Author

Dan Brightmore

Published

10 August 2026

Estimated Read time

6Mins

Following the launch of its Core Modernisation Playbook, Publicis Sapient’s Dave Murphy, Head of Financial Services – EMEA & APAC, explores why so many banks struggle to modernise despite investing heavily in AI. The challenge is no longer knowing what to transform, but how to execute transformation safely

Most banks have spent the last decade applying AI where its impact is most visible, in chatbots, fraud scoring and personalised product recommendations. The results have been real, and in places significant, however, they have also been contained. AI has been working at the edges of the organisation, improving the surfaces that customers and compliance teams interact with, while the actual machinery of the bank carries on untouched. The core systems, the batch processing logic, the settlement rules written in COBOL three decades ago, have continued to run exactly as they always have, insulated from the transformation happening around them.

Meeting the AI Execution Challenge

That insulation is starting to break down. For CTOs weighing where AI investment should go next, the implications are considerable. The question is no longer whether banks need to modernise. Every major institution already knows it needs real-time payments, AI-ready operations, API-enabled architectures and cleaner data foundations. The challenge is execution. How do you modernise decades of critical systems without introducing unacceptable operational risk?

That is where AI is beginning to change the equation. Rather than focusing solely on customer experience or analytics, it is being applied to the engineering process itself. The discovery, extraction, transformation and validation work that has traditionally been the slowest, riskiest and most expensive phase of core modernisation is becoming increasingly automated. This is where the greatest opportunity now exists.

The Core Modernisation Playbook

Publicis Sapient explores this shift in its recent Core Modernisation Playbook. At the centre of that approach is Sapient Slingshot, a platform designed to apply AI across the engineering lifecycle rather than simply the coding stage. Slingshot applies AI across the entire modernisation lifecycle, from understanding legacy systems through to transformation and continuous validation within a governed workflow. The objective is not simply to write code faster. It is to make large-scale modernisation more predictable, auditable and easier to execute.

One global bank recently used this approach to analyse three million lines of COBOL and produce verified functional specifications in eight weeks, work that would previously have taken well over a year and required scarce legacy expertise that is becoming increasingly difficult to find. What changed was not the strategy or destination. It was the execution model.

Core banking code written over thirty or forty years rarely comes with a user manual. Business rules become embedded directly in software, operational workarounds accumulate over time, and critical knowledge often exists only in the minds of engineers who built the systems. As those engineers retire, banks are not simply losing people. They are losing the institutional knowledge needed to modernise safely.

This reflects a broader shift in how modernisation is delivered. Instead of treating discovery, code generation and testing as separate phases owned by different teams, they become part of a connected execution model. Understanding legacy systems, building modern services and validating every change happen as part of the same continuous process. That reduces risk while improving speed, which is exactly what heavily regulated organisations require.

AI-Powered Business

AI-powered business rule extraction is a direct response to that problem. Rather than depending on interviews with legacy experts and time-consuming manual code walkthroughs, automated analysis can surface the logic embedded in legacy programs, cross-reference it against actual processing behaviour, and generate specifications that engineers who’ve never touched the original COBOL can read and act on. In the case above, specification accuracy came in at 95%, and the time needed to analyse individual batch feeds dropped from 35 days to five. That compression changes the shape of what a modernisation programme looks like in its early phases. Work that used to occupy teams for the better part of two years can be substantially completed in months, and what comes out the other end isn’t an informal summary but a set of audit-ready specifications and, in this instance, more than 200 implementation-ready backlog items that become the foundation for everything that follows.

Establishing Strong Foundations For AI

Foundations matter because the validation phase of modernisation is where most programmes break down. There’s no shortage of ambition or strategic clarity in banking transformation. Most major institutions have roadmaps, target architectures and detailed business cases. What consistently falls apart is proving, with sufficient rigour, that a rewritten system behaves identically to the one it’s replacing.

Core banking processes handle exceptions, regulatory edge cases and accumulated business logic in ways that are difficult to fully enumerate up front, let alone test exhaustively by hand. Traditional testing models depend heavily on manually created test cases, subject-matter-expert review and long validation cycles. Coverage gaps are hard to detect, particularly when the legacy behaviour they’re meant to validate against is poorly documented in the first place. Banks end up completing the development work and then getting stuck proving the new system does what it’s supposed to.

AI-driven testing changes that equation by generating and executing test cases at a scale manual teams can’t match, covering standard transactions, edge cases and downstream dependencies systematically rather than sampling them. That doesn’t remove the need for human judgement on what ‘correct’ looks like, but, it does remove the bottleneck of generating enough coverage to have confidence in the answer.

Modernisation Strategy

None of this means banks can modernise the way digital natives do. Core banking platforms sit inside dense ecosystems of payments networks, risk engines, regulatory reporting systems and third-party providers. A change in one system can create consequences dozens of steps downstream, and banks must modernise around uptime, auditability and customer trust in a way a retailer redesigning a checkout flow simply doesn’t. That’s precisely why execution has become the defining challenge. Every bank already knows what it wants to build. The competitive advantage now lies in how effectively it modernises the foundations that make those ambitions possible.

Sapient Slingshot – Deploying An Execution Engine

What AI applied to the engineering process offers is a way to close that gap without pretending the underlying complexity has gone away. Understanding what a legacy system actually does, generating modern code and architecture that preserves the business behaviour underneath it, and validating the result continuously rather than at the end of a multi-year build: these are the three things that have historically made core modernisation slow, expensive and prone to stalling.

Applying AI across the engineering lifecycle does not remove the need for governance, auditability or human judgement. It strengthens them by making documentation, traceability and validation part of the execution process rather than activities completed afterwards. This is where platforms such as Sapient Slingshot are emerging as execution engines for modernisation, enabling banks to modernise with greater speed, control and confidence rather than simply generating code more quickly.

For CTOs, the practical takeaway is less about any single tool and more about where in the lifecycle AI is being pointed. The customer-facing layer of banking has benefited from a decade of AI investment. The engine room is only just beginning. The banks that move first will not simply modernise faster. They will build the AI-ready foundations that determine how quickly every future innovation can be delivered.

The Core Modernisation Playbook

Get your copy of the latest White Paper from Publicis Sapient here

  • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
  • Digital Strategy
  • Fintech & Insurtech

Author

Dan Brightmore

Published

4 August 2026

Estimated Read time

4Mins

Graeme Donnelly, Founder & CEO of 1st Formations, on how small businesses can master cash flow and target growth

As British small businesses navigate a landscape of rising digital subscriptions and fluctuating utility costs, many are overlooking thousands of pounds in potential savings. While large corporations chase complex R&D credits, many limited companies are often leaving money on the table through sheer habit. 

In partnership with leading company formation agent, 1st Formations, we have identified 10 of the most effective, yet frequently ignored, financial hacks specifically tailored for UK SMEs. 

As Graeme Donnelly, founder and CEO of 1st Formations, puts it: “In 2026, operational efficiency is the new profitability. Many directors are so focused on top-line growth that they ignore the ‘silent drain’ of legacy bank fees, incorrect VAT categories, and dormant software subscriptions. Saving £200 a month through smarter digital choices is the equivalent of adding thousands to your annual turnover without the cost of acquisition. It’s about being as lean as you are ambitious.” 

1. The power of the ‘sector group’ 

Many directors believe the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) or local Chambers of Commerce are only for established firms. In reality, the membership fee is often offset by the discounts they provide on business insurance, legal HR support, and software packages like Xero or Microsoft. 

2. The voluntary VAT advantage 

If your turnover is under the £90,000 threshold, you aren’t required to register for VAT, but doing so voluntarily allows you to reclaim VAT on everything from stock and web hosting to digital ads. While it does introduce an extra layer of administration, the ability to reclaim input VAT often far outweighs the effort involved. It also levels the playing field when pitching to larger corporate clients. 

3. Stress-test your small businesses VAT flat rate 

The VAT Flat Rate Scheme can significantly reduce your administrative burden, but many businesses are stuck in the wrong sector category. Reviewing your percentage, for instance 14.5% for IT consultancy vs. 7.5% for certain retail, could instantly boost your margins. 

4. Hunt for ‘hyper-local’ micro-grants 

While national grants get the headlines, local Growth Hubs and Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) often have pots of £500–£5,000 earmarked for digital upgrades or energy efficiency. These are often poorly advertised but easier to secure than larger funds. 

5. Kill the manual spreadsheet 

Directors often miss out on tax deductions by forgetting small receipts. Using real-time scanning apps like Dext (for receipts), Pleo (for spending rules), or Expensify (for reimbursements) ensures every deductible expense is captured. Connecting these directly to your bank feed via QuickBooks or Xero turns a year-end headache into a streamlined process and makes bookkeeping easier. 

6. Look beyond the “big four” banks for funding 

Traditional loans are increasingly difficult for micro-companies to secure. Modern alternatives like Tide’s Funding Options, Uncapped (for revenue-based growth), or invoice finance platforms like Kriya offer the flexibility SMEs actually need without the long-term fixed commitments many traditional loans carry. 

7. Ditch the merchant account legacy 

If you’re still paying monthly rental fees for a card machine, you’re overpaying. Switching to fintech providers, such as Square, Zettle, or SumUp, eliminates fixed monthly costs and integrates sales data directly with your bookkeeping. 

8. Master the ‘work from home’ deduction 

If you run your limited company from home, you can charge relevant costs back to the business. These are essential business costs, such as a portion of your broadband bills, mobile phone contracts, and mileage or petrol costs. 

Whether using the flat-rate method (£6/week) or a formal rental agreement to claim a portion of mortgage interest and utilities, ensure you are documenting this correctly to stay HMRC-compliant. 

9. The quarterly subscription audit 

The ‘SaaS drain’ is real. Using tools like Cledara to flag duplicate project management tools or unused licences can shave hundreds off your monthly outgoings. To ensure this doesn’t slip through the cracks, set a recurring calendar reminder to audit your tools every quarter. Always negotiate at renewal; most providers have “retention rates” they don’t advertise.  

10. Stop paying for basic banking 

Many small firms are still paying monthly fees for basic banking, something digital-first providers have all but eliminated. Digital-first banks, such as Starling or Monzo Business, offer fee-free banking with superior app integration, saving both money and administrative hours. 

Learn more at 1stformations.co.uk

  • Digital Payments
  • Digital Strategy
  • Fintech & Insurtech
  • Neobanking

Author

Robbie Tilleard

Published

3 August 2026

Estimated Read time

4Mins

Robbie Tilleard, GM EMEA at Lorikeet, on why you don’t need a year, a team of twenty engineers, or a bespoke model trained on your data to deploy an AI in CX

Revolut launched its AI financial assistant in April this year. Starling launched one three weeks before that. An in-app AI financial assistant has become table stakes for FinTechs overnight.

The good news is you don’t need a year to get there. All you need is a plan and the right data.

Eight Years or Eight Days                                                                  

Revolut’s AI assistant took a year from announcement to launch, and Starling describes their assistant as the culmination of eight years of work. Both were building the infrastructure before it existed off-the-shelf. 

