for incumbents.



Beyond Technology: The Human Factor in Transformation


It is vital to remember that transformation is not solely about technology. Effective change management, cultural shifts, and employee training are essential for the successful adoption of any approach. By addressing these human factors alongside the technological considerations, banks can ensure a smooth and successful journey towards a future-proofed financial institution.



A Dynamic Journey


Transforming a bank with legacy technology is a complex and multifaceted endeavor. Each approach offers unique advantages and drawbacks, and the ideal path depends on individual circumstances. By carefully considering their specific needs and resources, banks can navigate the maze of transformation and emerge as agile, future-proof institutions in the ever-evolving financial landscape. Remember, the journey is dynamic, and continuous evaluation and adaptation are crucial for navigating the twists and turns towards a successful future.





Published in banking, transformation, technology, legacy on 09.02.2024 11:33 Uhr. 0 commentsComment here

'Why Do Strategies of Banks Fail?' - Poll with Surprising Results

The failure of banking strategies stems from a combination of factors, including leadership issues, a lack of alignment between strategy formulation and execution, and challenges in adapting to industry evolution. Understanding the core functions of banking, setting realistic goals, and fostering a culture of innovation are vital steps toward sustainable success in an ever-changing financial landscape.

Last week, based on some desktop research and reading books such as 'Successful Strategy Execution' by Michel Syrett and 'The Space Between Strategy and Execution' by Gregg Harden, I asked my dear colleagues about 


'Why Do Strategies of Banks Fail?‘


Literature suggests that 60 to 70% of all strategies fail due to poor execution. 


This aligns with the poll results (78 participants), indicating that only 22% of failures stem from the wrong strategy and 78% for other reasons. 


Nevertheless, the various comprehensive and insightful comments from 18 senior people from four continents, including academia, experienced consultants, and current & former CEOs & board members of banks, surprised me.




Here are my 8 key takeaways on ‚why bank strategies fail‘, drawn from all the valuable comments:


1️⃣ Evolutionary Forces in Banking


The banking and finance industry undergoes significant evolutionary forces, marked by non-physical products, high competition, and escalating costs. Ulrich Cartellieri's 1990 assessment of German banking as the "steel branch of the 1990s" resonates today. With up to 50% more bank branches than gasoline stations, questions arise about the need for such proliferation in a digitized era.


2️⃣ Strategy Formulation and Execution Gap


The challenge lies not in lacking awareness or foresight among decision-makers but in bridging the gap between formulating and executing strategies. Alignment in understanding, ownership, accountability, incentives, and corporate culture is crucial for successful implementation.


3️⃣ Missing Ownership and Incentives


Strategies falter when those tasked with execution lack a deep understanding and ownership. Incentives play a pivotal role, aligning personal goals with organizational objectives. Without the right motivations, even well-intentioned strategies can fail.


4️⃣ Lost Core Business Focus


Failure occurs when banks deviate from the core of a functioning business model. For instance, neglecting payments, a core function, can jeopardize consumer and merchant retention. The importance of focusing on the essential aspects of banking cannot be overstated.


5️⃣ Unrealistic Profit Goals


Prioritizing unrealistic profit goals over a sustainable risk portfolio is a recipe for failure. Striking a balance between profitability and risk management is crucial for the long-term health of a bank.


6️⃣ Implementation Challenges


Even well-crafted strategies can falter due to challenges in implementation. Banks may excel in devising strategies but struggle with the practical aspects of bringing them to life, including project management, resource allocation, and change management.


7️⃣ Poor Leadership and Communication


Leadership, from the top to middle management and front-line employees, plays a key role in strategy execution. Communication gaps and a lack of understanding at different levels can lead to poor implementation.


8️⃣ Lack of Consistency


Consistency is crucial for successful strategy implementation. Shifting strategies due to leadership changes or lack of continuity can impede progress. Successful strategies often have clear objectives that remain unchanged throughout their execution.



📌 Conclusion


In conclusion, the failure of banking strategies stems from a combination of factors, including leadership issues, a lack of alignment between strategy formulation and execution, and challenges in adapting to industry evolution. Understanding the core functions of banking, setting realistic goals, and fostering a culture of innovation are vital steps toward sustainable success in an ever-changing financial landscape.



To the (closed) poll here on LinkedIn: https://bit.ly/429OxCD 


🙏🏻 Thank you for your comments 


Christopher Schmitz Clare Walsh Ewan MacLeod 

Gerald Faust Hans Radtke Henri de Jong 

Jim Marous Julian Mattes         Karl Ivo Sokolov 

Kęstutis Gardžiulis         Khaled Abbas Matthias Kröner 

Michael Harte         Rajeev Kakar Rene Gruner 

Robert Caplehorn Tim H. Wolf Wössner





Published in banking, strategy, transformation, failures  on 19.01.2024 17:00 Uhr. 0 commentsComment here

7 Reasons Why Strategy Implementations Fail in Banks

Conclusion: Even if a bank's strategy is future-proof, there are numerous reasons why its implementation could fail. Avoiding the mentioned factors does not guarantee successful execution. However, there is hope that the chances of success will significantly increase.



A strategy that attracts customers, sets itself apart from the competition, and leads to a sustainable and profitable business model is particularly crucial for German banks. For many, it is even a matter of survival. Between 2012 and 2022, more than a quarter of all banks, approximately 600, bid farewell to the German banking landscape. Savings banks and cooperative banks were mostly merged, and many private banks were either acquired, forcibly liquidated, or gave up. The strategies of the banks that disappeared from the German market evidently did not succeed.




