Banks aren’t Alone in their Omnichannel Unreadiness

Banks aren’t Alone in their Omnichannel Unreadiness

In December, Celent surveyed a panel of North American banks and credit unions to assess the current and likely future state of retail and business banking channel systems. The report is chock full of fascinating insights. Among them is a rather sobering self-assessment of banks' omnichannel delivery capability

A recent experience renting a car painfully demonstrated that banks aren’t the only ones that have a ways to go.

7:00 AM…

Me: Visited the company's website. Easily searched and located a car at a location very close to my home. Quickly booked the automobile and received an e-mail confirmation promptly. The web site displayed the location of all area locations and recommended this one based on its proximity to my known location. Reservation for 2:00 this afternoon. So far so good.

10:00 AM…

Enterprise called and left a voicemail indicating there were some “qualifying details” we would need to discuss prior to my 2:00 PM reservation.

10:30 AM…

I returned the call. The problem was that I reserved an intermediate size car and none were available – just large SUVs and 15-person passenger vans. That relevant information was not conveyed in my otherwise stellar digital experience with the brand.

  • Me: “What about other locations?” I asked.
  • Agent: “I can see what they have on the lot, but I don’t know the plans they have for them. Unfortunately, I can’t book for you. Feel free to call other locations yourself and see which ones may have an intermediate size car for you.”
  • Me: “You mean I have to dial for dollars around Greater Atlanta to find an intermediate size car? Your web site indicated availability and gave me a confirmation. What’s up?”
  • Agent: "Sorry, but that's a long story. Look, if you’re okay driving a large SUV, I can give it to you at an intermediate rate. Would that be okay?”
  • Me: “I think so. It’s not what I want, but I’ll take it.”
  • Agent: “Do you need a pick up also?”
  • Me: “Yes, please – just prior to 2:00 – thank you”

1:30 PM…

The phone rings again, it’s Enterprise. This time, it is the location calling, not the contact center.

  • Agent: “Sir, we have a problem with your rental reservation. We don’t have any intermediate size cars at this location.”
  • Me: “Yes, I know. I spoke with your colleague at 10:30 this morning. You agreed to rent me an SUV at an intermediate price and pick me up prior to 2:00.”
  • Agent: “Do you know who you spoke with?”
  • Me: “I’m sorry, no. I didn’t get his name”.
  • Agent: "Was it a man or a woman?"
  • Me: "It was a male colleague of yours, but I don't recall his name."
  • Agent: "Was he from this location?"
  • Me: "I don't know. By the way, why whould I care?"
  • Agent: "Well, I've been pretty much the only one working at this location all morning."
  • Me: "Thanks for sharing, but what does that have to do with my reservation?"
  • Agent: "I'm just trying to find out who you spoke with."
  • Me: "Why is that relevant? I have a reservation and we have an agreement – and it's almost 2:00."
  • Agent: "I dont think he was supposed to do that."
  • Me: "So, are you going to rent me a car, van, SUV or whatever for an intermediate rate or not?"
  • Agent: "Yes, sir, we'll do that.
  • Me: "Great – see you in a few minutes".

A few days later…

Atlanta traffic kept me from returning the rental during normal business hours. Handily, there are provisions for after-hours drop-off. The rental is processed the next business day and costomers receive a final receipt via e-mail.  That's the plan, anyway. It's been several days and no receipt. After calling the store, I was told the e-mail system has been down.

My bank looks very good about now.

Congratulations to All Celent Model Bank 2017 Award Winners!

Congratulations to All Celent Model Bank 2017 Award Winners!

Many of us at Celent just came back from a busy and exciting week in Boston. Undoubtedly, the highlight was attending Celent's Innovation and Insight Day on April 4th, where we celebrated achievements of the Model Bank and Model Insurer award winners.

The rain and clouds couldn't obscure spectacular views from the State Room overlooking the Boston harbour. And they certainly didn't dampen the mood of nearly 300 attendees representing banks, insurers and technology vendors from at least 15 countries around the world.