FinTechs we work with deploy an AI assistant in weeks, not months. They don’t build from scratch. They buy infrastructure that’s already solved the hard parts… Knowing when to escalate, handling ambiguity without hallucinating, navigating the tone of a conversation where someone has had their card blocked and is not in the mood for corporate language.

Sound familiar? It should. Every technology shift in financial services has looked like this for a period. Early movers build bespoke, the rest wait for the case studies, and then someone works out you don’t need to build when you can buy much faster. Then it simply comes down to having the right data in place, connecting your systems, and putting in place a clear implementation plan. Financial services knows the playbook. The difference is that the loop has simply gotten a lot faster with AI.

Why Not Wait Longer Then?

Customer expectations have moved, shaped by AI interactions people have outside financial services (support queries answered in seconds, refunds processed mid-conversation), and the gap between ChatGPT responses and waiting for a queued ticket to a human agent is becoming visible in churn data. The FinTechs that move first will set the bar for what customers expect from anyone in the same category.

There is also a regulatory dimension. In the UK, the FCA moved Consumer Duty into more active supervision this year. The review published in March 2025 found that vulnerable customers continue to receive worse outcomes than other customers, particularly where firms have primarily digital customer journeys, and that most firms have underestimated the depth of outcomes monitoring required.      

The reaction to AI in many compliance teams looks a lot like the reaction to autonomous vehicles. Every time a Waymo crashes, the genuine safety improvements (fewer accidents overall, faster hazard detection, no fatigue) get less coverage than the single incident. 

Yet AI is going to help Consumer Duty over time, not hinder it. Autonomy with the right guardrails produces more consistent outcomes than human handling at scale. An AI system can understand a customer’s problem immediately, resolve it on the spot where it can, and route to the right internal team where it can’t, without queue times, without agent fatigue, without twenty different people interpreting the same policy differently. This ensures the core customer care team remains focused and can prioritise the cases with the most need. And this isn’t a far off future for consumers. The infrastructure to build it already exists off the shelf.   

The European Dimension

There are additional points to consider if you operate in Europe. The EU AI Act’s full compliance requirements for high-risk AI sees financial services explicitly on the list. 

Being compliant means documented risk management, transparency mechanisms, human oversight baked into the architecture and a traceable record for every decision that the system makes. The cost of getting this wrong is high: up to €35 million or 7% of global revenue for the most serious breaches.

Most organisations aren’t close to achieving requirements. More than likely they’ve rolled out AI as an experiment (that’s good!) but without a plan to get it scaled in production (not so good). Systems built purely to retrieve and respond weren’t designed with auditability or explainability in mind and it isn’t something you can bolt on later. 

If you operate in Europe and have not mapped your current customer experience AI stack against these requirements, the time is now.

What You Actually Need                                                                                                

You don’t need a year, a team of twenty engineers, or a bespoke model trained on your data. You need focused use cases, infrastructure that handles the compliance layer, and a team willing to run a tight pilot with clear success criteria and a plan to scale.

You can move now. The companies that don’t are still lacing up.

Learn more at lorikeetcx.ai

  • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
  • Cybersecurity in FinTech
  • Data & AI
  • Digital Strategy

Author

Martin Jakobsen

Published

25 June 2026

Estimated Read time

5Mins

Martin Jakobsen, Managing Director at Cybanetix, on why SOC training and progression will be vital to meet the challenge of AI-driven cyber attacks

The accepted wisdom in cybersecurity is that the Security Operations Centre (SOC) has become overwhelmed. There’s some truth in this. Yes, the time taken to detect and remediate has grown, with IBM stating this now stands at 241 days. Yes, alert fatigue remains an issue, with SOC analysts snowed under 10,000 alerts per day leading to confirmation bias whereby positive alerts are discounted. And yes, alert volumes are rocketing due to a thriving black-market economy in attack kits and services, not to mention the emergence of AI-enabled attacks. Yet the SOC can adjust to these challenges and move with a rising tide if it adopts a paranoid posture.

One of the key attack trends over the past year is for threat actors to gain and maintain access legitimately. It’s for this reason we’ve seen a rise in credential theft (with an 800% increase in 1H2025) and the use of living off the land techniques (LotL). The attacker can log-in and use legitimate, trusted tools to evade detection and move laterally across the network to escalate those privileges. But the very fact these attacks don’t leave telltale footprints can make them much harder to detect. The SOC needs to rely on tools such as endpoint detection and response (EDR) and monitor tool usage to look for anomalies and that means listening to the less noisy network activity and low-severity alerts.

SOC: Selective Hearing

However, most SOCs focus on the high-severity alerts to such an extent that they even measure their success against the resolution of these incidents. SOC service level agreements typically specify a mean time to detection (MTTD) of 30 minutes and a mean time to respond (MTTR) of 15 minutes but the small print will often reveal this only applies critical alerts. Medium level alerts will typically be responded to within 1-2 hours and those low-level alerts that could indicate a LotL attack? Those are relegated to a window of 12 hours or more.

To capture this range of alerts will require the SOC to process ten times the usual volume of events. This presents the SOC with a quandary. How do you increase the monitoring and the ingest of alerts without submerging a SOC team who may already be drowning? For that to happen, the SOC must stop being selective and instead become more efficient.

To begin with, automation must be extended. Many teams will already be using Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) which can be configured to automatically remediate and close cases. But there are numerous other processes that can also benefit from automation. These can see the application of threat intelligence, automatic threat hunting and telemetry gathering, artificial testing, correlation with other alerts, and entity mapping, all of which can be used to enrich cases to the point where the SOC analyst doesn’t need to gather any further information when picking up the case.

Recovering from Cybersecurity Incidents

If we take the pre-defined playbooks that contain the recipe for how to detect, contain, eradicate and recover from specific cybersecurity incidents, for example, these can be automated to respond in a cascading effect. This sees one playbook used to trigger another depending on what the first has discerned, so that sub-playbooks iterate through lists of entities for each part of the case. Assuming 4,000 alerts coming into the SOC, triggering 100 playbooks per alert, with each playbook performing around ten actions such as enrichment lookups, correlation queries and containment steps, that’s equivalent to over four million triggered automations being executed per day before these cases are passed to a human analyst.

AI and the Analyst

AI, too, has a role to play. It currently enables the translation of free text questions into syntactical queries of Security Incident and Event Management (SIEM) and EDR data and can also be used to explain alerts, investigations and findings using human-friendly language and to summarise cases. It also lends itself to detection engineering, facilitating the faster creation of playbooks through the creation of code and detection syntax. With many detections sharing the same remedial actions, using AI to recommend a course of action makes sense, reducing analyst workloads substantially. And looking to the future, we can expect it to be used to optimise SOC operations by building playbooks on the fly and through the use of predictive investigative outcomes.

Applying these methods of automation enables any alert to be dealt with much more efficiently. The alert will initially be put through a process of enrichment, with threat intelligence used to compare the alert with known threats. SIEM and EDR searches will then correlate information, after which any associated alerts pertaining to the same entities (i.e. IPs, users, accounts, devices etc.) are linked to the case for the analyst to review. Using these processes, it’s possible to automate 65-70% of all SOC activity, dramatically reducing case workloads and allowing the SOC to process those massive alert volumes.

Human in the Loop

Yet, while automation is critical to adopting a paranoid posture capable of responding to evolving threats, it’s no substitute for the skills of the SOC analyst. Human expertise is invaluable in evaluating, verifying and deciding upon the best course of action and the likelihood is that those skills will become even more pertinent as AI becomes more widely used. This is because the technology can become so goal-driven that it becomes blinkered and can make incorrect deductions. In one instance, an AI agent went on to misinterpret a threat and produce a fictitious kill chain and mitigation advice, revealing the need for a human in the loop (HITL) and traceability in AI.

Paranoid monitoring does require the generation of more alerts for investigation. But we do have the tools and automation capabilities to handle those volumes so that this uptick needn’t equate to a massive increase in alert fatigue. What it does mean is that the role of the analyst will subtly change. They will be augmented by these processes and need to develop additional skillsets associated with validating these outputs, so the SOC will need to continue to invest in continuous training and progression, particularly if they want to hang on to that talent which remains in short supply. But unless we make these changes, the SOC won’t be able to keep pace with emerging threat patterns and will almost certainly fail to meet the challenge of AI-driven attacks.

Learn more at cybanetix.com

  • Cybersecurity
  • Cybersecurity in FinTech
  • Digital Strategy
  • Infrastructure & Cloud

Author

Gareth Hewitt

Published

23 June 2026

Estimated Read time

5Mins

Gareth Hewitt, Founder of LemonEdge, on why the real lesson from DORA is that resilience has to run through the whole operating model, from the infrastructure underneath it to the controls and workflows used every day

The EU’s DORA regulation has exposed how firms operating in private markets face a set of risks that is not purely about IT.

Designed to reduce financial sector reliance on a small number of infrastructure vendors, the regulation came into force last year. Since implementation it continues to throw a spotlight on risks arising from continued use of manual methods and over-reliance on individual employees’ subject matter expertise.

The regulation is forcing firms to examine how their operating models work under pressure and where risk resides inside workflows. 

A private equity or private credit manager may sit on robust cloud infrastructure at one end of its technology stack, while still relying on spreadsheets, manual handoffs and offline approvals at the other. In that kind of environment, resilience is only as strong as the least controlled part of the workflow.

The real risk often sits inside the workflow

This is where risk accumulates in an organisation – in processes that are not properly systemised. This is amplified when they rely on manual intervention or a small number of people who know how to make them work.

A month-end close supported by spreadsheets and a sequence of offline steps may function well enough in normal conditions. However, it looks far less resilient when deadlines tighten, a key individual is unavailable or an investor query lands at exactly the wrong moment.

DORA, in effect, acts as a pressure test on whether resilience has been built into the operating model or simply assumed. Private markets firms have lived with this kind of exposure for years, often because experienced teams compensate for process weaknesses. Regulation leaves no room for that comfort. The question now is whether the workflow holds up under strain.

With DORA, accountability has moved to the top

One of the clearest shifts under DORA is the level at which accountability now sits. Historically, operational resilience could be treated as a technology matter and delegated accordingly. If a firm had a CTO, responsibility was often there. If it did not, it shifted into finance or operations. DORA has since changed that dynamic. Responsibility now sits with the management body, which is held accountable for the ICT risk management framework. It means resilience is now a governance issue with clear ownership at the top of the business.

That changes the conversation both inside firms and with suppliers. Firms increasingly want hard evidence from their providers. They want to understand incident processes, failover arrangements, access controls and recovery expectations in practical terms. They also want to know when documentation was last reviewed, whether controls have been tested – and what would happen if a system failed.

The weakest point is often internal

For many private markets firms, however, the central issue is not whether a major external provider is resilient in principle. It is whether the firm’s own workflows can withstand increased pressure.

Key-person risk is at the heart of this issue. Many firms have built effective processes around capable individuals who know every workaround and hidden dependency. That may keep the machine running, but it is not the same as resilience. If knowledge is not captured and supported by the underlying platform, the process is weaker than it appears, severely increasing dangers when individuals leave or are unavailable.

