Recently, I discussed complexity with a banker working on measuring and managing complexity in a North American bank. His approach is very interesting: He found a way to operationalize complexity measurement and thus to provide concrete data to manage it. While I’m not in a position to disclose any more details, we also talked about the nature of complexity. In absence of any other definition of complexity, I offered a draft definition which I have assembled over time based on a number of “official” definitions. Complexity is the condition of:
Next week, I will present first results of Forrester’s 2009 global banking platform deals survey. A total of 17 banking platform vendors submitted their 2009 deals for evaluation. One year ago, the same set of deals would have represented at least 19 vendors: In the 2009 survey, FIS’s deals include those of acquired US-based Metavante, and Temenos’ deals include those of acquired French Viveo. These theoretically 19 participating vendors submitted a total of 1,068 banking platform deals to evaluate, a steep increase compared with the about 870 submitted deals for 2008.
We had to classify a large share of these 1,068 banking platform deals as extended business or even as a simple renewed license — if the vendors did not already submitted them with the according tag. Forrester’s “rules of the game” did not allow us to recognize further deals, for example, because a non-financial-services firm signed a deal. Overall, Forrester counted 269 of the submitted deals as 2009 new named customers, compared with 290 for 2008. In the past, Forrester sorted the vendors into four buckets: Global Power Sellers, Global Challengers, Pursuers, and Base Players. The Pursuers and in particular the Global Challengers saw only minor changes in the previous years. 2009 has shaken this stable structure, and we will see many vendors in groups they haven’t been in before.