Craig Weber, Celent CEO, opened the day by presenting compelling evidence that financial services are more important than many celebrities. He was followed by an insightful presentation from Andy Rear, chief executive of Munich Re Digital Partners. The programme then split into parallel Banking, Insurance and Wealth and Asset Management tracks before reconvening again to close with a series of debates between Celent analysts on three topics: Internet of Things, artificial intelligence and blockchain.

During the Banking track we presented Model Bank awards, and discussed the winning initiatives and why they stood out from all others. As regular readers of this blog know, this year we introduced specific named awards with only a single winner for each award. I would like to offer my personal congratulations to all of our Model Bank 2017 winners:

Winner

Award

Alior Bank S.A., Poland

Emerging Technology for Consumers

Banco Original, Brazil

Consumer Digital Platform

Bank of America, USA

Risk Management

BMO Bank of Montreal, Canada

Process Automation

Capital One, USA

Emerging Technology for Businesses

CBW Bank, USA

Banking as a Platform

Citi, USA

Open Banking

Credit Suisse AG, Switzerland

Payments Replatforming

DenizBank, Turkey

Lending Product

Emirates NBD and ICICI Bank, India and UAE

Most Promising Proof-of-Concept

FGB, UAE

Corporate Banking Digital Platform

Idea Bank S.A., Poland

Small Business Digital Platform

India Post, India

Financial Inclusion

IndusInd Bank, India

Fraud Management and Cybersecurity

Millennium BCP, Portugal

Branch Transformation

Mizuho Financial Group, Japan

Consumer Banking Channel Innovation

National Australia Bank, Australia

Core Banking Transformation

OakNorth Bank, UK

Banking in the Cloud

Radius Bank, USA

Product Innovation

The Royal Bank of Scotland, UK

Employee Productivity

YES BANK, India

Payments Product

And of course, congratulations to Caixa Bank, our Model Bank of the Year 2017! The keynote presentation by Àngels Valls on how Caixa Bank has embraced digital was the highlight of the I&I Day for many of us in Banking – thank you! Finally, congratulations to Celent Model Insurer award recipients.

Each of the award winning initiatives is published as a case study and available to Celent research clients by following the links above. In addition, we also published an overall Model Bank 2017 report, which discusses how the Model Bank programme has changed over 10 years and reviews the content themes across all nominations in 2017.

We intend to run the Model Bank programme again later this year, so keep an eye on the announcements when the new submissions window opens. We have no doubt that you are all working on exciting things and hope that you will consider submitting your initiatives for 2018 awards. In the meantime, enjoy the case studies and let's celebrate the Model Bank winners of 2017!

Emerging Innovation in Banking

Emerging Innovation in Banking

Over the past few weeks we have been previewing various content themes we will be discussing at our Insight and Innovation Day in Boston on April 4th. I would like to finish this series of posts by looking at the new Model Bank category we introduced this year – Emerging Innovation.

When we added this category, we weren’t quite sure what to expect, but we certainly hoped to see the banks’ efforts at the “bleeding edge” of innovation. We were very pleased with the number and quality of such nominations, which spanned the gamut of the hottest topics today. Many of these truly outstanding stories are still in relatively early stages, but all are very interesting and pointing to the future of banking.

Model Bank nominations in 2017 showcased the banks’ efforts in the areas at the forefront of innovation in banking:

  • Innovative customer engagement: the most innovative banks go where their customers are; for example, banks are experimenting with ways to engage their customers directly from social media platforms via chatbots and other tools. They are also looking to introduce new channels, such as wearables.
  • Artificial intelligence (AI): Model Bank submissions demonstrated the diversity of AI technologies and their applications:
    • Driving a virtual agent capable to have a written exchange with the customer via a chatbot, or to even hold a verbal conversation on the phone.
    • Powering a robot to support customer engagement in physical branches.
    • Deployed behind the scenes as a tool to help the customer service agents.
    • Helping determine the best marketing offer for the customer.
  • Biometrics: banks are stepping up their efforts to deploy biometric authentication in their bid to provide customers more convenience while ensuring security. They are expanding beyond fingerprints and are experimenting with other modalities such as facial and voice biometrics. And it’s also not just for consumers – banks are beginning to use biometrics in the corporate banking context as well.
  • APIs: we already spoke about APIs when describing Open Banking, but want to highlight this again, given the importance of APIs. While banks in Europe must open up because of regulation, leading banks around the world are not waiting for the regulators and are starting to provide API-based access to their services to others. And some banks are pursuing a “marketplace banking” strategy seeking to position themselves as a banking platform in the centre on which third parties can build a myriad of discrete services. 
  • Blockchain: given how many banks have started exploring blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies, we were hoping to see some nominations describing their efforts in this space. We were not disappointed and received initiatives ranging from collaborative efforts around cross-border payments and trade finance to “solo” efforts of a single bank using blockchain to manage employee incentives.

