Why
do some investment firms struggle with a software platform
while other firms thrive on the identical system? On occasion,
investment firms select the wrong software vendor. However
"mis-guided" vendor selection is not always the
underlying cause of end-user frustration with software applications.
Although there are certainly examples of software products
with technology deficiencies, poor initial implementation,
failure to implement available upgrades, and non-optimal use
of software functionality is often the root of dissatisfaction
with investment systems applications.
Instead of initiating a search for a new solution, firms can
be better served by conducting a diagnostic review of their
existing systems.
Develop Short and Long-Term Plans
Initial implementations are often hindered by the actions
of both the software vendor and the client investment firm.
For example, vendors are under market pressure to get as
many clients up and running as quickly as possible in order
to achieve or maintain competitive positioning. This often
results in the inability of the vendor to acquire or apply
the necessary resources or time to insure a quality install
and train users properly. These rushed implementations often
do not include the appropriate discovery of all of the client's
needs and fail to develop the proper processes and procedures
to maintain and enhance the application over time.
On the client side, the existence of over-committed
IT departments is common. The result is usually a lack of
adequate resources to focus on the installation and integration
of new systems. Hence, business users become inattentive
to the new system's capabilities as implementations drag
on and their enthusiasm wanes.
Finally, issues surrounding the management and control
of data required to feed a new system are sometimes not
well planned or organized.
Don't Forget to Upgrade
One of the explicit appeals of vendor-provided software
is the benefit derived from the development of common functionality
for a large number of licensees. However, if users don't
keep up with new versions, gaps between business requirement
and systems functionality develop quickly resulting in system
degradation.
Prevent "Unused" Functionality
Many firms fail to optimize the full functionality offered
by existing systems. Often upgrades to new versions (with
new functionality) are performed without reworking existing
processes. When new versions are implemented, firms fail
to leverage new functionality and the capabilities go unused.
Take a Deliberate Approach before Migrating
Some investment firms that have experienced poor initial
implementations and low user adoption initiate a new package
selection and migration effort to address their dissatisfaction
with their existing vendors.
A more deliberate approach is for asset managers to
conduct a diagnostic review of their existing environment.
Often, a reconfiguration, better training and further implementation
of their existing technology and data management processes
is all that is needed. This path may also include upgrading
to a newer release, work process reengineering and other
organizational changes. In almost every case, this approach
will be less costly, less disruptive, and lower risk than
the alternative of a new system.
|
