in place before the overhaul, as were one or two other pieces, but virtually all others were part of the radical replacement project. The hoped-for benefits had ‘absolutely’ been realised,


said Kershner in mid-2007. He gave a number of examples of the new capabilities. For instance, when a new product was launched, despite it probably having a mainframe component at the back-end, it could be displayed on-line in the branches, with all integration handled through the SOA model. The core system was accessed via services, he said, and these could also be used in internet banking and other channels. Another example was recent changes to Webster’s pricing structure, with these impacting on more or less all areas, including internet banking and customer contact systems. The streamlined integration layer meant much less work than would have been the case in a point-to-point configuration. The intended scalability had also been achieved,


believed Kershner, with the infrastructure to ‘support at least a $50 billion asset organisation’ – Webster stood at $18 billion in 2009. The sought-after single customer view was ‘close’, with Touchpoint linked to what Kershner called a ‘fairly robust’ Customer Information File, part of the Systematics suite, Relationship Manager. In the data warehouse there was also customer information from the core systems as well as from the bank’s subsidiaries. The long-term vision was to extract and store all operational data to provide a ‘360 degree view of customers’, across all parts of the Webster Financial Corporation group level, including insurance and brokerage. This was currently possible via paper-based reports; the integration layer would play a role in making this on-line. By mid-2007, Webster provided business and consumer banking, mortgages, insurance, financial planning, trust and investment services, so the intended broadening of scope had clearly occurred. It had 177 outlets and 334 ATMs. There were subsidiaries for asset-based lending, insurance premium finance, equipment finance and health savings account trustee and administrative services, the latter gained with the 2005 acquisition of HSA Bank, thereby becoming the US’s leading bank in this space. Webster Bank was clearly an important customer for FIS, putting into practice and helping to evolve a fair part of the product roadmap. It has been the main non- Profile user to take Xpress and, with Touchpoint in the mix as well, is a good reference for multiple components running in a single user environment.


A few of the Systematics users have remained proactive. In particular, the use of Systematics at Citibank shows its scalability and multi-entity capabilities. Citi came to have 17 countries supported off a single Systematics system in


70


Singapore. The supported countries spanned Asia, the Middle East, including Turkey and Egypt, Australia and into eastern Europe. The project started in 1994. As well as Systematics, the bank uses FIS’s ALS and demand deposit accounting system, Impacs, plus in-house developed systems for time deposits, consumer investment, and insurance, which also run on the mainframe. For card processing, the bank opted to use an existing application, Cardpac.


Systematics was described by a manager within the


bank as a good starting point from which Citibank’s large IT resources could develop a system that would meet its needs. This was Citibank’s strategy for all systems. Not even its ATMs were vanilla products. Citibank’s Singapore-based systems covered around 10 million customers by the start of 2001. This base was growing, with particular expansion for retail banking in India, China and Indonesia, and for cards in Japan. The Systematics solution might not be viewed by the market as the most up-to-date but any systems decision has to be made at a particular moment. Citibank opted for the system in 1994. ‘You can’t just switch because a better system comes along,’ said a source within the bank. The trick is to build on the original decision and ensure that the system is moved on over time. There were still new deals in 2005, at Signature Bank and


Fifth Third Bank. The same year it was announced that Citibank had renewed its licence for Systematics for a further ten years. As pointed out above, the new sales have dwindled since


then. There was just one new-name taker in 2008 (US-based Commerce Bank) and one more the following year (Crédit Mutuel CIC in Germany, formerly Citi’s consumer banking unit). There were no new signings in 2010, 2011 and 2012. A number of banks have moved off Systematics, such as UnionBank of the Philippines and Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (both opted for Infosys’ Finacle), and Ambank in Malaysia, which went with TCS’s Bancs. However, some encountered difficulties when trying to do so. Indeed, RHB Islamic in Malaysia reverted its Islamic operations back onto Systematics following a failed implementation of Path Solutions’ iMAL.


Citibank continued to standardise on Systematics during 2009. The bank had the system for some of its corporate business but now opted to use it to replace a number of others. Other users have sought in recent years to unify their


operations on Systematics. In late 2010, ANZ announced its decision to consolidate its New Zealand operations on the solution. At home, by 2011, Citibank in the US was also believed to be following suit, unifying its domestic retail banking operations on Systematics.


US Financial Services Technology Market Report | www.ibsintelligence.com


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