We will be discussing all these topics and more at our Insight and Innovation Day next week. It is also the time when we announce and award all the Model Bank winners, including our Model Bank of the Year. We are in the final stages of preparation and are very excited! The event has been sold out for weeks, so if you haven't yet registered you might be too late… If you have registered, we are looking forward to welcoming you there, although if your plans have changed, please let us know so that we could invite those on the waiting list. See you in Boston!

Needless Controversy in the Branch vs. Digital Debate

Needless Controversy in the Branch vs. Digital Debate

In a previous post I argued for the enduring importance of human, face-to-face contact in financial services. By the reactions I received, you’d think I was purposefully inciting controversy.

  • One influential industry observer thought I was irresponsible in advocating inaction.
  • Another wrote a lengthy and snarky rebuttal.
  • Others took issue with my comparing retail banking to other retail categories, as if there is nothing to be learned by studying the broader digital commerce landscape.
  • Others took issue with aspects of the surveyed retail deposit mix data I cited to demonstrate that branch deposits remain persistently common.

Honestly, I expected a mixed response: push back from those who are invested in advancing digital banking and agreement from branch technology vendors. We all have self-serving tendencies. But, I did not expect – nor intend – to precipitate such controversy. What is so heretical to my digital brethren’s ears that they would be so obviously offended with my advocacy that banks pay attention to both digital and in-person engagement mechanisms? That was, after all, the essence of my previous post which began with “Digital needs to be a top technology priority among financial institutions”.

Needless Controversy

I think part of the issue here was addressed in a previous post, Three Mistakes Banks Make. We are at risk by oversimplifying things that are inherently complex. In so doing, we fail to appreciate diversity of customer needs or preferences. Much of the digital/branch debate speaks to binary outcomes. Reality is much more nuanced.

This tendency reminds me of a well-conducted consumer research initiative that resulted in January 2016 news that for the first time, “mobile banking exceeds branch banking”. It made quite a splash in the press, for obvious reasons. The data is both relevant and important. It offers clear evidence of the growing importance of digital banking. But the common interpretation overstated digital’s current level of influence.

My issue is not with the research, but how it was interpreted. Many trumpeted the research as evidence of the final nail in the branch banking coffin. “See, the branch is dead!” was the nominal conclusion offered by most observers I think. However, a closer look at the data invites a different interpretation. The specific metric being graphed wasn’t explicitly cited in many references to the research. Too bad, because the graph compares the percentage of randomly surveyed banked consumers over time that use the branch or mobile channel in the past week. A graph showing past three month or past twelve month usage would be rather different. It would show that a much higher percentage of banked consumers visit branches. They do – just not in any given week, day or hour! Usage intervals are longer in the branch – shocking!

The enduring relevance of the branch channel is abundantly clear in Federal Reserve Board sponsored research, Consumers and Mobile Financial Services, conducted annually since 2011 and most recently published in March 2016. The graph below from the March 2016 report compares surveyed past 12 month usage among the general banked population (all respondents) as well as smartphone owners. This equally credible research suggests that roughly one year ago, twice as many banked consumers use the branch and ATM channels than mobile banking.

Both graphs present credible research. Only one fits a certain popular narrative.

The take away for most banks in my opinion is clear and transcends the silly, either-or debate: create and sustain a compelling customer experience across all points of engagement. As customer preferences continue to change, banks will need to continually adjust operating models. Easier said than done for sure. The needless controversy isn't helping banks get this job done.

