Access become the first core back office system within Sungard, which of course has now been acquired by FIS. FNX was bought by GL Trade, then both were bought by Sungard earlier. FNS was bought by its partner, Tata Consultancy Services /TCS). One of the French suppliers, Viveo, fell in late 2009, bought by Temenos. During 2011 and into 2012, French supplier, Sopra, acquired Delta Informatique, Tieto UK and Callataÿ & Wouters, and there was the on-off proposed coming together of FIS and Misys, then Temenos and Misys, the latter episode subsequently flushing out a couple of venture capital firms and ending with Misys acquired by one of these and merging with the acquired Kondor+ business of Thomson Reuters. In 2014, Two Four Systems was acquired by Broadridge. 2015 of course saw the acquisition of Sungard and Fundtech by FIS and D+H respectively.
So, despite what looks like a wide array of suppliers, there is limited choices for banks. A cursory understanding of a bank’s requirements can often bring a pretty accurate prediction of the shortlist. Does the system need to be strong in a particular functional area (e.g. derivatives, consumer lending)? Does it need to be proven in a particular country? Does it need to
# System 1 T24
2 Flexcube 3 Calypso 4 Finacle 5 MX.3
6 TCS BaNCS 7 iMAL
8 Sopra Banking Amplitude/Delta-Bank 9 FinnOne
10 Avaloq Banking Suite Grand Total
Temenos Oracle FSS
Calypso Technology Edgeverve / Infosys Murex
providefull, centralised, multi- entity support? Does it need to support Islamic banking? Does it need to conform to a particular technology slant? Does it need to handle large volumes? The approach, however is not always limited to these questions and need to also be driven deeper based on the bank’s immediate preferences and context of the change. For example, is it a replacement of an existing solution and if so, what has been the primary pain point triggering the change of platform? Or is it an expansion of the services and the inability to address growing demands of customers that is resulting in the need for platform replacement?
The performance of the top 5 suppliers is itself a case in point here. A total of 455 deals constituting 32% of the global deals were with these suppliers. A quick word of caution, these are the top 5 on a consolidated basis over the last 5 years and not reflective of their performance on any given year, which may be different. Refer the Annual SLT for further details. The larger and important takeaway here, is that banks do tend to go straight to the top of the Sales League Table and restrict their selections to the largest sellers, meaning they may have neglected some potentially relevant options.
Gobal Sales League Table | Top 10 Suppliers (Years 2012-2016) Supplier
TCS Financial Solutions Universal 9 8 8 Path Solutions
Universal 11 10 4
Sopra Banking Software Universal 3 3 5 Nucleus Software Avaloq
Lending Private
For smaller banks, is it better to be a relatively important
client for a smaller supplier or a small voice amidst a large customer base of a larger one? Although the slow-down in the market has made resources somewhat easier to find at present, this was becoming a major issue and, again, is something that smaller banks in particular need to consider when in system selection mode. Smaller banks often need more help with their projects than their larger, more self- sufficient counterparts but are often at the bottom of the pecking order for resources.
Banks tend to look for implementation experiences of
these programs and a question that always tends to be asked is how many sales in the SLT has translated into good implementations and what is the track record. Could we even consider, for example, an Implementation league table? It is a great concept but sadly impossible to achieve, inpart because
7 8 3 9 4 8
126 110 127
34 28 15 16 11 11 4
Category 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Grand Total Universal 34 35 37 Universal 17 15 27 Wholesale 14 9 14 Universal 14 9 9 Wholesale 8 9 12
43
13 17 15 17 9
11 5 5
140
13 5 2
134
183 87 65 65 55 53 38 35 28 28
637
of problems defining‘successful’,with many implementations being neither an outright success nor failure, meeting some but not all of the original aims. There is still considerable scope for improvement. In a few countries, failed implementations out weigh successful ones, which has sent banks back into the arms of grateful domestic suppliers. Which is probably why it is generally better to resort back to reference feedback from banks who have implemented the solutions, than only relying upon sales performance.
The suppliers’ retort is to point to the total number of
successful implementations: why can’t a system that has been implemented in x number of sites succeed in another? On virtually all occasions, the faults lie with both the bank and the supplier– and sometimes with third parties as well. The crux of the problem might lie right at the start: fundamentally, the
Market Dynamics Report 2017 |
www.ibsintelligence.com 7
45 % of to tal de
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224