The same applies once essential work starts moving outside the core platform into spreadsheets, email chains or offline approvals. Control weakens, visibility drops, auditability becomes harder and recovery becomes more uncertain. In private markets, where reporting expectations are high and investor scrutiny remains intense, that is not a side issue. It goes to the heart of whether the operating model is fit for purpose.

That matters particularly in fund accounting, where complexity has only increased. Reporting expectations are higher, structures are more demanding, and firms need stronger control across workflows. A system built for a different era often pushes work outside the main platform at exactly the point where clarity and control matter most. Once reporting becomes a scramble and key numbers are being pieced together manually, the workflow has already become more fragile than it should be.

DORA is the prompt, not the end goal

Operational resilience has often been treated too narrowly as a compliance cost. In practice, stronger resilience usually brings clearer process ownership, better visibility across workflows and faster responses when investors, auditors or regulators ask harder questions. It also reduces key-person risk and makes growth easier to support because the process does not have to be rebuilt every time complexity increases.

DORA will not solve every vulnerability in private markets operations, nor was it meant to. What it does is raise the bar for accountability, testing and supplier oversight. It shines a harsher light on brittle processes that have survived largely through habit and human intervention. It also makes clear that operational resilience depends not just on policies and providers, but on whether the underlying systems and platforms are strong enough to support controlled, auditable workflows under pressure.

That is the real wake-up call. Resilience has to run through the whole operating model, from the infrastructure underneath it to the controls and workflows used every day. That’s the real underlying lesson of DORA that private markets firms need to heed.

Learn more at lemonedge.com

  • Cybersecurity
  • Cybersecurity in FinTech
  • Digital Strategy
  • InsurTech

Author

Simon Pamplin

Published

19 June 2026

Estimated Read time

4Mins

Simon Pamplin, CTO at Certes, on how Quantum computing will eventually force a reckoning with the cryptographic assumptions on which the financial system is built.

Financial institutions hold some of the most sensitive and long-lived data of any sector. Customer identities, decades of transaction records, credit histories, and proprietary trading information must be kept confidential, not just today, but far into the future. The cryptographic systems guarding that data, however, were built for a different era; one in which quantum computing was purely theoretical. That era is ending.

Recent guidance from both the G7 Cyber Group and the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre has made the stakes explicit: financial organisations should complete their transition to post-quantum cryptography by 2035. For institutions managing sprawling, decades-old technology estates, that deadline is less reassuring than it might first appear. Ten years sounds like breathing room. In practice, for organisations of this complexity, it is barely enough.

Quantum Risk: The Threat Doesn’t Wait for the Technology

The most common mistake in discussions about quantum risk is treating it as a problem for tomorrow. The assumption is that until a quantum computer powerful enough to crack modern encryption actually exists, there is no immediate danger. That assumption is dangerously flawed.

Sophisticated adversaries are already operating on a longer time horizon. The strategy, widely referred to as “harvest now, decrypt later,” involves systematically collecting encrypted data today and storing it until quantum computing capabilities catch up. No quantum computer is needed to execute this phase of the attack, only patience and storage.

For the financial sector, the implications are particularly serious. The data being harvested now, customer records, transaction histories, and commercially sensitive communications, could have a useful life measured in decades. By the time it is decrypted, the individuals and organisations it concerns will still be very much affected by its exposure. This is not a theoretical future liability. It is a risk quietly accumulating in the background of every financial institution that has not yet begun to act on it.

Why Updating Financial Systems Is So Hard

The cryptographic methods underpinning most financial infrastructure today, primarily RSA and elliptic curve cryptography, derive their security from mathematical problems that are extraordinarily difficult for conventional computers to solve. Quantum computing threatens to render those problems tractable, potentially dismantling encryption that currently appears robust.

Responding to that threat, however, means working through some of the most technically complex environments in any industry. Core banking platforms were often built 20, 30, or 40 years ago. Cryptographic functions are frequently embedded deep within application logic, firmware, or hardware, in payment terminals, ATMs, and proprietary systems that were never designed with replaceability in mind.

Replacing or updating these components is not a software patch. It can mean recertifying devices, replacing physical infrastructure, or undertaking large-scale application rewrites, all while maintaining continuous service to customers and satisfying stringent regulatory requirements. Progress is possible, but it is measured in years, not quarters.

Rethinking Security from the Data Outward

The quantum threat is also accelerating a broader rethink of how financial institutions approach security architecture. Perimeter-based defences, firewalls, VPNs, and network segmentation have consistently shown their limitations when attackers can move laterally through systems using legitimate credentials or compromised access. Relying on the boundary to keep data safe has a poor track record.

A more resilient approach centres protection on the data itself. By applying strong controls directly to information as it moves across systems, organisations can maintain security even within legacy environments that cannot be immediately upgraded. Sensitive data remains protected regardless of where it travels or which network it traverses.

Alongside this, crypto agility, the ability to swap out cryptographic algorithms and rotate keys without overhauling entire systems, is becoming a fundamental requirement rather than a nice-to-have. The transition to post-quantum standards will not be a one-time event. Cryptographic best practice will continue to evolve, and institutions that have built flexibility into their architecture will be far better positioned to keep pace.

The Cost of Inaction

The financial sector has a well-established capacity to absorb and adapt to technological change. It has navigated the transition to digital banking, the rise of real-time payments, and successive waves of cybersecurity threats. The quantum challenge is different in one important respect: the timeline for harm is already running.

Regulatory expectations are being set now. Adversaries are collecting encrypted data now. And the internal processes required to modernise a major financial institution’s cryptographic infrastructure take years to complete. The gap between when action is needed and when it can realistically be delivered is not wide, and it is narrowing.

Preparation does not demand panic or the immediate replacement of every system. It demands a clear-eyed audit of where sensitive data lives, an honest assessment of which information carries long-term confidentiality requirements, and a commitment to building security architectures that can evolve as the threat landscape does.

Financial institutions that move early will not simply reduce their quantum exposure. They will emerge with stronger, more adaptable security postures and with the trust of customers, regulators, and partners intact.

Quantum computing will eventually force a reckoning with the cryptographic assumptions on which the financial system is built. The question is no longer whether that reckoning is coming. It is whether institutions will be ready when it arrives.

Learn more at certes.ai

  • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
  • Blockchain & Crypto
  • Cybersecurity in FinTech
  • Data & AI
  • Digital Strategy
  • Fintech & Insurtech

Author

Rob Demain

Published

22 May 2026

Estimated Read time

5Mins

Rob Demain, CEO at e2e-assure, on why the clock is ticking when it comes to IT/OT convergence for Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) and associated organisations

Many critical national infrastructure (CNI) operators lack the ability to protect their infrastructure despite the UK being subjected to daily sub-threshold cybersecurity attacks, according to the Strategic Defence Review 2025. It’s a situation that the Network and Information Systems (NIS) regulations, introduced back in 2018, sought to prevent. But since its inception, just over half of the operators of essential services have updated or strengthened their existing policies and processes, leaving many woefully unprotected. 

In desperate need of reform, NIS is set to be superseded by the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill (CSRB), which is expected become law later this year, at which point a consultation on implementation proposals will commence followed by secondary legislation and an adjustment period for stakeholders. The bill will broaden the scope to include other organisations deemed critical to the national economy i.e. data centres, Managed Service Providers (MSPs) and critical suppliers. Plus, the government reserves the right to extend those categories still further as part of its ‘future proofing’, which will enable changes to be made to the act to accommodate emerging threats and potential targets. 

New Demands 

All of these new entities will need to comply with the Cyber Assessment Framework (CAF), which lays out expected cybersecurity and resilience outcomes. First published in 2018 to support NIS, it has undergone a number of revisions since, with v4.0 released in August 2025. This version places a far greater emphasis on proactive security and decision making based on real threat intelligence. As well as adding new contributing outcomes on understanding threats and secure software development and support, it also expands the sections on security monitoring and response and recovery, while an entirely new category has been added on threat hunting.   

All of this points to a far greater emphasis on being able to demonstrate assurance and proactively monitor all aspects of CNI infrastructure and that means more scrutiny of both IT and Operational Technology (OT). Until recently, securing OT wasn’t seen as a priority. These systems were chiefly concerned with maintaining system availability and minimising downtime. But their increased integration with IT systems to connect with the industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and deliver real-time monitoring, for example, are exposing these systems to attack, with threat actors able to move laterally from one environment to the other.  

The threat posed by IT/OT convergence is well known, but it continues to be the Achilles heel of CNI, as revealed by the Volt Typhoon attack. This saw Chinese nation state actors maintain persistence across CNI in the USA since at least 2021 through the use of Living off the Land techniques, illustrating just how insidious and sustained these cybersecurity attacks can be. 

Securing IT/OT Systems 

It’s these types of threat the CAF addresses through its risk and asset management requirements. Organisations must risk assess systems with respect to their dependencies and interactions with other systems such as IT/OT, and document and understand those dependencies. But other complementary frameworks can also be used to map IT/OT system security, such as the ISMS within ISO27001 from an IT perspective and IEC 62443 from the OT side, in addition to ISO/IEC 27019 for process control systems. 

Being able to follow these frameworks will require organisations to increase their security monitoring of both IT and OT and the transparency of their processes. They will need to transition from being reactive to proactive, and become resilient and risk informed, which will mean many will have to change their approach. These are really the only options available to them in this respect if they are to move the resilience needle. 

The first is to decentralise and harden OT systems while keeping them segregated from IT. However, hardening alone can’t keep pace with digital transformation. Many OT assets cannot support multi-factor authentication (MFA) or accommodate rapid patching because they are downtime sensitive. So, surface hardening alone won’t confer the resilience needed long term.  

The second option is to manage IT and OT together by giving everything an identity in a converged environment, but to do that you need to move the monitoring of OT into the Security Operations Centre (SOC). Centralised monitoring allows threats to be detected across both IT and OT networks, for teams to monitor east-west traffic, and to correlate alerts that might otherwise appear unrelated. And it’s this centralised management that will provide the visibility and control needed to improve IT/OT resilience.  

Converged Cybersecurity 

Such a converged SOC doesn’t just offer continuous visibility over IT, industrial control systems (ICS), OT and cloud environs, but also the real-time triage of critical alerts. These might include unauthorised PLC logic changes, unsafe set-point writes, abnormal OT protocol behaviour, lateral movement in ICS DMZs, OT malware,or unauthorised remote access into OT environments. These alerts are then grouped by operational impact, such as whether they present a safety critical risk or could lead to service degradation, so that they can be prioritised. Weekly threat hunts and detection surface validation over distributed environments provide the threat hunting capabilities needed to meet the CAF requirements and the SOC evidences and provides that all important audit-ready compliance mapping to meet the demands of other frameworks too such as IEC 62443, and ISO/IEC 27019. 