Celent Model Bank 2017 Awards: The Payments Preview

Celent Model Bank 2017 Awards: The Payments Preview

This is the next instalment of our Model Banking preview blogs, and it’ll come as no surprise that I will focus on Payments.

Reading and evaluating the Model Bank entries is always fascinating. It’s also somewhat frustrating too at times – payments, covering so much territory, often ends up with the tricky task of comparing two very different projects, and trying to decide which is best. This year was no different, with the quality of entries high.

Until we announce all winners publicly on April 4 at our 2017 Innovation & Insight Day in Boston, we’re unable to say too much more – very frustrating! In addition to presenting the award to the winners, we will be discussing broader trends we’ve seen across all nominations and will share our perspectives why we chose those particular initiatives as winners. Unfortunately though, if you’ve not already registered, it’s too late. As with every year, it’s not only sold out, there is a growing wait list too!

So until April 4th, what can we take away from the Payment entries as a whole this year?

First, the entries this year reinforce how hard it is for any single bank to come up with a cutting edge product innovation in payments. As a result, we had a number of entries submitted jointly by multiple FIs describing their initiatives on blockchain, P2P infrastructures, and other collaborative efforts.

We also saw, particularly in the retail space, the adoption of innovations in one market, transposed from another. There were a number of these, particularly in wallets and P2P. Not bad, just not new and often with a very specific market context. For example, one technology had been in place in a different country for at least 5 years, yet the impact will be huge for the bank who submitted it, and is leading edge for their market.

This perhaps serves as a timely reminder that innovation isn’t always about cutting edge technology, but doing something different. Scanning other markets for what they do, and why, is a great source of new ideas, Given that these innovations are, by definition, tried, tested and live, it also has the benefit of being easier to adopt, from the likely business benefits to the actual technology used and lessons learnt.

The second theme is the continued payments back-office renovation story, particularly around the adoption of payment services hubs, which continue apace. Whilst we have defined what is or isn’t a hub, we have always been clear that no two hub projects are exactly the same, and the entries this year reinforce that.

A few things really stood out in particular about the entries. First, some clients still consider hubs to be mainly European, yet we had entries from right around the globe. Second, whilst the details may differ, common to all was the belief that the bank had to re-engineer payments, not just for the future, but to better respond to changes that were imminent. Given the change in the last 10 years, and the likely change in the next 10, perhaps the question for many banks is more about when than if they also undergo their own transformation.

Look out for the case studies being published on April 4th for more detail!

Celent Model Bank Awards 2017: Banking Products Innovation

Celent Model Bank Awards 2017: Banking Products Innovation

This is the next article in a weekly series highlighting trends and themes from Celent’s Model Bank submission process. For more information on how the Model Bank Awards have evolved, see the first two pieces from my colleagues, Dan Latimore and Zil Bareisis

This week’s article focuses on Model Bank entries in the Products category. Part of the criteria for this category is that the solution needs to be in production and demonstrating business benefits. The Products entries for 2017 fall broadly into four sub-categories:

  • Payments Product — for launching the best consumer or business payments product.
  • Lending Product — for the most impressive consumer or business lending or collections initiative.
  • Open Banking — for the most impressive API strategy and results so far.
  • Product Innovation — for demonstrating the ability to launch multiple innovative products.

The majority of submissions in the Products category came from banks in developing markets, with only a handful from large global banks. The Model Bank award submissions came from Argentina, Germany, India, Korea, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey, UAE, and USA.

The Products category submissions were impressive indeed:

Payments: The submissions in this area focused on modernizing existing banking and payments infrastructure. With consumer expectations growing for real-time transactions and unified information across channels, banks are layering new capabilities onto legacy frameworks. Capabilities include accelerated check clearing, enhanced mobile wallets, simplified fraud controls, and streamlined charitable donations.

Lending:  Possibly threatened by alternative lenders, banks in this sub-category are improving the speed and convenience of loans for micro and small businesses. Some entries focused on expanding application channels, both digital and physical. New digital channels include SMS/text, ATM and Facebook. Physical channels include the local coffee shop. All of the submissions featured faster loan decisions through advanced analytics and paperless (or almost paperless) loan closings.  

