In this series, we interview senior executives from leading wealth management firms, solution providers, and WealthTech influencers to learn more about their journeys, perspectives on the market, and how they see the future of wealth management.
“The better the level of understanding technology people have of the business side of a firm, the better the end solution will be. Technology teams can also add to the conversation by bringing a fresh perspective to a given business issue.”For this issue of TWMTT, we talked to Roger Furrer, Director at ERI, about the best way to approach to technology development implementation.”
Nice to meet you, Roger. Can you first perhaps tell us (and our readers) a bit about yourself, your career to date, and your role at ERI?
I hold the position of director at ERI, responsible for the two offices in Zürich and Lugano. I have been with ERI for nearly 20 years, and I lead the sales and implementation of the OLYMPIC Banking System, a comprehensive software solution for private, wealth management, corporate, investment, retail and central banks, as well as funds, trusts, family offices and more financial companies. You could call me an industry veteran, with over 35 years of experience in the software and finance industries.
Why do you think there is so much focus on the best way to build software at the moment?
IT has always been perceived as expensive, and more often than not, the end product of any IT implementation is seen not to be a perfect fit. In my many years of experience, I have often found the business side of a firm doesn’t actually know what it wants. There is a lack of ownership when it comes to defining the problem at hand and looking at how technology could help address the problem. This needs to change. Technology is often considered to be nothing more than a commodity, when, in fact, the more technology experts are brought into internal discussions to align on what the business needs actually are, the more successful they are likely to be in engineering an effective solution.
Simply put, the better the level of understanding technology people have of the business side of a firm, the better the end solution will be. Technology teams can also add to the conversation by bringing a fresh perspective to a given business issue.
There is also a need for people to act as what I might call ‘connectors ’ or ’ integrators’. They occupy the space between the technologists, business, and the delivery team. They work as natural translators, bringing everything and everyone together, basically making sure that everyone is on the same path.
Why are you such a fan of an incremental approach to building a solution?
I am a firm believer that tackling one or two things at a time and doing these well so that they meet the needs of the end user before the next item on the agenda is tackled. This avoids situations where everything is promised to everyone at the same time–which often leads to disappointment!
Execution discipline is also an important consideration in the sense of making the last mile to the end user a good one and making sure that adoption rates are positive. Discipline is also important in that it bridges between all organisational silos, so that the organisation is fundamentally working together, rather than taking different paths.
What are the key components when developing a new solution?
Developing a new solution is inherently complex. There are so many different things to consider: existing legacy technology, process, budget, and, in some cases, the need for a mindset shift. Very often, too, the experience layer is an afterthought at the very end of a project, but making the customers a key stakeholder in the design phase leads to better decisions from the outset and ultimately leads to better outcomes.
Tell me more about involving end users right from the start
Sometimes, at the beginning of a project, you might get input from every possible angle–you have compliance, you have risk, you have legal, as well as IT, the business side, and the delivery team. The only piece that is missing is the customer.
This is a missed opportunity to engage with customers and learn more about their needs and wants related to the project in question and, more broadly, in a relationship-building and engagement context.
So, I think the best place to start is by looking at how the end user, the customer, wants to use any solution and why. By taking an outside-in approach, starting with the customer and then designing processes and functionality around that, you get something that really works for the customer.
How does it benefit established vendors like ERI to work with start-up FinTechs?
We’re always looking to build out our ecosystem. It benefits start-ups as it allows them to connect to our systems to try out and develop their solutions. We then select the best out of a batch to go forward with.
I think what matters to us when it comes to partnering is we always really want to build for differentiation and buy for speed. We would rather look into leveraging the capabilities of start-ups to get the basics right and focus on having quick deliveries and then spend our internal efforts and intelligence on aspects that can differentiate us within the market.
What are the other considerations for banks and for vendors alike when considering working together?
Having access to the best talent is always an issue. What I always look for when I have discussions with our partners and providers is the quality of the people–because, at the end of the day, that’s really essential to success. The shortage of good people when it comes to data science and Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a particular problem. Banks and established vendors alike struggle with this.
In Switzerland, we are seeing specialist AI companies emerge that provide talent to banks and other entities for a specific use case. It means that there can be a partnership approach where both sides benefit and where banks do not need to build in-house specialist teams. We need more of this!