[mstade]

> Interesting, although I'd suggest that the problems for RBS in implementing such a system are more a reflection of the complexity and age of their systems than than technology used.

And I'd suggest you're wrong. Neither complexity or age of a system is usually the issue. In fact, I'd say technology is almost never the real issue, but rather organizational red tape. Those owning the various systems often operate as more or less autonomous entities, largely with their own change policies and process, and I'd be willing to bet this will be a bigger hurdle than anything technical. Also, there will be a fair bit of politics involved.

Perhaps a small outfit as monzo can move fast and be nimble now, but if you reach the point where you have multiple system owners you will inevitably run into these problems, and they have almost nothing to do with technology. FUD, often fueled by compliance requirements (whether actual legal compliance or perceived such) also plays a large part.

For me personally, I sometimes wish the red tape would just go away, and at other times I'm glad it's there to save us from some of the madness I've seen people try to get deployed.

Source: I have worked with and in top tier financial institutions for about half a decade at this point, including RBS.

[raesene6]

Interesting perspective, I too have worked with large financial institutions (for 15 years if that matters) including RBS :)

Organisational red-tape is obviously part of the problem but that's part of what I meant by complexity. Change in large FS companies comes slowly because of their size and complexity both organisationally and technologically.

Once you get a complex network setup and a load of systems that aren't designed to work together (which tends to happen over time as technologies shift) implementing new layers across the top of them takes time.

One of the problems with changing existing systems is that impact to production is something which has to be avoided, so changes to those systems have to be planned carefully. Now it's arguable that some organisations take that too far, but it's not fair (I think) to suggest that all of the change controls in place in those companies are "FUD".

[mstade]

I don't think I suggested that all change controls amount to FUD, certainly I didn't mean to anyway. What I did say was that it plays a large part, which is evident in how little many of the decision makers actually know about what a change is, what it means, and what repercussions it might have, so it's easier to err on the side of caution. The answer, of course, is to do more research, but that's more expensive and harder than to just say "no."

My experience is that whatever technical issues may arise really aren't that big of a deal, provided you do the proper research to realize what a change to the system actually means. Significant effort, perhaps, but not particularly difficult from a purely technical standpoint. But it usually means coordinating with different parts of the organization, which can be excruciating, and more often than not has little to do with technological aspects and more with territorial politics and process. That's not necessarily a bad thing, like I said I've seen it stop some really horrid stuff make it into production, but it can also introduce so much friction that you give up before even having started.

I don't rightly know where the balance lies. For a small outfit like monzo it makes sense to be nimble, but for a huge organizations like RBS, UBS, JPM, HSBC etc., there are so many things at play that being conservative isn't necessarily a bad thing. Plenty more degrees in this hell than people generally believe there is, that's for sure.