Open Banking: Open Banking APIs have moved beyond hackathons and proofs of concept to production implementations. While some banks are rolling out Open API development portals in response to regulations like PSD2, the Model Bank candidates in this category are using APIs to improve the customer experience. The submissions represented two approaches to Open Banking. The first is the use of open APIs to connect directly with customers and developers, enabling transactions including B2B payments, personal remittances, loan disbursements, and e-Commerce refunds. The second is the use of open APIs as the core foundation for digital-only banking models. Third-party developers then create value-added client-facing applications using the bank’s exposed API services.

Product Innovation: This sub-category features partnerships with both traditional financial technology and start-up Fintech firms to make banking more convenient, create new offerings, improve customer service, expand a bank’s digital footprint, and personalize marketing offers.  

Want to hear more about the Celent Model Bank winners for payments product, lending product, open banking, and product innovation? Join us for the 10th annual Innovation and Insight Day on April 4th in Boston. In addition to revealing the winners of all the awards, Celent analysts examine the trends that are driving innovation in Banking. I look forward to seeing you there.

European Payments: Breathing a Sigh of Relief (For Now)

European Payments: Breathing a Sigh of Relief (For Now)

In our recently published report on Top Trends in Retail Payments we quoted a European payments professional:

“If the publication of PSD2 gave the industry a headache, then the publication of draft RTS gave it a heart attack.”

Of course, he was talking about the draft regulatory technical standards (RTS) that the European Banking Authority (EBA) has been tasked to develop for how the industry should implement Payment Serivces Directive's (PSD2) requirements for strong customer authentication and secure communicationThe draft RTS published in a consultation paper last August was indeed rather draconian. One of the key proposals was "not to propose exemptions based on a transaction risk analysis performed by the PSP” and to keep “the authentication procedure […] fully in the sphere of competence of the ASPSP [Account Servicing Payment Service Providers, i.e. banks].” The draft RTS has united the industry to an extent rarely seen before – representatives from payments, cards, e-commerce, small merchants, digital technology, telecoms, travel and industries have expressed concerns that the EBA’s standards implemented in their current form would “make online shopping much more onerous than it is today and have a wider and chilling effect on the Digital Single Market.”

Thankfully, it appears that the EBA has been listening. The final standards have not yet been published, but yesterday, Andrea Enria, Chairperson of the EBA gave a speech at the Westminster Forum, and has given the clearest indication yet that the EBA is open to changing the RTS. Specifically, according to the speech, the RTS when published will:

  • Introduce two new exemptions, one based on "transaction risk analysis" and the other for payments at so-called "unattended terminals" for transport or parking fares. Transaction risk analysis exemption will be linked to maintaining predefined fraud levels and will be reviewed after 18 months.
  • Contain some changes to the existing exemptions, such as increasing from EUR 10 to EUR 30 the threshold for remote payment transactions. However, there will be no further exemptions for e.g. corporate payments.
  • Outlaw the current practice of third party access without identification (e.g. ‘screen scraping’) once the transition period under the PSD2 has elapsed and the RTS applies.
  • Maintain the obligation for the ASPSPs to offer at least one interface for AISPs and PISPs to access payment account information. A requirement has been added requiring banks to provide the same level of availability and performance as the interface offered to, and used by, their own customers, as well as to provide the same level of contingency measures in case of unplanned unavailability.
  • Remove references to ISO 27001 and other specific, technological characteristics, to ensure technology-neutrality and allow for future innovations.

It will be important to review the details when the final RTS is published, and of course, much work will still have to be done by the industry to ensure compliance. Yet, it seems that the payments professionals in Europe may breathe a sign of relief – the heart attack may have just been averted, at least for now.

