Do we consistently underestimate the human cost of systems change?
There have been a significant number of mergers and acquisitions within the trust and fiduciary sector hitting the local headlines in recent months – Opera purchasing Oak Trust and splitting off the funds business, JTC acquiring KHT, Butterfield buying Rawlinson Hunter. As owner-managers retire, these acquisitions are reshaping the way we think about data and systems integration, presenting both opportunities and challenges.
The promise of consolidation
The potential for economies of scale through the consolidation of processes and data is immense. However, after years of witnessing IT investments and platform implementations, we’ve observed a recurring theme: even when projects seem to conclude, fragments of work often remain unfinished. These unresolved issues, while not always glamorous or high-profile, act like barnacles on a ship’s hull, creating unnecessary drag on operations.
How often have you stumbled upon these ‘remnants’ by chance? You might approach clients with a standard model, presuming that all clients resemble client A, B, or C, only to discover someone saying, “But this is a legacy client; we handle them differently.” This often stems from a reluctance to change or a protective instinct during the initial business analysis phase. It raises questions about whether there was enough momentum or technical resource allocated to ensure all data was aligned post-acquisition.
Eventually, at a future date or when the next merger or integration occurs, organisations find themselves knee-deep in data cleansing, migration, and the daunting task of switching off legacy systems. By this point, the barnacles have multiplied, and the operational drag has become significant.
The human element in change management
Within any organisation, resistance to change is a common phenomenon, even when there is a consensus that improvements are necessary. People often cling to what they know, making the prospect of change daunting. Thus, when planning the next integration or change project, it’s crucial to account for the very human reluctance to embrace the unknown.
While there may be valid reasons for treating Client D differently, it’s essential to engage with those who are hesitant. Involve them in the project to foster understanding of the benefits of aligning processes to a unified standard. If they are not consulted, it’s unfair to hold them accountable for failing to articulate what makes the client unique. Even if they are included in discussions, human factors can inhibit them from voicing concerns. Silence does not imply conformity; rather, it may signal a desire to maintain the status quo.
Embracing transparency and communication
Acknowledging the human factor and fostering open dialogue about the challenges of change can help uncover issues early in the integration process. There may still be legitimate cases for treating Client D differently, but recognising these distinctions upfront and revisiting them during each core platform change will be vital.
In her public announcements regarding the acquisition of Oak, Kim Sgarlata, CEO of Opera Limited, emphasised the importance of pacing and collaboration: “…integration is everything. We’ll approach this with respect, care, and a commitment to doing right by both clients and our team.” Embracing this philosophy can facilitate smoother transitions and ultimately lead to a more cohesive and effective integration process.
Conclusion
As organisations navigate the complexities of data and systems integration post-acquisition, the human factor must not be overlooked. By recognising and addressing the emotional and psychological barriers to change, businesses can position themselves for greater success. The journey may not always be easy, but with thoughtful consideration and inclusive practices, the potential for growth and efficiency will be significantly enhanced.
