Emerging Technologies special report
Click here to download the PDF
Beware the Bleeding Edge
Capital markets firms, by virtue of the competition they face, are constantly on the lookout for new technologies to provide them with a temporary monopoly-or competitive advantage-to help them increase their operational resilience and efficiency, and reduce their overheads through automation. From a technology perspective, capital markets CIOs have been well served over the years: For at least a decade now, there has been no shortage of cutting-edge technologies available to them, either expressly developed for specific capital markets use-cases, or generic hardware and software that can be tweaked with the minimum of fuss to address an explicit challenge.
But too much of a good thing is not a good thing, and this is especially pertinent to financial technology. CIOs are familiar with this fact, given that one of the most demanding issues they face when evaluating emerging technologies pertains not to the products they choose to implement, but rather the ones they opt to jettison. In many instances, multiple technologies will adequately suffice for most use-cases, making the decision that much more vexing.
CIOs must make watertight business cases when evaluating new technology before considering the vicissitudes and idiosyncrasies of its implementation. Once this hurdle has been negotiated, the real work starts, which must be driven in a disciplined and objective fashion if the project stands a chance of delivering on its promise. In this context, "disciplined" means different things to different CIOs, but any implementation-especially when it comes to a new and potentially untested technology-needs to be managed accurately and incrementally, with an experienced hand on the tiller. In this respect, the stage-gate or phasegate model provides the way forward, requiring project teams to formulate well-defined mini projects within the overall implementation, allowing for regular "stock takes" to ensure objectives remain clear and any scope creep is nipped in the bud. This toe-dipping procedure has a number of benefits, but the most often overlooked is its ability to help CIOs identify instances where it's more beneficial to walk away from the project than to see it through to its conclusion. Breaking up is hard to do, but sometimes it's crucial to call it quits and pull the plug on the project, irrespective of how far down the line that decision comes. After all, new technologies represent something of a double-edged sword to those firms adventurous enough to implement them: Get too close to the leading edge and soon it becomes a bleeding edge, where firms hemorrhage time and money in pursuit of little more than a pipedream.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@waterstechnology.com or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.waterstechnology.com/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
More on Trading Tech
DORA flood pitches banks against vendors
Firms ask vendors for late addendums sometimes unrelated to resiliency, requiring renegotiation
IPC’s C-suite shuffle signals bigger changes for trader voice tech
Waters Wrap: After a series of personnel changes at the legacy provider, WatersTechnology examines what these moves might mean for the future of turrets and trader voice.
WatersTechnology latest edition
Check out our latest edition, plus more than 12 years of our best content.
From no chance to no brainer: Inside outsourced trading’s buy-side charm offensive
Previously regarded with hesitancy and suspicion by the buy side, four asset managers explain their reasons for embracing outsourced trading.
Band-aids vs build-outs: Best practices for exchange software migrations
Heetesh Rawal writes that legacy exchange systems are under pressure to scale to support new asset classes and greater volumes, leaving exchange operators with a stark choice: patch up outdated systems and hope for the best or embark on risky but rewarding replacement projects.
Portfolio trading vs RFQ: Understanding transaction costs in US investment-grade bonds
The MarketAxess research team explores how such factors as order size, liquidity profiles and associated costs determine whether a portfolio trade or an RFQ list trade is the optimal choice.
IEX, MEMX spar over new exchange’s now-approved infrastructure model
As more exchanges look to operate around-the-clock venues, the disagreement has put the practices of market tech infrastructure providers under a microscope.
The Waters Cooler: The Thanksgiving debrief
Maybe we shouldn’t use AI for EVERYTHING! I’m talking to YOU, Spotify!