Whether standing up a converged SOC internally or outsourcing, this capability is the most efficient way to adapt to the tightening regulations, particularly as we can expect ‘future proofing’ to lead to yet more demands. The emphasis is now firmly focused on the proactive monitoring of both IT and OT systems together, given their growing dependencies, so it makes sense for those organisations in scope – as well as those who could soon be – to begin to move their OT monitoring from the plant and into the all-seeing all-knowing enclave of the SOC.  

Learn more at e2e-assure.com

  • Cybersecurity
  • Cybersecurity in FinTech
  • Digital Strategy
  • Fintech & Insurtech

Author

Adnan Patka

Published

21 May 2026

Estimated Read time

5Mins

Adnan Patka, Enterprise Manager – Blockchain, AI and Web3 at OVHcloud, on why the convergence of blockchain and AI heralds a brighter future for both

Anthropic’s Mythos team recently assessed various LLM technologies, scoring ChatGPT against Gemini, Grok, Claude and others. The metrics included trustworthiness, but also user deception, sycophancy, encouragement of user delusion and co-operation with human misuse.

Clearly, there’s no doubt that AI can be an enormously positive transformational force: the development of AlphaFold, whose founders won the Nobel Prize, showed us that very clearly. But when AI is being assessed for encouraging ‘user delusion’, it’s clear that it still has a PR problem.

In fact, AI has more than just a PR problem: research from McKinsey highlighted that although almost two thirds (64%) of decision-makers reported that AI was accelerating innovation within their organisation, less than half (39%) could actually report positive financial impact on the business as a result.

The AI Trust Gap

AI doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and the interplay of AI with other technologies is beginning to come into focus. We see that blockchain has great potential to complement AI, providing the transparency and trustworthiness that it needs. In a recent study of Web3 professionals, almost three-quarters (70%) said that blockchain had the potential to fill AI’s trust gaps.

But where else are these issues coming from?

It’s overly glib to say that people and businesses don’t always trust AI. What our research told us was that 32% of Web3 experts believe that privacy is AI’s main challenge. Historically, AI systems have been shown to be biased, and data has often been collected by AI systems for training or other uses – sometimes without user permission. One in seven (14%) of the study also reported that they believed AI needed more transparency to be trustworthy.

Blockchain’s Potential for Supporting AI

Blockchain is well-placed to help tackle these issues. Blockchain was originally created as a database with clear traceable links between items, without the need for a single governing authority.

For example, consider an AI system which optimises food supply chains, allowing a supermarket to maintain lower prices. In an environment where people may distrust AI, they may suspect that the system is simply buying lower-quality stock and shipping it more affordably, potentially meaning shorter shelf-lives and less tasty tomatoes! However, blockchain systems can help to track the provenance of these items, proving where the tomatoes were grown, when, by who, and the subsequent shipping and treatment of them, all in a publicly accessible ledger.

Blockchain systems also automatically check the validity of transactions and link them together in a way that makes fraud very difficult. Changing one transaction generally requires changing the entire ‘course of history’ or having significant control (specifically, controlling over half of the nodes) of an entire blockchain, which is usually unfeasible in most large, public blockchains today. 

Delivering Benefits with Blockchain

There are also a number of cases where blockchain can bring functionality benefits to AI systems. For example, as we saw, privacy is a significant concern for AI users, but blockchain systems are able to authenticate securely without exposing user credentials, through self-sovereign identity. This is especially useful where AI systems need to interface with other tools that might not be as trustworthy as the core system.

Blockchain principles can also support data exchange in federated learning systems, where data is shared between different machine learning platforms. Blockchain can establish the validity of this data while still preserving its integrity and user privacy. This means that AI can be trained on data that is consistent and robust – without breaking trust.

There are a huge number of applications for this kind of technology, but unfortunately, it’s not all plain sailing.

Blockchain’s Challenges

The industry is undergoing a huge change today. Interest in stablecoins – a crypto asset which is attached to the value of a more stable asset like a traditional (fiat) currency or other physical commodity – has quadrupled since October 2025. Large, well-established organisations are considering what private and public blockchains can do for them, which could ultimately have a positive and stabilising impact on the regular bear and bull cycle that the crypto market experiences.

However, some more negative parts of blockchain’s legacy persist. Almost two thirds (61%) of our research sample said that concerns about blockchain’s credibility were having an impact on its integration into the enterprise ecosystem. This includes blockchain’s links with the more unsavoury side of cryptocurrency, including cybercriminal activity. Over half (54%) simply said that there wasn’t enough understanding about blockchain’s capabilities and what it could really do, holding IT decision-makers back from making the most of it.

At the same time, this isn’t a one-way street. AI’s capabilities – in particular, automated, agentic AI – can carry out blockchain activities without needing user input. For example, AI can issue transactions or analyse data and summarise it for monitoring systems. There is tremendous potential for AI to support many different parts of the blockchain ecosystem, summarising trends, automatically carrying out tasks, or executing smart contracts without human intervention.

A Mutually Beneficial Relationship

Blockchain and AI have enormous potential to support each other. There are some organisations already starting to integrate blockchain into AI and vice versa, but it will still be a number of years before the relationship is mature. That said, two-thirds of the Web3 experts we surveyed (67%) believed that it’d take roughly one to four years, with only eight percent saying that it might take five to six years.

Indeed, given the enormous benefits that blockchain can bring to AI, not to mention the rapidly increasing acceptance of blockchain technologies across the financial sector in particular, the convergence of these two technologies is almost inevitable. If we can push past the challenges, the future is bright for both blockchain and AI.

Learn more at ovhcloud.com

  • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
  • Blockchain & Crypto
  • Data & AI
  • Digital Strategy

Author

Daniel Broadhurst

Published

19 May 2026

Estimated Read time

4Mins

Daniel Broadhurst, Commercial Director at Finova, on why the revolution in retail savings distribution may be quiet, but it’s reshaping competitive dynamics in ways that deserve front-line strategic attention, not afterthought status

After two decades working across banking and FinTech, I’ve watched the same investment debate play out repeatedly. When budgets are tight, modernise lending first. Lending drives visible revenue, attracts broker attention, dominates board discussions. Savings, by contrast, gets treated as operational infrastructure: important, but rarely strategic.

But that thinking is starting to shift, and for good reason. Rising funding pressures, increasingly rate sensitive customers and the rapid expansion of savings aggregator platforms are reshaping how deposits are gathered and retained. As a result, some institutions are beginning to question whether lending should always be the starting point for transformation.

How the Market has Evolved

Savings marketplaces such as Hargreaves Lansdown Active Savings and Flagstone have fundamentally changed how deposits move around the market.

Customers can now compare and open accounts across multiple banks through a single digital interface. For savers, that feels completely normal, no different from comparing flights or switching energy suppliers. For banks and building societies, however, it shifts control. Funding is no longer driven by brand strength or branch presence, but by visibility and competitiveness on a digital marketplace.

This became particularly obvious when rates rose sharply in 2022 and 2023. Savers became far more sensitive to small differences in pricing, and institutions without marketplace presence found themselves invisible to active customers. Today, not being present on marketplace platforms means being invisible to active customers. And if you are present but slow to update pricing or onboarding, you could fall out of contention within days.

At the same time, funding economics have changed. In a higher-for-longer rate environment, small delays in repricing can have a material P&L impact. If rate changes require manual workflows and weeks of coordination, cost of funds or deposits move elsewhere. Marketplace platforms also reduce acquisition costs by reaching customers who are actively searching for high yields, rather than relying on expensive brand campaigns or branch networks.

For many mid-tier lenders and building societies, savings has shifted from being a passive funding pool to an actively competitive marketplace.

Where Technology Makes the Difference

But participating in these marketplaces requires more than just a commercial agreement. Without the right technology infrastructure, institutions risk being shut out of what’s quickly becoming a standard distribution channel for retail savings.

To genuinely benefit from these marketplaces, institutions need systems that can keep up: digital onboarding, rapid rate updates, automated account opening.

Institutions still reliant on manual processes or inflexible legacy systems struggle to compete at that speed. There’s a growing gap between those who can use marketplaces as a flexible funding channel and those held back by their architecture. Technology doesn’t just improve efficiency anymore. It determines who can compete.

Should Savings Come First?

None of this diminishes the importance of lending transformation. But it does challenge the assumption that lending must always come first.

Savings transformation projects tend to be shorter and less operationally complex. There’s no underwriting engine to rebuild, no broker integration to manage, no capital modelling layer to rework. That typically means faster implementation and less organisational disruption.

The commercial case is fairly straightforward. Automation reduces operational costs, marketplace participation expands distribution, faster repricing lowers funding drag. These outcomes are measurable and predictable. Lending transformation ROI, by contrast, often depends on volume growth assumptions that may not hold in volatile markets.

For institutions with stable lending operations but facing funding pressures, prioritising savings can be a pragmatic strategic choice, not a secondary consideration.

Turning Technology into an Advantage

The most forward-thinking institutions aren’t simply digitising existing savings processes. They’re rethinking product and distribution design from the ground up.

Modern platforms make it far easier to introduce and refine savings products without the delays that traditionally slow banks down. Instead of taking months to launch something new, institutions can configure products in days, adjust pricing by balance or customer segment, and manage promotional rates automatically, all from the same underlying system. The same core platform can support direct, branch and marketplace channels, creating consistency across distribution whilst avoiding duplication behind the scenes.

This kind of flexibility means banks can respond to changing market conditions without triggering complex internal processes. Products can be tested, inflows monitored and pricing refined as conditions evolve, rather than being locked into rigid structures that are difficult to adjust.

What this Means for Banks

Of course, technology alone doesn’t deliver this shift. The institutions seeing the greatest benefit are those treating savings as a strategic capability rather than a back-office function.

This isn’t about choosing savings over lending indefinitely. Both sides of the balance sheet need modern infrastructure. But the sequencing decision matters. Institutions investing in savings capabilities now are positioning themselves for stronger funding flexibility, better data, and access to distribution channels that are rapidly becoming standard.

The revolution in retail savings distribution may be quiet, but it’s reshaping competitive dynamics in ways that deserve front-line strategic attention, not afterthought status.

Learn more at finova.tech

  • Digital Strategy
  • InsurTech
  • Neobanking

Author

Mark Talbot

Published

22 April 2026

Estimated Read time

5Mins

Mark Talbot, Director, CS AI Initiatives at Appian, reasons that as organisations grow more capable with AI, the challenge shifts from proving its value to expanding access to it

Many organisations have long treated improvement as something that arrives as a top-down effort, not something built with the people doing the work. Specialists designed new processes, discussed them in formal forums, and introduced them through large change programmes that often felt detached from daily work. For most employees, ‘transformation’ meant being asked to follow new rules, rather than designing better ways of working.

AI is starting to reverse that pattern. Instead of concentrating control and decision rights in a small, central group, modern AI tools give more agency to the people closest to the work. They can see what is not working, imagine better approaches, and use AI to help redesign and improve the processes they rely on every day. This shift – which can be described as the democratisation of AI – changes who participates in improving the business. However, it is worth remembering that this shift only works at scale when AI is embedded within a platform that maintains governance, visibility and control. 