For the supervisory boards and executive boards of the remaining 1,450 banks, the question arises as to why strategies and their implementations often fail and whether they might soon be affected themselves.


One approach to addressing the issue is to better understand the causes of failure with the aim of avoiding them. While one might assume that failure is mostly rooted in a poor or vague strategy, consulting literature on the topic, such as "Successful Strategy Execution" by Michel Syrett or "The space between strategy and execution" by Gregg Harden, reveals that approximately 50 to 70% of all business strategies fail in their implementations. Another approach is to analyze the strategies and implementations of individual banks in order to learn from them.


Unstable leadership, conflicts in management, and distraction from necessary implementation measures


Deutsche Bank has been pursuing the strategy of the "Global Universal Bank - as the leading bank in Germany with strong European roots, a global network, and a diversified product offering." Interestingly, the bank has been following this strategy since its founding in 1870. The acquisition of Postbank, on which the bank has been working, albeit with varying intensity and focus, since 2007, does not quite fit into this picture. Most German retail customers do not need global products such as currency accounts or global wealth management. The majority of these customers require few, easily accessible, reliable, and efficient banking products, such as affordable accounts with cards, fast transfers, low-risk investment products with satisfactory returns, and affordable loans.


Since 2007, the Deutsche Bank has seen five (co-) CEOs - Josef Ackermann, Jürgen Fitschen / Anshu Jain, John Cryan, and Christian Sewing - and with each change, the approach to retail customers and Postbank has changed, sometimes aiming for full integration, sometimes contemplating a sale. The acquisition of Postbank is certainly not solely responsible for the stock market losses of occasionally over 90%. These developments can be attributed to the risks undertaken in the Deutsche Bank's investment banking and the consequences of the financial crisis. However, it seems that the purchase of Postbank has significantly diverted the leadership of Deutsche Bank from the core strategy of being a "Global Universal Bank."




Few significant milestones for the global universal bank have been reported in the last 15 years, while there have been numerous global scandals, regulatory irregularities, and very high fines in several countries. From my perspective, Deutsche Bank has the right strategy but lacks consistent implementation. The frequent changes at the top of Deutsche Bank have repeatedly led to power struggles and conflicts in management, at the expense of a focused strategy implementation.


American banks like Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan, with whom Deutsche Bank competed on equal footing around the turn of the millennium, demonstrate that a different approach is possible. Both banks implemented their strategies despite the financial crisis, more than doubling (GS) or nearly quadrupling (JPM) their stock prices between 2007 and 2023. This success is likely tied to leadership stability - Jamie Dimon has been the CEO of J.P. Morgan since 2006, and Goldman Sachs had only one change at the top in the last 18 years, with Lloyd Blankfein serving as CEO from 2006 to 2018 for 12 years, succeeded by David Solomon in 2018.



Overestimation, lack of online and IT expertise, and insufficient transformation experience


Sparda Bank Baden-Württemberg (Sparda-BW) is a regional cooperative bank with 640,000 private customers, 35 branches, and a balance sheet total of 15.6 billion euros (2022) in Baden-Württemberg. Faced with increasing competition from specialized online and neobanks such as N26, DKB, and ING, Sparda-BW took the lead from 2017 onwards (together with other Sparda banks) in developing a new online strategy with the aim of modernizing online banking for private customers (Project "TEO") and began the transformation of its existing core banking IT system landscape from 2019 onwards (Project "SFT"). As a customer of Sparda-BW, one was forcibly migrated to the new TEO platform. The usability, functionality, and convenience of TEO are not even close to the extensive and user-friendly features offered by direct competitors like N26 or Revolut. This can now also be seen in customer numbers. The number of Sparda-BW customers has decreased from 704,521 in 2017 to 641,591 in 2022, while competitors have gained hundreds of thousands of new customers in Germany. Between 2017 and 2022, the Cost-Income Ratio (CIR) also deteriorated from 65% to 75%, and Sparda-BW's profits fell from 25 to 6 million euros. During the same period, three branches were closed. 





The poor results of Sparda-BW are the result of a poorly executed and excessively expensive implementation. According to Finanz-szene, a German banking news platform, the implementation costs for TEO amounted to 63 million euros, while N26 needed only 24 million for a comparable solution. Moreover, the core banking transformation project SFT has completely failed, as reported by the operator and Sparda-BW. The reasons for the failure of Sparda-BW's strategy are apparent. While the strategy of becoming a modern online bank for private customers is undoubtedly correct, the challenges of implementation were greatly underestimated, and their own capabilities were overestimated. There was a lack of necessary online expertise, IT know-how, and the essential experience in transformation to successfully carry out such an implementation. In any case, it was not due to an unstable top management. Between 2017 and 2023, Sparda-BW had the same CEO.



Essential framework conditions are changing, rendering the implementation of the strategy obsolete


Launched with an elaborate advertising campaign in 2012, the Dutch Robobank discontinued its Rabodirect direct banking offering in Germany at the end of 2021. What had happened? The strategy of attracting money from German savers with attractive savings and fixed-term deposit offers failed due to the low-interest rate phase of recent years. Unexpected negative interest rates in Germany and a too narrow product offering (account and savings deposits) resulted in a sustainably loss-making business for Rabodirect, which the Rabobank ultimately abandoned.



Conclusion: Even if a bank's strategy is future-proof, there are numerous reasons why its implementation could fail. Avoiding the mentioned factors does not guarantee successful execution. However, there is hope that the chances of success will significantly increase.



https://FrankSchwabSpeaks.com



Published in banking, strategy, transformation, failure on 16.01.2024 13:01 Uhr. 1 commentComment here

More entries

Desktop Website             Impressum

© Frank Schwab 2024