Evaluating vendor claims in core banking upgrades: Trust engineers’ insights over sales pitches for realistic implementation timelines.
As a bank executive researching options to upgrade your outdated core banking system, you’ve sat through countless vendor presentations. Now, you’re down to two final contenders.
During the final pitches, you ask each vendor the crucial question:
“How long will it take to fully implement your platform and migrate our data?”
Vendor A’s confident sales leader responds quickly: “9 months. We can deliver in just 9 months.”
You glance at Vendor A’s lead engineer and notice a slight cringe and frown.
What does this tell you? It indicates that the salesperson’s timeline is likely unrealistic. Here’s why observing the engineer’s body language is vital when evaluating vendor implementation claims.
Salespeople Sugarcoat Timelines
Salespeople often provide optimistic, even unrealistic, estimates for implementation timelines. Why? Several reasons:
- They want to close the deal by offering the shortest timeline.
- They haven’t validated the estimate with engineers.
- They don’t fully grasp the complexity of data migrations.
- They assume everything will go perfectly, which rarely happens.
These aggressive schedules often disappoint once the real work begins. Unexpected challenges arise, tasks take longer than planned, and sales promises fall short.
The Engineer’s Grimace Doesn’t Lie
As the salesperson delivers the rosy estimate, you notice the engineer’s subtle but unmistakable look of doubt or concern—maybe a frown, raised eyebrows, or a slight head shake. This body language reveals the timeline is unrealistic because:
- Engineers deal with implementation realities daily.
- They know the complexities that sales pitches overlook.
- They understand the time required for complex tasks, integrations, data migrations, and testing.
Engineers have no incentive to sugarcoat timelines. If anything, they might pad estimates to avoid setting unreasonable expectations. So, trust the engineer’s reaction over the salesperson’s claims.
Other Signs a Timeline is Unrealistic
Besides the engineer’s body language, other signs that a timeline might be too optimistic include:
- The vendor claims no issues migrating decades of complex legacy data.
- They promise a seamless transition without operational disruptions.
- Their timeline assumes everything will go exactly according to plan.
- There’s no allowance for contingencies or delays.
If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.
Trust But Verify Overly Optimistic Timelines
When a salesperson offers an impossibly short implementation timeframe, take it with a grain of salt:
- Note if the engineer appears skeptical.
- Ask detailed questions about assumptions and risk mitigations.
- Press the vendor to validate timeframes with their technical teams.
- Build in contingency buffers for your project plans.
By applying skepticism, conducting due diligence, and seeking guidance from independent experts, you can uncover the truth behind inflated vendor promises and choose a partner capable of meeting realistic timelines for your bank’s core modernization success.
Found this article interesting? Check out these three related reads for more.
- Unmasking vendor exaggerations Navigating core banking system claims
- Key considerations for successful core banking technology transformation
- Core banking hosting options In-house vs. Cloud hosting
#ImplementationTimelines #VendorAssessment