Process Improvement in the Hands of Many

Until recently, fixing a broken process often meant filing tickets, waiting for a slot on an IT roadmap, or hoping that a specialist team would eventually address the issue. Creating applications, building automations or redesigning workflows were seen as highly technical tasks. For most employees, waste and inefficiency were things to work around, not things they had the tools or authority to change.

That obstacle is now deteriorating, as long as organizations don’t lose sight of the fact that governance remains essential, particularly in highly regulated environments

AI agents, generative AI and conversational interfaces allow people across the business to shape how work is structured. Within this model, someone in operations can describe an outcome in plain language and have an AI system propose and embed the steps within existing processes. Within a governed platform, non-technical users can adapt existing solutions and automate repetitive tasks without waiting months for central support. At the same time, process insights give developers visibility into what is being built, enabling them to refine, standardise and scale applications more quickly across the organisation.

Data is opening up as well. Data fabrics and related architectures connect scattered information sources into governed layers that a wider audience can access safely. Instead of waiting on static reports, people can access relevant, trusted data when they need it, and use AI to interpret and apply it to their decisions.

When process insight and data access reach this level, best practices move beyond documentation or occasional training. Tools and workflows embed them into daily work, improving performance across the organisation.

Scaling Improvement Across the Organisation

As more individuals understand how their work connects to broader outcomes, organisations unlock a powerful driver of change. Process improvement no longer depends only on a small group of specialists. Employees can recognise when processes are inefficient or risky and have the means to address them at scale, inside an AI platform.

By encoding domain knowledge into AI assistants and digital coworkers within an enterprise-grade AI platform, organisations can share expertise across roles and levels. These AI-powered helpers do not replace professional judgment. They strengthen it. They surface options, highlight inconsistencies and provide context, while humans make the final decision. Over time, each interaction becomes both a learning moment and a new piece of institutional knowledge that organisations can capture and reuse.

In this model, process improvement is no longer episodic or confined to formal transformation projects. It becomes part of everyday work, inside a platform with AI tools that provide real-time feedback and recommendations.

AI, Noise Reduction, and Better Oversight

This shift raises a key question: if AI platforms make analysis, decision support, and process design more accessible, what happens to deep expertise?

There is a concern that easy access to AI advice might weaken people’s understanding. If answers are always a prompt away, will teams still develop the knowledge that comes from working through complexity? If people follow AI suggestions without grasping the logic, how meaningful can human oversight really be?

Over-reliance on instant guidance can create only surface-level competence. People may treat AI outputs as instructions rather than as inputs to their own reasoning.

On the other hand, used well, AI can create more room for expertise, not less.

By handling repetitive tasks and routine decisions, AI reduces the volume of low-value work that consumes people’s time. Teams can then focus on exceptions and refine how they make decisions. Instead of dealing with every routine request themselves, they can focus on work where context and experience matter most.

When AI removes more of the routine burden, teams have more capacity to focus on judgement, process design and oversight. That helps build expertise while keeping improvement connected to the wider goals and governance of the business.

Shaping AI, Not Just Living With It

As organisations grow more capable with AI, the challenge shifts from proving its value to expanding access to it. AI is moving from something that happens to the workforce to AI being something that is built and refined with the workforce.

Organisations should treat people as partners in shaping AI, rather than as operators of automated systems. When AI platforms can be combined with process visibility and human judgement, employees can have an outsized effect on the systems around them. They can influence how work is structured and how decisions are made. In that sense, AI redistributes who participates in designing better ways of working, and creates an opportunity to anchor that shift in thoughtful design and human expertise.

Learn more at appian.com

  • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
  • Data & AI
  • Digital Strategy
  • Fintech & Insurtech
  • People & Culture

Author

Daniel Ehnhage

Published

20 April 2026

Estimated Read time

5Mins

Daniel Ehnhage, Head of AI Transformation at Unit4, on why those that put people and capability at the centre of their AI strategy will unlock far greater and more sustainable value than those led by technology alone.

As the head of AI transformation, it might sound counterintuitive to suggest that artificial intelligence is not the most important part of my work. It makes a significant contribution to the radical change we are looking to achieve, but the technology itself is only about 10% of the solution. A significant part of the planning and investment must be based around addressing issues like the integration of siloed information systems, the building of the organisational capability required to adopt AI safely and finding the right business case. The key is to understand that adopting AI is not only about improving existing processes – it’s about gradually reshaping how we work in a sustainable way. The goal should be phased, practical improvements that build maturity over time.

This can be daunting for any organisation that has well-established operating practices. It requires a deliberate shift from problem‑solving to rethinking how value is created across the organisation. AI is far more capable and can empower your teams to find new solutions such as gathering more intelligence about market opportunities to improve productivity and decision making. The focus should be on enabling internal teams to work smarter through safe, responsible AI adoption. If your organisation is prepared to embark on such change, you must recognise AI becomes most powerful when you bring the right data together. Today, many organisations, including ours, are still maturing in this area. Successful adopters of AI prioritise building data readiness step by step so AI can create real value without overpromising.

Obviously, the role of AI transformation then becomes much broader with the added challenge of having to implement change without disrupting existing business performance. Consequently, there are some key areas where organisations must focus their attention, beyond ensuring they pick the right AI tool…

Structural Change – Put the AI Board in Place

    AI transformation evolves how organisations work. It does not replace everything we humans do today. The goal is to focus on practical, high‑value use cases that improve productivity, quality, and employee experience without creating disruption. A widely debated expression of this change is the concern that AI will replace human employees. Personally, I think this lacks imagination around the positive impact that AI can have on a workplace. Yes, it may reduce the number of repetitive, mundane tasks, but more importantly it will create new ways of working and collaborating.

    However, given how rapidly the technology is moving it is critical your organisation puts the right safeguards in place and agrees policies about ethical usage. That requires adoption of a cross-functional AI Board to provide a framework for embracing AI which will manage the impact of the structural change. This provides focus for your organisation’s approach to AI. The goal should be to agree which tools offer the most benefit for your teams and concentrate on exploiting use cases that will deliver the most benefit.

    The AI Board should be responsible for establishing the governance structure to help the IT and cybersecurity teams to ensure the use of AI is not creating new vulnerabilities. It should provide clarity and safeguards so employees can use AI confidently and responsibly. Our goal is to enable safe experimentation – not restrict innovation.

    People Change – Enabling Collaboration and Experimentation

    The ambition should be to get employees excited about the potential of AI to open up new ways of working that can lead to rewarding opportunities and exciting new challenges. Indeed, it is widely accepted that helping your people to accommodate the change is the biggest challenge you will face, taking up about 70% of the time required to implement the technology. This is because successful implementations depend on collaboration between distinct teams, which in turn depends on breaking down barriers, both for individuals and teams.

    For example, imagine being able to use AI to analyse data from diverse systems such as customer service, product development and marketing to identify new opportunities to support customers.

    Integrating these data sources could be seen as interfering with distinct job functions, so for all employees it is critical to educate them on what will be expected of them and a good start point is explaining how they will be measured. It could include simple measures such as demonstrating usage of AI tools, but if an organisation wants employees to adopt the technology it is also important to empower them through training.

    With the right support, employees will want to experiment, which should also enable them to understand use cases for AI in their work and the competencies they need to develop. This can be achieved through opportunities for cross-functional teams to explore new ways of working and innovating and should be encouraged by senior leaders. It is crucial they set the right tone, support initiatives, celebrate successes and listen to employee feedback.

    Business Change – Building the Right Business Case

    The business case is not just about saving money to solve a specific problem. It is too easy to look at the saved hours and productivity gains from adopting AI as the sum total of the investment costs you must deal with. There are a number of internally focused requirements that you must build into your thinking about AI transformation. There will be costs around the integration work to enable AI to access data from disparate systems. Competence development must be a top priority. Time must also be allocated to the process of change management and how it may disrupt existing business processes. Security must be a top consideration. These are all internally focused tasks, but you must look at them if you are to capitalise effectively on your AI investment.

    It is tempting to become overly excited by the potential of AI as a technology, and certainly it will bring dramatic change to organisations in the years to come, but having experienced the factors necessary for successful transformations, it is absolutely critical senior leadership teams approach AI-enabled change with cool heads and clarity on what they want to achieve. Above all, they must remember success is not dependent on the implementation of the technology, but predominantly on bringing employees with them on the journey. Many commentators talk about the rise of AI-first organisations. Those that put people and capability at the centre of their AI strategy will unlock far greater and more sustainable value than those led by technology alone.

    Learn more at unit4.com

    • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
    • Data & AI
    • Digital Strategy

    Author

    Michele Centemero

    Published

    14 April 2026

    Estimated Read time

    5Mins

    Michele Centemero, EVP Services, Mastercard Europe on why promoting awareness, stronger collaboration and data-sharing, and continued innovation of payments ecosystems, will be critical in reducing the impact of scams and protecting trust in the digital economy

    As our world becomes faster, smarter and more interconnected, scammers are evolving in parallel, developing increasingly sophisticated ways to exploit people’s trust. By harnessing new technologies and behavioural insights, they are refining their methods to appear ever more credible and convincing.

    While attacks on systems continue, today’s fraudsters are increasingly targeting people, often relying on psychological manipulation to achieve their goals.

    Understanding Social Engineering

    Many modern scams fall under the umbrella of social engineering,which isthe use of deception and emotional manipulation to influence a person’s behaviour.

    In the digital world, cybercriminals use these tactics to build false trust, create urgency or fear, and ultimately trick people into sharing confidential information or taking actions that can cause financial harm to themselves or their employer.

    Recent European industry data indicates that social engineering-related fraud and authorised push payments (APPs) – where victims are tricked into sending money to fraudsters posing as legitimate payees – now account for a growing share of overall scam losses[1].

    This is directly impacting a growing number of consumers, with the majority of people saying they’ve experienced some form of scam or fraudulent attempt to capture their personal information highlighting why awareness and vigilance are critical for people of all ages.

    Education is the First Line of Defence

    Protecting consumers and businesses from malicious activity is a priority, and it starts with awareness. When people understand how scams work, they’re more likely to spot the warning signs before it’s too late and be empowered to protect themselves against fraudsters.

    Three of the most common social engineering scams to watch out for are:

    • Imposter fraud – Criminals pose as trusted organisations (such as banks, retailers, or government bodies) to pressure victims into sharing personal or financial details. Research indicates over half (53%) of European consumers have been targeted via phone or voice call scams, with social media scams affecting around two in five people, and tech support impersonation tricking roughly one in three.*
    • Phishing – Fraudulent emails, texts, or messages that are designed to look legitimate, often urging immediate action like clicking a link or resetting a password, leading victims to disclose sensitive information or install malicious software. Nearly three in five (58%) have received phishing emails or fraudulent text messages (63%) and QR code scams are on the rise, impacting nearly a quarter of Europeans.*
    • Romance or honeypot scams – Scammers build emotional relationships over time, gaining trust before exploiting it for financial gain. These types of attacks are also widespread, with one in four people (24%) encountering fake profiles, requests for money, or online relationships that lead to financial exploitation. These scams hit younger generations hardest, with 40% of Gen Z and 35% of Millennials affected, compared with 21% of Gen X and 11% of Boomers.*

    How Businesses Can Protect Consumers from Scams

    With fraudsters increasingly using AI to commit more sophisticated, larger scale attacks, businesses and banks should also consider how they deploy technology to protect customers from bad actors.

