
The ask was simple. A new field for a customer profile, a new status flag on a transaction, or updates to a landing page that’s been untouched for almost a decade. But the answer you got back wasn’t as simple. The response comes with a ticket number and a timeline that’ll put your change request out a minimum of a quarter. Not to mention a potentially hefty price tag along with it.
The bank’s first reaction is often to blame the core, but that can be the wrong instinct.
The bank’s core was built to be the system of record. It tracks money movement, account balances, assists with regulatory reporting, and so much more. Originally, the bank’s general ledger; today, so much more has been plugged in, built upon, and generally enhanced.
That original job, being the system of record, is one that requires caution and slower release cycles, intentionally, by design, not as some sort of failure of their ability. With a plethora of regulatory rules to abide by, ones that continue to morph and develop year over year, the slower, more thoughtful updates are almost a requirement of building something this large.
Rather than pointing a finger at your core “being too slow”, let’s re-examine. Are the things you’re asking for them to do, your bank’s true growth work, really tasks that should be routed through this channel? Should the work be routed through these same, methodically slow change cycles? Once you take a step back, you can see that this is an underlying architecture decision, not necessarily a core shortcoming.
It’s a familiar sight for anyone that’s gone through the rigmarole.
What your operations department thought would be an easy (but critical for them) feature request becomes a small, insignificant line item in someone else’s backlog. The competitor a county over from you ships the update you asked for over two years ago, maybe even through the same core.
Your new campaign scope for this quarter must be set by what’s possible on a technical level, not necessarily what would have moved deposits for the bank. You check in on the status of your request and it’s “in progress”, seemingly untouched for almost a year.
While understandably frustrating, none of these are particularly strong reasons to question the relationship to your core. Rather, consider them to be a reason to evaluate what is being asked of it. That’s also why switching your core rarely makes a big difference; the next will likely have the same constraints, as they’re performing the same fundamental, underlying job for the bank.
Your bank is being slowed down by expecting growth-facing work to share a release calendar with core-of-record work. Will a rip-and-replace of the core fix the issue? Unlikely. Instead, consider intentionally separating the two asks.
Your core continues to do what it does best. Regulatory reporting it’s near perfected, accurate ledgering, the money movement that comes with the most reliability. Then, add layers on top that handle your growth work. Layers that handle account opening, campaigns, and other customer-facing features that need to move much more quickly, more in-line with the timelines your growth and marketing teams are expected to run on.
No big core conversion needed. No new charter to be added. No having to renegotiate a voluminous contract. Just plugging in the tools you need for the job that must be done.
Don’t worry about whether your core is “good enough” — most of the time, it is. Step back to look at the bigger picture: is the growth work your bank needs sitting in a queue that isn’t designed to move at the same growth speed you’re needing?
The fastest-moving banks stopped running towards the newest core to solve their problems. They’re no longer waiting for it to provide them with the things it wasn’t built to do. They’re adding on the external layers needed to truly support their deposit growth goals.
Linker Finance is the growth engine for community banks that integrates with all major core providers, providing modern digital banking infrastructure without requiring any core replacements. Want to learn more? Let’s chat.