Do you see the lack of harmonisation of systems and platforms as a key pain point for the buy-side?
In the rapidly evolving landscape of 2025, the lack of harmonisation among systems and platforms has emerged as a significant pain point for the buy-side. As businesses demand more from their systems to achieve scale and operational efficiency, the absence of harmonisation becomes increasingly problematic. This issue often manifests as a hidden tax on business and technology budgets, making it a less apparent but critical challenge. The hidden costs include increased technology maintenance expenses, a higher support burden, and duplicative builds, all of which contribute to slower time-to-market, greater complexity, and fragility in system architecture. These factors not only elevate error rates but also stifle innovation, ultimately leading to suboptimal business outcomes.
The proliferation of multiple systems and platforms delivering equivalent capabilities imposes a substantial cost on businesses. Over the past decade, buy-side systems have expanded significantly to meet growing business needs. As the financial burden of maintaining multiple systems escalates, the argument for harmonisation becomes more compelling. Harmonising systems is essential for supporting future business growth in a sustainable and secure manner. By streamlining platforms, businesses can reduce complexity, enhance efficiency, and foster innovation, ensuring they remain competitive in an increasingly demanding market.
How can firms look to consolidate systems?
In the pursuit of system consolidation, firms face a myriad of challenges that extend beyond mere technological hurdles. This process is as much a human endeavour as it is a technical one. We naturally gravitate towards the systems we’ve painstakingly developed and relied upon over the years, making the prospect of change daunting. Consolidation requires us to question the status quo, but where does one begin?
The journey doesn’t commence with technology; it starts with the team and the terminology they use. In today’s world, where terms are often overloaded and ambiguous, clarity is crucial. Avoiding specific system or technology brand names and instead agreeing on common, granular capability-level terminology can lay a strong foundation.
This clarity simplifies technology decisions, helping to define what the target state technology stack should look like and why. Shared technology platforms reduce data-sharing friction, and as data models align, they unlock the potential for shared capabilities. This alignment ultimately results in less code, reduced costs, and decreased complexity in delivering common capabilities, paving the way for effective system consolidation. By focusing on team dynamics and clear communication, firms can navigate the complexities of consolidation with greater ease and success.
What is the business case for consolidation?
In today’s competitive technological landscape, technology budgets face unprecedented demand. The business case for consolidation must compete with new product launches, business support initiatives, and the expanding realm of AI. This crowded space necessitates highlighting the often-overlooked costs of not consolidating, which can manifest as hidden taxes on resources. Building a compelling, data-driven business case is essential to secure funding for consolidation. By revealing the costs associated with not consolidating – such as increased technology maintenance expenses, a higher technology support burden, and duplicative builds – businesses can forecast future impacts based on historical data. These hidden costs can lead to slower time-to-market, increased complexity, and fragility in system architecture, resulting in higher error rates and stifling innovation and growth.
To effectively advocate for consolidation, it’s crucial to present data illustrating the impact of inaction versus the benefits of consolidation. This forward-looking perspective can help make a compelling case for change. Additionally, consolidation need not be a singular initiative. Businesses can develop multiple business cases at the capability level, focusing on areas with the highest return on investment. This incremental approach allows organisations to start small, demonstrating value and gaining momentum for broader efforts. By strategically targeting capabilities, businesses can achieve more efficient outcomes, fostering innovation and supporting sustainable growth.
How feasible is it to consolidate analytics capabilities?
Not to labour the point of overloaded terminology but “analytics” in itself is too broad to facilitate meaningful consolidation discussions. It’s imperative the conversation on consolidation begins at the appropriate level of capability, ensuring that comparisons are made between similar elements— essentially, comparing apples to apples. This foundational step is vital before evaluating the feasibility of consolidation. In this instance, is it the proprietary pricing model, real-time vs. historical market data, the quant layer that sits on top?
Is it post-trade, pre-trade, or at-trade analytics? Answers to these questions are essential ahead of debating and assessing feasibility. However, in answer to the original question, yes it would be feasible to deliver consolidation in the analytics is a space. Analytics is an interesting space as its close to a desk’s alpha, so the case for consolidation would first be on the technology stack and data layer ahead of business capabilities where flexibility and divergence need to be supported.
Understanding both functional and non-functional requirements are critical to ensuring a shared target state architecture supports all business current and future needs.