This article was produced by Watson Wheatley as part of their valued industry partnership to Fund Operator.

 

Sara Benwell: What are the main challenges of working on a new implementation?

Tom Wheatley: The approach to the implementation is often a bit of a challenge. The various parties can easily assume that everyone works using the same method and approach.

There can sometimes be a difference in company culture where one side wants to fully project manage the process and the other wants a rapid implementation with little red tape.

“Companies develop their own terminology over time and have reasons for their own internal way of processing data.”

But ultimately both parties have to be satisfied and agree not only the approach but how this impacts on timeframes. 

Difference in terminology is also a challenge in some situations. Companies develop their own terminology over time and have reasons for their own internal way of processing data.

This may contrast with the conventions in the market and can take a little time to unravel to make sure everyone is talking the same language. If you add in the geographical differences as well then this can be a little challenging!

Sara: What issues do clients find?

Tom: One of the most common issues is that their data doesn't match up on certain reconciliations.

The aim of the system is to provide the correct answer whether that is matched or unmatched and the perception of a reconciliation system is often that it gives a high match rate, which it can but only if the data genuinely matches!

Often the expectation is a perfectly matching data set however genuine differences will arise and will need to be resolved or rules modified to cope with discrepancies.

“One of the most common issues is that their data doesn't match up on certain reconciliations.”

In a related issue, the output of the reconciliation may give differing answers to Excel spreadsheets or manual processes that have been built internally.

This can therefore uncover issues that may have been missed before or point out systematic data issues which need solving upstream.

Sara: How do you manage multiple implementations?

Tom: Implementations tend to be completed with a relatively small number of days of effort even if the elapsed time is longer due to data delays. We are therefore able to manage these with a smaller team of people.

The quick implementation time obviously allows new team members to see full client on-boarding many times a year rather than being assigned to one or two projects which was traditionally the case. This rapid transfer of knowledge then further improves the process.

Sara: How has implementation changed since you have moved to a hosted model?

Tom: I can't overstate the positive change that the hosted model has brought us and this is the same across the industry.

The first thing to mention is that proof of concepts can be built extremely quickly due to the instant availability of a base system without the need to wait for IT companies to provide a server and remote access.

“Proof of concepts can be built extremely quickly due to the instant availability of a base system”

This rapid proof of concept then pays dividends when rolling into a production system as it can be turned back on very quickly and moved into a daily process while other data feeds are added.

Hosting has enabled vendors to speed up the support process due to it being in our cloud rather than behind a wall in another company. We can monitor issues more easily, log in and resolve them more quickly and also offer the proactive support which helps both us and our clients.

Sara: What key lessons have you learnt and have they been used to improve the process or software?

Tom: Try to align the goals of all stakeholders and clear, straightforward communication. The former may seem simple as all parties should want to complete the task and move on but that is not always the case.

Communication is obviously important but not always prioritised especially when people are in different locations like they have been during the pandemic.

There is a balance to be struck between over-attended and long conference calls compared with very few touch points but it is about finding the method that works best for all parties.

We try our best to find a mutually acceptable way of doing this at the start of the project.

Sara: How do you see the implementation process changing in the future?

Tom: I think it will become even quicker than it currently is. We used to find that the build time was the bulk of the time required but having developed better tools and by using templating we have reduced that significantly.

“There comes a point when there are diminishing returns and artificially low or unrealistic onboarding times cause friction between client and vendor”

Most of the time is now spent working with the client to fine tune the system to their requirements, project management and build additional recs or reports. Throughout the reconciliations software space all providers have been trying to reduce the overall implementation time but there comes a point when there are diminishing returns and artificially low or unrealistic onboarding times cause friction between client and vendor.

 

Please Sign In or Register to leave a Comment.