    The combination of AI, robust identity controls and open banking can help protect consumers from scams, whether across card and account‑to‑account payments or in fraudulent account openings.

    Looking at identity controls specifically – take the example of continuous identity verification, a fraud prevention measure that verifies the user is who they claim to be throughout the entire lifecycle journey. This helps to prevent scammers from opening or taking over accounts to apply for credit, create ‘mule’ accounts or impersonate others.

    Behavioural biometric data is often used as part of this and can be used to analyse how a user interacts with their device – from typing patterns to on‑screen movements – to flag unusual behaviour.

    More in depth, AI powered transaction analysis can also help banks and financial institutions to stay ahead of payment threats. It provides banks with the intelligence needed to detect and stop payments to scammers, using AI and a network-level view of account‑to‑account transactions to enable intervention before funds leave an account.

    Staying Ahead of an Ever-Evolving Threat

    As social engineering tactics continue to evolve, staying ahead requires a combination of intelligent technology, consumer education, and proactive action from businesses and financial institutions.

    While no single measure can eliminate risk entirely, greater awareness, stronger collaboration and data-sharing, and continued innovation of payments ecosystems will be critical in reducing the impact of scams and protecting trust in the digital economy.

    *Source: This study was conducted by The Harris Poll on behalf of Mastercard from September 8 to September 25, 2025, among 5000+ consumers in the following European markets: EUR: France (n=1,005), Germany (n=1,002), Italy (n=1,016), Spain (n=1,005), UK (n=1,004)

    Mastercard: Transforming the Fight Against Scams

    Innovation – Our advanced AI-powered Identity insights examine digital footprints and assess unique patterns to detect risk and flag suspicious activity indicative of scams.

    Collaboration – We collaborate across industries, partners and organizations worldwide to secure the digital ecosystem, ensuring payments are safe for all. Combating the growing threat of scams demands a collective effort.

    Education – We work with and through our collaborators to provide knowledge and tools that help people protect themselves and their loved ones from scams, while also working to destigmatise the experience of being a victim.

    • $12.5bn in losses from U.S. consumer reported online scams in 2023
    • $486bn in global losses from scams and bank fraud schemes in 2023
    • 22% YoY growth in U.S. consumer scam losses suffered in 2023

    From sender to recipient, we vigilantly monitor accounts and transactions for any elevated scam risk

    Identity insights – Provides actionable identity insights and risk scores for businesses to improve identifying their good customers from the scammers creating “mule” accounts or impersonating someone else with a false identity.

    Transaction patterns – Flags suspicious activity across the money movement flow to prevent payments to scammers before it is sent through the real-time analysis of transaction elements.

    Account confirmation – Enables account validation to confirm account ownership and validate identity details in real-time through our open banking capability, which draws on the safe exchange of consumer-permissioned data to facilitate frictionless and secure payments.

    Learn more at mastercard.com

    [1] Joint EBA-ECB report on payment fraud: strong authentication remains effective, but fraudsters are adapting

    • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
    • Cybersecurity
    • Cybersecurity in FinTech
    • Digital Strategy
    • InsurTech

    Author

    Todd Moore

    Published

    Estimated Read time

    4Mins

    Todd Moore, Global Vice President, Data Security Products at Thales, on why making AI security a boardroom priority today, will help firms position themselves to capture competitive advantage, safeguard customer confidence, and define the future of secure innovation

    Financial Services organisations are responsible for some of the biggest growth in the global economy. Equally, they’re some of the most vulnerable. Like many other sectors, they’re racing to embrace AI, but with adoption comes new security risks.

    According to Thales’ Data Threat Report: Financial Services Edition 81% of FinServ organisations are now investing in GenAI-specific security tools, with nearly a quarter using newly allocated budget. This surge in funding marks a turning point: AI security has moved from being an IT concern to a boardroom priority.

    The fact that new budget lines are being carved out specifically for AI security signals a fundamental shift in corporate strategy. Boards increasingly recognise that protecting AI systems is as critical as safeguarding payment rails or core banking infrastructure. For an industry built on trust, resilience, and regulatory compliance, this investment wave shows how central AI has become to both risk management and competitive growth.

    Balancing AI Innovation and Security

    While FinServ organisations are aware of the security risks AI poses, they’re also seizing upon the opportunities it presents. The report has found that in 2024, FinServ businesses outpaced the broader market in AI deployment, leading in enabling employees to use AI and ahead in AI integration, which has continued into 2025. Additionally, 45% say they’re in the ‘integration’ or ‘transformation’ phases of their GenAI journey, compared to just 33% across wider industries.

    AI’s ability to accelerate services, automate processes, and analyse data at scale makes it an exciting prospect, especially in the financial sector. This makes securing AI systems a priority for FinServ organisations, with increased GenAI integration reflecting developing organisational maturity and progress beyond experimentation.

    The Risk

    Yet the scale of opportunity is matched by the scale of challenge. AI systems require vast amounts of structured and unstructured data to conduct analysis and make recommendations.

    For FinServ organisations, this often includes highly sensitive customer and transactional information, proprietary algorithms, and records bound by strict regulatory oversight. The risk is not only about whether AI systems themselves are secure, but whether the data they’re working from is accurate, as well as whether their adoption inadvertently creates new routes to data exposure and exfiltration.

    Businesses need a clear strategy to fully understand how AI models are operating within their IT infrastructure, the applications they’re interacting with, and the data they’re accessing and pulling from.

    The Response

    Balancing AI’s opportunity and risk means embedding security at every stage, from design to deployment and ongoing monitoring. Newly allocated budgets for AI security, with nearly a quarter of FinServ firms making such investments, show how central AI has become to board-level strategy. These investments move firms beyond reactive fixes to proactive frameworks that evolve with the technology. AI security is no longer just an IT concern, it’s a strategic priority requiring collaboration between security, compliance, and business leaders. By factoring risk into early planning, organisations can align innovation with responsibility and build resilience for the long term.

    Pioneering AI Security

    Building on investment in AI-specific security is only the beginning. As scrutiny intensifies, the firms that will lead are those that treat AI security as integral to business strategy, not a bolt-on layer. Success will require visibility into how models behave, continuous validation against emerging risks, and adaptive controls that evolve with the threat landscape.

    The financial services organisations that embed these safeguards into their core infrastructure will protect sensitive data as well as setting a benchmark for resilience and trust in an AI-driven economy. By making AI security a boardroom priority today, these firms position themselves to capture competitive advantage, safeguard customer confidence, and define the future of secure innovation.

    Thales: AI is the New Insider Threat 

    Thales 2026 Data Threat Report Finds 70% of Organisations Rank AI as Top Data Security Risk

    Data security has taken centre stage as the success of enterprise AI initiatives increasingly hinges on consistent, controlled access to proprietary organisational data sources. The 2026 Thales Data Threat Report examines the complex calculus that organizations must undertake to enable innovation while securing their most valuable asset – their data.

    This research was based on a global survey of 3,120 respondents fielded via web survey with targeted populations for each country, aimed at professionals in security and IT management. 

    Read the Report

    • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
    • Data & AI
    • Digital Strategy
    • Fintech & Insurtech

    Author

    Lee Fredricks

    Published

    10 April 2026

    Estimated Read time

    6Mins

    Lee Fredricks, Director – Solutions Consulting, EMEA at PagerDuty, on why technology leaders should see 2026 as a time for operational resilience to shift from ambition to accountability

    Technology leaders should see 2026 as a time for operational resilience to shift from ambition to accountability. In 2025, too many cloud services outages and disruptions took place across the public and private sectors, and now regulatory, technological and cultural pressures are converging to say that enough is enough.

    Outages often translate into broader repercussions for the organisation, including revenue impact, customer churn, share price pressure and potentially regulatory reporting obligations. Operational metrics must now be discussed alongside financial KPIs at the board level. C-suite leaders understand accountability, especially within the very regulated financial sector.

    DORA’s First Birthday

    It’s now been one year since the implementation of the Digital Operational Resilience Act, or DORA, introduced by the EU to strengthen the digital resilience of financial institutions. By now, organisations have had time to consider moving from mere compliance to creating a competitive edge from their investments.

    Enterprise tech leaders are in the middle of a balancing act. They’re managing ongoing modernisation and transformation initiatives while navigating multi-jurisdictional regulatory scrutiny. At the same time, they face constant pressure from the board and must meet evolving customer needs—all competing for immediate attention. The stakes have never been higher. Operations teams are no longer viewed as a back-office IT function. Their success in keeping the organisation running and driving revenue is now a board-level concern.

    For organisations today, IT is business delivery.

    A year of DORA has seen organisations make the shift from focusing solely on mere compliance to setting meaningful demonstrable testing, third-party risk visibility and strictly mandated incident reporting timelines. Financial firms have lessened their exposure to risky situations. Payments providers aren’t only reliant on a single cloud region or SaaS supplier, or unable to provide evidence of real time incident response efforts and auditable logs after a disruption.

    One benefit of these overall systemic improvements is enhanced supply chain accountability. Financial institutions and their technology partners are both liable for potential penalties and reputational risk, which makes it highly critical that they can prove their resilience capabilities.

    Nevertheless, operational resilience is a continuous discipline. A fragmented incident response can expose firms to regulatory and reputational risk again and again if not addressed systemically. As such, many organisations are looking toward AI agents as part of a move towards ‘no-touch’ operations.

    From Autonomy to Self-Healing

    Under set policies, autonomous agents can handle incident response and operational tasks, such as detection, triage and remediation. AI agents deployed in operations may become the backbone of L1 (first contact) and L2 (more skilled) support. Contrast this with the traditional, reactive, ticket-driven model of IT. The industry can move much faster and with a higher successful close rate. Leveraging intelligent automation reduces mean time to detection/resolution and KPIs around lower incident volumes reaching L3. Additionally, it can lead to improved service availability percentages. Well integrated agents that actually support existing operations teams also help manage the issues around talent shortages faced by many organisations.

    A typical incident lifecycle with agentic processes includes several stages depending on the model, but can be summarised as: Anomaly detected, correlated with recent deployment, a remediation script triggered and a human notified if set thresholds were breached. Such no-touch operations are golden in any sector, but particularly with industries such as digital banking and retail, where peak traffic periods demand near-instant response and poor customer experience is a powerful motivator for users to instantly change providers.

    IT Standardisation

    In addition, consider standardisation as part of strategic infrastructure best practices. There is a role for central operations clouds and operational ‘golden paths’ as solid foundations for reliable operational scale and dependability. Standardisation enables consistent, scalable operational excellence especially across large, distributed enterprises. ‘There is one way and it is the right way’ can be a great time and stress saver for operational teams – particularly if a regulatory notification and clear evidence is required.

