Sir Christopher Kelly's review of the Co-operative Bank's near-collapse blamed the 2009 Britannia merger, citing pre-existing problems in both organizations. The merger exacerbated issues like Britannia's £3.7bn commercial property loan book and the Co-op Bank's risky lending, contributing to a £300m IT project shortfall. The bank also faced PPI mis-selling costs and was impacted by the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent regulatory changes. The Co-op Bank reported a £1.3bn loss in 2013 and required a £1.5bn rescue deal, resulting in US hedge funds taking a 70% stake. Further financial issues emerged, including a £400m black hole, leading to additional share issuance and potential dilution of the Co-operative Group's remaining 30% stake. The Co-operative Group itself faced a £2bn loss and leadership changes, with CEO Euan Sutherland departing.

The Co-operative Bank’s IT failures, particularly the failed replatforming project, significantly contributed to its capital shortfall and overall difficulties. The bank’s decision to embark on an ambitious IT transformation project without adequate expertise and resources, coupled with poor program management, led to significant cost escalations and ultimately the project's failure. This failure hindered the integration of the bank with Britannia Building Society and resulted in substantial impairment charges, further weakening the bank's financial position. The IT failures also highlighted broader issues with the bank’s culture and decision-making processes, including a lack of challenge and a tendency to underestimate risks.

The Top 10 Findings on IT Failures

1️⃣ Failure of the IT Replatforming Project: The Co-operative Bank's ambitious project to replace its core banking system and upgrade other IT applications ultimately failed, contributing almost £300 million to the capital shortfall.   

2️⃣ Underestimation of Replatforming Complexity: The bank underestimated the complexity and risks involved in the replatforming project, particularly in light of the simultaneous merger with Britannia Building Society.   

3️⃣ Lack of Expertise and Resources: The bank lacked the necessary expertise and resources to successfully execute such a complex IT transformation program.   

4️⃣ Poor Program Management: The replatforming program suffered from unstable leadership, poor coordination, and inadequate planning.   

5️⃣ Impact on Integration Efforts: The failure of the replatforming project hindered the integration of Britannia and the Co-operative Bank, as many integration tasks were dependent on the new IT platform.   

6️⃣ Lack of Contingency Plans: The bank did not have adequate contingency plans in place in case the replatforming project failed, which left it with limited options when the project ultimately did not succeed.   

7️⃣ Underinvestment in Legacy Systems: The bank underinvested in its legacy IT systems while waiting for the replatforming project to be completed, which left it with outdated and inefficient systems.   

8️⃣ Impairment Charges: The failure of the replatforming project resulted in significant impairment charges, further contributing to the bank's capital shortfall.   

9️⃣ Missed Opportunities: The bank missed opportunities to improve its IT systems through less ambitious alternatives, such as remediation of its legacy systems.   

🔟 Culture and Decision-Making: The bank's culture and decision-making processes contributed to the IT failures, as there was a lack of challenge and a tendency to underestimate risks.   

#megaprojects #banking #itproject #failure 

http://www.FrankSchwab.de

It's not a common occurrence, but last week, I engaged in a heated discussion regarding the IT department's responsibility to provide the appropriate tools to all business users. Whether it's analytic tools or AI solutions, preventing shadow IT hinges on IT's ability to deliver these resources and training promptly.

In my experience within the banking sector, the proliferation of shadow IT and shadow AI has emerged as a significant challenge. These practices, where employees utilize unauthorized IT resources or AI solutions, often arise from a need to fill gaps in the official offerings of the financial institution. A 2021 Gartner report indicates that shadow IT can account for 30% to 40% of IT spending in large enterprises, underscoring the scale of the issue.

I recall several instances where ambitious teams deployed new functionalities from external vendors to improve, e.g., customer profiling or risk assessment. While the results were positive, the lack of integration with core systems led to inconsistencies in data handling and reporting. This mirrors findings from a McKinsey study, which noted that shadow AI efforts often misalign with a company's overall IT strategy, leading to fragmented implementations.

To address these issues, any IT department must proactively enable all users with appropriate tools and platforms. By providing robust, flexible, and secure IT solutions that meet diverse departmental needs, reliance on shadow IT and shadow AI must be reduced. This approach not only enhances productivity but also ensures adherence to data governance, security, and compliance standards.

Furthermore, investing in user training and support across the organization for these tools ensures that employees can fully utilize the provided resources without seeking unsanctioned alternatives.

In conclusion, by equipping users with the right tools and fostering collaboration between departments and IT, the risks associated with shadow IT and shadow AI must be mitigated. This not only enhances operational efficiency but also strengthens security and compliance posture, aligning with industry best practices and regulatory requirements.

https://FrankSchwab.de