The Enduring Importance of Physical Engagement in Retail Financial Services

The Enduring Importance of Physical Engagement in Retail Financial Services

I take no issue with the growing importance being placed on digital in financial services. Indeed, it does not take extensive examination to see, in Wayne Gretzky’s words, “where the puck is going”. Digital needs to be a top technology priority among financial institutions – particularly in highly digitally-directed markets such as North America and Western Europe. But, that doesn’t mean physical engagement is unimportant. In my opinion, in-person (physical) engagement will be of lasting importance in financial services for at least three reasons:

1. Most consumers rely on brick and mortar for commerce and will continue to do so.

2. Most retail deposits still take place at the branch.

3. Most banks do not offer a decent digital customer acquisition mechanism

Most Consumers Rely on Brick and Mortar for Commerce

This week, comScore released its most recent measurement of digital commerce. It was truly exciting, with Q4 2016 m-commerce spending up 45% over 2015! But, even with that astonishing year-over-year growth, m-commerce constitutes just 21% of total e-commerce. And, with two decades of e-commerce, total digital commerce comprised just ten percent of total commerce in 2015. Plenty of consumers still like stores. * FRB Consumers and Mobile Financial Services 2011 – 2016, Percent of smartphone users with bank accounts
** US Department of Commerce, Internet Retailer, Excludes fuel, auto, restaurants and bars
***comScore

Digital is not equally important across segments. Books and music, for example, are highly digital. Not so much for food and beverage. I’m being simplistic for brevity, but the data suggests that most commerce will remain tied to the store experience – at least in part – for the foreseeable future. I don’t think financial services will be an exception.

Most Retail Deposits Still Take Place at the Branch

Banks are keen to migrate low-value branch transactions to self-service channels, and there is perhaps no better low-hanging fruit than check deposits. Yet, with a decade of remote deposit capture utilization behind us, a January 2017 survey of US financial institutions (n=269) clearly shows that the majority of retail deposit dollar volume still takes place in the branch. Like it or not, the branch remains a key transaction point for many consumers and small businesses. Sure, the trend lines support digital transaction growth (thank goodness), but we have a long way to go – farther than the hype would suggest.

Most banks do not offer a digital account and loan origination mechanism

Even as banks would love to acquire more customers digitally, most aren’t well prepared to do so. Unlike most every other retailer on the planet, most banks initially invested in digital banking for transaction migration, not sales. That is changing, but not quickly. The mobile realm needs the most work. In a December 2016 survey of North American financial institutions, Celent found that large banks, those with assets of >US$50b, had made noteworthy progress in mobile customer acquisition capability since the previous survey two years ago. Smaller institutions lag considerably. For these reasons, branch channels are getting a make-over at a growing number of financial institutions, with the objective of improving channel efficiency and effectiveness – effectiveness with engagement, not just transactions. Celent is pleased to offer a Celent Model Bank award in 2017 for Branch Transformation. We’ll present the award on April 4 at our 2017 Innovation & Insight Day in Boston. In addition to presenting the award trophies to the winners, Celent analysts will be discussing broader trends we’ve seen across all nominations and will share our perspectives why we chose those particular initiatives as winners. Make sure you reserve your slot here while there are still spaces available!

Rethinking the Customer Experience: Themes from the 2017 Model Bank Submissions

Rethinking the Customer Experience: Themes from the 2017 Model Bank Submissions
This is the third article in a weekly series highlighting trends and themes from Celent’s Model Bank submission process. Dan Latimore and Zil Bareisis led off with two great pieces on the evolution of the Model Bank Awards.  Articles from this week on will explore some of the broader themes within each category. Customer experience initiatives are typically the most numerous.  While this makes the category more difficult to judge, it offers immense insight into what’s happening in the market. The standards of customer engagement are constantly changing, and banks are experimenting with new ways to drive increased satisfaction, higher revenue, and greater loyalty.  Three themes stand out this year. Digital banking subsidiaries: Many banks are finding that existing systems are too rigid to accommodate a truly digital experience.  A number of customer experience submissions this year focus on building out separate digital subsidiary brands within traditional institutions. Banks are typically going in two different directions.  The first is a digital subsidiary as an offshoot of the parent bank.  These brands are basically separate products that offer a digital-first experience to a certain demographic, but are closely tied to the main bank. Brands are similar and products/ services are frequently cross-sold. The second type is a completely separate brand ring-fenced under a different technology stack, operating under the umbrella of the parent organization but effectively a separate entity.  These banks may leverage the parent for product support, but are usually sandboxes for “testing” digital.  Submissions were a mix of the two approaches. Fintech partnerships: The shift from disruptive to collaborative relationships between financial services and Fintech startups feature prominently in this year’s award submissions.   They range from standard B2B vendor relationships to more advanced functional partnerships where portions of the Fintech’s offering is exposed within the traditional institutions digital UI.  Initiatives reflect the growing acceptance among the industry that banks can’t be all things to all people.  Institutions are acknowledging the valuable and complementary role Fintech can play in providing a modern, innovative customer experience. AI and bot technology: Bursting out of the gate in 2015/16, Banks have begun a mad dash towards AI and other bot technologies.  This is a broad spectrum of projects that include everything from simple bots to cognitive computing.  Submissions this year show institutions spreading their resources across many different applications.  Like any emerging technology, most institutions are in a “test and learn” phase.   These technologies are at varying levels of maturity, but the potential to revolutionize the customer experience through AI may be truly transformational, and Celent was pleased to see so many projects in this space. This is just a taste of what we’ll have in store at the 10th annual Innovation and Insight Day on April 4th in Boston. We’ll be diving much deeper into the various topics, revealing the winners of all the awards, and discussing how they combined serious innovation with tangible business benefits to stand out from so many strong contenders. I look forward to seeing you all there.

