It's incredible how many people still think building a system in-house is less risky and more cost effective. There are more internal developments that fail and at best come in over time and over budget and just does not do what was hoped for when the project
Let's be realistic the majority of IT people in financial services firms think they can do better and of course want to protect their jobs.
Equally when firms have loaded up with an IT department they feel compelled to make use of it. Feeling that with an in-house build they have control and its cheaper than buying off the shelf. What a crazy thought!
This idea is not just bad management, its plain stupid!
No in-house build with ever be better than a comercial vendor who has invested and honed its technology and sold into live environments. The commercial pressure to make a success is far more motivating, than the job protection culture that purveys throughout
most financial services firms.
How many IT people stay throughout the project and how many take the first option to jump before the whole thing blows up in their faces? Even worse most firms have to employ outside consultants to help manage or scope the in-house project further ramping
up the cost.
Bad procurement in the past does not mean that buying systems today is a bad thing which can only be solved by building in-house. The oportunity to learn from past mistakes and buy better, is being lost and many firms are paying billions as a result and
getting little or no return.
These issues and more will feature in the 29th September
Post-Trade Forum where experts will debate with audience the respective values of outsourcing vs internalisation. It should be lively!