    For example, a global bank might define a single golden path for deploying customer-facing applications with pre-approved monitoring, incident response workflows, and regulatory reporting templates built in. In an outage, teams follow the same process and automatically capture the evidence required for regulators, avoiding confusion, delays, and compliance risk.

    All of these possibilities take us to an exciting new place for an evolved set of developer and operational roles. When organisations enable AI to reshape daily engineering work away from manual firefighting and low-value work it frees headspace and time for developers and engineers to move into more architectural thinking and intelligent oversight of automated systems. These augmented teams will be empowered to manage simple situations instantly and devote more time and attention to the more difficult issues – the edge cases and the strategic necessities.

    Enabling Agentic AI

    Using another lens, businesses with agentic IT operations capabilities support their current talent, extending their reach and the speed of their response. The winning organisations will be those who deploy agents strategically, freeing up humans for that higher-value work – i.e. L3 expert support – and setting new standards for operational excellence that customers can rely on. Ideally this means making commensurate investment in existing people, training and organisational change management. A culture of continual upskilling and forecasting that points humans to where they make the best impact will be just as important as the autonomous tech tools working alongside them.

    Autonomous agents allow many new services, and one of those can be described as self-healing operations. This evolution of the operations world is where predictive detection, automated remediation and embedded resilience all coalesce. With an autonomous process of testing, maintenance and remediation, organisations can focus on finely measuring improved customer trust. They can also enjoy the productivity and revenue benefits of high business continuity and availability.

    AI is still a new technology, and many are legitimately concerned with the concept of autonomous agents. There is a need for clear guardrails, audit trails and explainability in automated remediation, and many technology partners have invested in their ability to support across these areas. Moreover, firms must maintain direction with policy-driven automation rather than uncontrolled autonomy, particularly in regulated industries.

    Mandate Operational Excellence

    This year is very likely to reward organisations that treat operational resilience as core to their business strategy. Those investing in automation, standardisation and governance will set the pace for their industries in an AI-enabled and increasingly autonomous world.

    Regulators are already expanding their scrutiny and reliability expectations beyond financial services firms. Across the world, jurisdictions are increasingly looking to strengthen their economies and digital services in particular through resilience and cybersecurity measures. At the same time, agentic operations, and the organisational performance benefits they support, will rapidly become table stakes technology in all sectors. Inevitably, customers will judge brands on digital reliability as much as price or product features when evidence of outages are a click or a headline search away.

    Start now. Audit internal incident response maturity, review the potentially complex web of third-party IT dependencies and identify where automation makes clear business sense. While resilience is an investment in compliance, it is also critical to ensure customer trust and future stability.

    Learn more at pagerduty.com

    • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
    • Cybersecurity in FinTech
    • Data & AI
    • Digital Strategy
    • Fintech & Insurtech
    • Infrastructure & Cloud

    Author

    Jamil Jiva

    Published

    8 April 2026

    Estimated Read time

    5Mins

    Jamil Jiva, Global Head of Asset Management at Linedata, on why the next chapter of AI-driven finance will be shaped not just by technology, but by creativity

    Beyond Data: Where AI Finds Unexpected Inspiration

    The discussion about training AI largely focuses on concerns that accessible, human-generated data is limited and may soon run out completely. If this is the case, how can technology that depends on a seemingly endless stream of inputs to iterate, test, and adapt deliver the results we expect? AI relies on structured, high-quality data to thrive, but what happens when we run out of spreadsheets and financial models to train AI? We need new data sources to ensure it continues to learn, adapt, and deliver accurate insights. Video games stand out as offering some of the richest, most expansive, and complex environments for AI training.

    At first glance, video games and financial operations seem to belong to entirely separate worlds. However, AI connects these domains, with models leveraging virtual-world training to tackle real-world financial tasks. Financial documents such as credit agreements and tax returns are often convoluted, unstructured, and labour-intensive to process. Therefore, AI designed to interpret such data must possess strategic reasoning, real-time adaptability, and advanced pattern recognition. So, could video games be the ideal training ground?

    Contrary to popular belief, gameplay can significantly improve how people think, learn, and solve problems. The abilities required to excel at video games closely reflect the skills AI systems must acquire today.

    Levelling Up: What Virtual Worlds Teach Machines

    Practice leads to proficiency, a principle that applies to both humans and AI. Interestingly, many of the most significant advances in AI development have emerged not from conventional data training, but from taking creative approaches. Games push AI to emulate human thinking and sharpen its statistical intuition.

    These game-trained models are neither expensive nor heavily reliant on resources, and they sidestep the issue of data scarcity. As a result, they are actively shaping the future of financial intelligence. The examples below offer a clear demonstration of the potential of gameplay.

    Virtual Economies: Lessons from World of Warcraft

    World of Warcraft, with millions of players interacting in an immersive and dynamic world, features an economy that closely mirrors real-world financial systems, complete with inflation, supply and demand cycles, and fraud risks. The game even inspired one of the most renowned epidemiological studies: when the in-game ‘Corrupted Blood’ plague spread unpredictably, scientists used it as a model for real-world pandemic simulations.

    Financial models depend on vast, interconnected data networks, much like the economy in World of Warcraft. Organisations employ AI to continuously monitor patterns, detect anomalies such as fraud or misstatements, and optimise data extraction for financial reporting, mirroring the way AI analyses virtual economies.

    Urban Chaos: GTA V and Real-World Simulation

    While Grand Theft Auto (GTA) V is famous for its open-world chaos, researchers have leveraged its traffic systems and non-player character behaviours to train AI for applications such as self-driving cars, crime pattern recognition, and urban planning. At its heart, GTA provides a platform for AI to process vast amounts of unstructured data in real time.

    Similarly, financial institutions manage millions of data points from a wide range of sources. Their AI tools must automatically extract insights, classify information, and normalise complex formats. GTA serves as a controlled yet intricate environment for simulating scenarios, enabling AI to optimise for real-world tasks through ongoing feedback loops.

    Sandbox Creativity: Minecraft and Adaptive Thinking

    Minecraft provides a sandbox environment where AI learns through exploration. OpenAI even trained an AI to play Minecraft by watching YouTube tutorials, closely mimicking the way humans learn. Similarly, any AI used by financial institutions must be able to self-learn from new document types and structures, adapting just as a Minecraft AI learns to survive.

    Reinforcement learning, where AI improves based on feedback, is a key element of intelligent document processing. Thanks to its vast scalability and dynamic, hierarchical environments, Minecraft serves as an ideal setting for navigation and repeated feedback loops, helping models develop domain-flexible reasoning.

    Multiplayer Mayhem: Dota 2 and the Art of Teamwork

    Dota 2 stands out as one of the most complex competitive games ever created, presenting AI with challenges in real-time decision-making, strategic coordination, and adaptability. OpenAI Five, trained on the equivalent of 45,000 years of gameplay within just 10 months, managed to defeat renowned, professional human teams. As anyone who has mastered StarCraft knows, tactical adaptability is essential for gaining the upper hand.

    Financial institutions operate in environments that are just as dynamic as the shifting levels of a video game. Market conditions, regulations, and data formats are in constant flux. AI must be able to adjust to new document structures, handle missing information, and navigate edge cases, much like AlphaStar adapts to an opponent’s unpredictable strategies.

    From Pixels to Profits: Bringing Game Logic to Finance

    Whether to streamline operations, mitigate risks, or make informed decisions in today’s data-intensive financial landscape, AI has the potential to fundamentally transform financial offerings, delivering personalised and evolving experiences that foster understanding and combine seamlessness with regulatory compliance.

    Yet AI does not simply require more data from which to learn; it needs better data. Video games offer near limitless, pre-built, highly complex digital worlds where AI can test hypotheses, simulate scenarios, and refine decision-making models. By utilising these unique environments, AI is challenged to enhance its speed, accuracy, and efficiency. 

    The world of video games has many lessons we can learn when building AI, and given AI’s remarkable ability for transferable learning, it makes sense to leverage these pre-trained models to power essential financial workflows. It is more than just document processing; it is thinking, and the same intelligence that enables AI to defeat world champions in Dota 2 is now driving the next generation of financial AI solutions.

    The next chapter of AI-driven finance will be shaped not just by technology, but by creativity. By embracing unconventional data sources such as the immersive complexity of video games, industry leaders will unlock new possibilities for personalisation, security, and customer engagement.

    Learn more at linedata.com

    • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
    • Data & AI
    • Digital Strategy
    • Fintech & Insurtech
    • Neobanking

    Author

    Richard Doherty

    Published

    Estimated Read time

    6Mins

    Richard Doherty, Head of Wealth & Asset Management, Publicis Sapient, on how asset managers must redesign their enterprise for AI-driven decision intelligence

    The asset management industry is entering a structural inflexion point. The first wave of AI focused on improving productivity through copilots and automation. The next wave will fundamentally reshape how decisions are made, executed, and governed across the enterprise. This is not a technology upgrade. It is an operating model shift.

    Despite significant investment, many firms remain trapped in fragmented AI experimentation. A majority are yet to realise meaningful economic returns from AI, not due to lack of capability, but due to a failure to redesign how intelligence is applied across the organisation. The gap between ambition and outcome is not a technology problem. It is a structural one.

    From Automation to Decision Intelligence

    The industry conversation has evolved. The question is no longer whether to adopt AI, but how to scale it across the enterprise. However, most firms are still approaching this challenge through the lens of automation, identifying tasks that can be executed faster or at lower cost. This delivers incremental value, but does not address the underlying constraint: the structure of decision-making within the organisation.

    Traditional operating models are built around sequential workflows. Work moves from function to function: research, compliance, operations, and distribution, each dependent on the previous stage. This creates latency, duplication, and fragmentation. Agentic operating models shift the focus from tasks to decisions.

    Instead of asking “Which processes can we automate?”, leading firms are asking: “Which decisions can be augmented or owned by intelligent systems?”

    This shift enables organisations to move from sequential workflows to parallel decision systems; from human-led analysis to AI-assisted reasoning; from periodic insight to continuous intelligence. The result is not a marginal improvement. It is a step-change in how the enterprise operates.

    The Pressures Driving Change

    This transformation is not happening in a vacuum. Asset managers face mounting structural pressures: margin compression driven by fee pressure and passive competition; rising operational complexity from regulation and product proliferation; and advisor capacity constraints that limit scalable growth. Agentic operating models directly address all three.

    By automating complex workflows, rather than individual tasks, firms can significantly increase advisor and analyst capacity without proportional cost increases. Parallel decision systems reduce the time required to launch products, respond to market events, and deliver client insights. This compresses cycles from months to days. Continuous monitoring of guidelines, portfolios, and operational processes reduces exposure to regulatory breaches and operational failures.

    These are not theoretical benefits. They represent measurable improvements in cost-to-serve, time-to-market, and operational resilience.

    Not all Intelligence is the Same

    To scale AI effectively, organisations must recognise that not all problems require the same type of intelligence. Enterprise AI operates across three distinct layers, and conflating them is one of the primary reasons AI initiatives fail to scale.

