Upstream of any project to set up an automated regulatory solution, of the size and complexity of a solution for the Fight against Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism (AML-FT), the professionals of the financial industry are often confronted with a thorny question: should we carry out developments in-house or should we rather use a specialized publisher?
This ambitious question, often strewn with uncertainties, could concern institutions that have large IS structures bringing together the necessary staff, expertise and performance.
However, despite the magnitude of the funds injected and the abundance of technical and organizational skills involved, four out of five projects are doomed to failure; a failure profusely proven and testified by the Chaos Report_2018 published by the international research office Standish Group.
Aimed primarily at Compliance and Risk managers, this article aims to assess the relevance of using an editor specializing in the implementation of automated regulatory solutions for AML-CFT; and this by means of the identification of operational risks that could alter the development, deployment or operation of a "home-made" regulatory solution.
In-House Development: Is There A Risk Of Budget Overruns?
Developing a regulatory solution in-house requires a significant start-up cost, often unpredictable, which combines study, design and development costs and is weighed down by a possible drift in objectives; an intrinsic characteristic of any dynamic structure with constantly changing needs. These systemic charges lead in most cases to an unsustainable budget overrun.
A version of this article was first published on the Vneuron site’s blog
https://www.vneuron.com/compliance/build-vs-buy-quelle-approche-pour-vos-solutions-lbc-ft/