Three Common Mistakes Banks Make

Three Common Mistakes Banks Make
In my work as a research analyst, I run into three particularly common mistakes. Banks aren’t the only ones that make these mistakes. I make them too and have to be vigilant to avoid them.
1. Failure to appreciate diversity of needs or preferences
2. Failure to appreciate the shrinking half-life of facts
3. Failure to skate to where the puck is going
Let’s look at each one briefly…

Failure to appreciate diversity of needs or preferences This is utterly common. You see it in headlines all the time. “Millennials this…”, “Small businesses that…”, Community banks are…”. The trap involves extrapolating limited data to an entire population. Two current examples illustrate: The Use of AI in Banking is About to Explode. Apart from confusing AI with predictive analytics (which is more broadly used), the article asserts “explosive” future adoption of AI right around the corner. I’ll just say that this assertion vastly overstates planned adoption of AI among North American banks based on recent Celent research. Bank on Changes. Among other things, this pleasant article states “Smaller community banks like Edison, which emphasize personal service, said they have no plans to scale back drive-through or other services at brick-and-mortar locations.” While referring to a small number of community banks interviewed for the article, it projects those results on the entire community bank population.

So, are community banks planning on maintaining their current brick-and-mortar services in their entirety – despite the growth in mobile banking utilization? Some are and some aren’t. the figure below displays results a very question posed in a December 2016 Celent survey of North American financial institutions. “Compared to your current branch count, how many branches do you expect your institution will operate five years from now?” The report is not yet published. The idea is simple: banks serve diverse markets and make a diversity of decisions as well. The diversity of expected response is glaring in this data! So as not to give away too much of the report’s contents, I refrain from graphing the results of that question by asset tier. Failure to Appreciate the Shrinking Half-Life of Facts Assertions abound about customers, what they do, want and value. Some data points supporting these assertions are dated. This is increasingly dangerous. Samuel Arbesman argues for a shrinking half-life of facts in his book, The Half-Life of Facts. Most substantive change takes a while to accomplish – particularly among large organizations. I think many banks are at risk by assuming the facts as they knew them at the beginning of a protracted initiative will remain after the initiative is finished. When it comes to mobile, for example, six months is a long time and a year is eternity.

Failure to Skate to Where the Puck is Going Even those of us who aren’t hockey fans are familiar with the famed Wayne Gretzky quote about skating to where the puck is going instead of where it has been. I saw this up close and personal as part of a research effort exploring the current and likely evolution of retail delivery channel technology. Omnichannel delivery clearly remains aspirational at most institutions (I’ll defend that assertion thoroughly in the upcoming report). Yet, even as most surveyed institutions concede the importance of omnichannel delivery, the significant majority are not yet meaningfully engaged in bringing it about. How could that be? Many banks – particularly those with below industry average mobile banking customer utilization – aren’t feeling the pain yet. They are skating to where the puck has been. When they do feel the pain, it will likely be the result of much damage already inflicted.