    Deterministic systems execute predefined rules with complete consistency. They are essential for functions where there is zero tolerance for error, trade validation, settlement processing, and regulatory reporting. If a business outcome must be identical every time, deterministic logic remains the correct approach.

    Predictive systems use historical data to forecast outcomes. Applied in areas such as portfolio risk modelling, fraud detection, and client churn prediction, they generate probabilities and insights, but they do not interpret context or make decisions independently.

    Agentic systems operate where problems require interpretation, judgment, and contextual understanding, investment guideline interpretation, regulatory document analysis, portfolio insights, and client communication. These systems can reason across complex information, generate insights, and take action within defined boundaries.

    The ‘Different but Valid’ Dilemma

    A critical challenge in adopting agentic systems is understanding how they behave. Traditional software produces identical outputs. Agentic systems produce reasoned outputs.

    This introduces what I call the ‘different but valid’ dilemma. An agent may take a different reasoning path from a human and arrive at a different, but still correct, conclusion. This variability is not an error. It is inherent to reasoning systems.

    The real risk lies in hallucination, outputs that are not grounded in data or evidence. Managing this requires organisations to clearly define where variability is acceptable. All AI-driven processes sit on a spectrum: deterministic actions with no variability (trade execution), predictive actions with controlled variability (risk scoring), and agentic actions with higher variability (investment insights).

    Leading firms design systems where agents perform reasoning, deterministic systems enforce execution, and humans retain oversight on high-consequence decisions. This balance enables both flexibility and control.

    The Operating Model Shift

    The most significant change is not technological; it is organisational. Traditional models are built on functional workflows. Agentic models are built on coordinated decision systems.

    Consider what launching a new investment product looks like under each model. In a traditional model, it involves sequential handoffs between teams, compliance reviews the guidelines, operations configures the systems, and distribution drafts the client narrative. Each stage waits for the last.

    In an agentic model, intelligent systems operate in parallel: compliance agents interpret guidelines, operations agents configure constraints, distribution agents generate client narratives, and governance agents validate outputs. This orchestration compresses timelines, reduces friction, and enables continuous decision-making. It represents a fundamental redesign of how work is performed.

    Governance: the Foundation for Trust

    Trust is the prerequisite for scaling AI. Without it, adoption stalls, not because the technology fails, but because the organisation cannot adequately explain or defend the decisions it makes.

    Leading firms implement governance models built on three principles. First, explainability: every decision must be traceable and auditable. Second, authority boundaries: agents operate within clearly defined limits. Third, human oversight: high-consequence decisions remain under human control.

    Regulatory expectations will continue to evolve, but one principle remains constant: organisations must be able to explain how decisions are made.

    Scaling AI is a Leadership Challenge

    Executives must take a deliberate approach across four areas:

    • Define the intelligence model: map business problems to deterministic, predictive, or agentic systems.
    • Build the foundation: invest in data, infrastructure, and orchestration capabilities.
    • Redesign the operating model: shift from workflows to decision systems.
    • Implement governance to ensure transparency, control, and compliance.

    Start with high-value use cases and expand rapidly across the enterprise. The firms that act now will establish a structural advantage in cost, speed, and decision quality. Those that do not risk being constrained by legacy operating models that cannot scale with the demands of modern markets.

    The Question is not if, it is Who

    The industry is not simply adopting new technology. It is redefining how decisions are made. The firms that succeed will not be those that deploy AI tools in isolation. They will be those who design the right form of intelligence for each problem, redesign their operating models around intelligent systems, and scale agentic capabilities across the enterprise.

    This shift is already underway. The question is no longer whether it will happen. The question is which firms will lead, and which will be forced to follow.

    Learn more at publicissapient.com

    • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
    • Blockchain & Crypto
    • Data & AI
    • Digital Strategy
    • Fintech & Insurtech

    Author

    Martijn Gribnauis

    Published

    23 March 2026

    Estimated Read time

    5Mins

    Martijn Gribnauis, Chief Customer Success Officer at Quant, on why Agentic AI will redefine financial services

    A recent Google Cloud survey showed that only 13% of finance organisations are currently using agentic artificial intelligence. This number needs to, and will rise when you consider that 88% of financial leaders are seeing ROI from generative AI already. Agentic is the next and most advanced evolution of artificial intelligence the world has ever seen. 

    Agentic AI is not on the way. It is here and already reshaping how forward-leaning financial institutions operate. In 2026, for IT and finance leaders to build an insurmountable competitive lead they must deploy agentic AI in every area where it can safely and effectively create value. The institutions that hesitate will find their business models under threat from familiar competitors and newcomers alike.

    Reinvention of Core Processes

    Agentic AI is poised to reinvent core financial processes. Bookkeeping, record maintenance, and period-end close are nearing complete automation. Month-end processes that once required late-night, stress-filled marathons will evolve into continuous, largely automated cycles. IT teams will no longer spend evenings on high alert waiting for failures. 

    This shift also frees IT leaders, finance teams, and operations functions from monotonous repetitive tasks. Instead of focusing on system uptime and manual reconciliation, they will collaborate with the C-suite on strategic initiatives that drive growth and revenue. 

    Understanding Why Adoption Is So Low

    Despite the promise of Agentic AI, there is understandable caution. Some 80% of organisations have reported ‘risky behaviour’ from AI agents, and in the world of finance that is an alarming number. Finance is one of the most regulated, risk-averse sectors in the world. The fear of losing control remains the primary reason so few in the industry have embraced Agentic AI.

    Loss of control and fear of catastrophic error

    Financial leaders fear that an autonomous system could go ‘off script’, mis-route payments, misinterpret rules, or inadvertently cause compliance breaches. In finance, even small errors can trigger major financial or regulatory consequences.

    Security and data privacy concerns

    Large AI models require huge quantities of sensitive data. Organisations worry about breaches, cyber-attacks, or manipulation. An AI agent with improperly configured permissions could, in theory, execute fraudulent transactions or expose confidential customer information.

    Bias and fairness risks

    If AI agents make decisions using incomplete or fragmented data, they risk perpetuating or amplifying bias. At scale, biased decision-making can undermine customer trust and expose firms to legal and regulatory challenges.

    Regulatory ambiguity and audit difficulty

    Regulators are still determining how to govern agentic AI. Some organisations fear that early adoption could unintentionally violate rules or create future audit vulnerabilities.

    These fears are legitimate, but not insurmountable.

    Tackling the Adoption Barriers: A Practical Blueprint for Finance Leaders

    To capitalise on Agentic AI’s immense potential, leaders must take a structured approach grounded in business value, security, and trust.

    1. Start With Clear, Measurable ROI and Efficiency Gains

    In finance, adoption accelerates when decision-makers see proof of value.

    Start by automating repetitive processes. Agentic AI can handle tasks like data entry, reconciliation, invoice matching, and initial fraud checks faster and more accurately than humans. This leads to reduced operational overhead as automation lowers labour costs, shortens processing times, and reduces error rates. Demonstrating these savings through case studies or internal pilots is critical to changing minds. 

    AI agents can enable revenue growth by analysing huge data sets to identify new investment opportunities, optimise trading strategies, and generate personalised product recommendations. Each of these capabilities directly impacts top-line growth.

    2. Strengthen Risk Management and Compliance Through AI

    Agentic AI will improve risk management when deployed responsibly. This starts with real-time fraud detection. AI agents can monitor transactions continuously, identifying patterns that suggest fraud long before traditional systems would detect an anomaly.

    Continuous monitoring is also incredibly helpful when it comes to compliance. AI agents excel at ensuring adherence to KYC and AML regulations. They can automatically maintain audit trails, identify missing documentation, flag anomalies, and escalate issues instantly.

    Enhanced stress testing and scenario modelling can both be completed via Agentic AI. It can simulate complex market environments more dynamically than legacy tools, providing deeper insights into vulnerabilities and improving resilience. When showcased and presented in this context, agentic AI becomes a risk-reduction tool in the eyes of decision makers. 

    3. Directly Address Security and Trust Concerns

    Trust is the cornerstone of adoption. Implement enterprise-grade security architecture that includes encryption, secure APIs, strict access controls, and continuous monitoring of agent behaviour. And, use explainable and transparent AI systems (XAI) so your finance teams understand the reasoning behind decisions. XAI helps provide interpretable outputs that support auditability and regulatory compliance.

    Start small with a controlled, low-risk pilot. A proof-of-concept in a non-critical workflow helps teams understand the technology, gather evidence, and build internal support before scaling. Produce numbers based reporting that speaks the language of the people who make the decisions. Show, don’t just tell them how agentic will move the business forward.

    4. Highlight the Competitive Advantage

    Agentic AI adoption is not just an efficiency upgrade. It is a competitive imperative. AI agents create faster innovation cycles by accelerating product development, service delivery, and operational improvements.

    They also provide superior customer experience. From instant account servicing to personalised financial recommendations, Agentic AI delivers the speed, personalisation, and convenience customers expect. Plus, it scales exponentially. No matter how many people call in at the same time, an agentic agent will answer immediately. Agentic AI reduces up to 86% of time spent in complex workflows that were traditionally handled only by people. This will be huge in getting ahead of your competition. 

    5. Build Momentum Through Internal Champions

    Adoption increases when respected leaders advocate from within. Mid-level managers, AI-literate staff, or members of the C-suite who understand the technology can serve as champions. Use them and their beliefs to drive alignment, communicate benefits, and counter misconceptions. The more people from different departments and levels of the organisation that talk up the technology, the more likely you are to get buy-in. 

    Your Time is Now

    Agentic AI will redefine financial services. The organisations that act today will build capabilities, insights, and competitive advantages that late adopters will not be able to replicate. Finance leaders must begin asking where agentic AI can support their business, where it can remove friction, where it can unlock growth, and where it can transform operations. The firms that act now will lead the industry. Those that hesitate will not get the chance to catch up.

    The only remaining question for finance organisations is not whether agentic AI will change the industry, but how quickly they choose to deploy it.

    Learn more at quant.ai

    • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
    • Data & AI
    • Digital Payments
    • Digital Strategy

    Author

    Richard Ford

    Published

    20 March 2026

    Estimated Read time

    3Mins

    Richard Ford, Chief Technology Officer at Integrity360, on why cybersecurity must move beyond control and embrace trust

    Cybersecurity has long been focused on building walls, but the biggest threat is already inside. Today, insider risk accounts for nearly half of all data breaches. This isn’t just about malicious actors, it’s about regular employees and trusted contractors who make simple, costly mistakes.

    Remote and hybrid working has only intensified the problem. With teams distributed and work happening across cloud platforms and collaboration tools, it’s harder than ever to track what’s happening, let alone why. Although AI tools promise efficiency, they also introduce new vulnerabilities. Employees pasting code into chatbots or bypassing corporate tools to meet deadlines. All seemingly innocent, but highly risky.

    Insider Risk

    Ransomware gangs know this and are now skipping the technical breach altogether and going straight to the source – a company’s insiders. Whether through bribery or social engineering, attackers are finding that humans can be the weakest link in even the most well-defended environments. Despite this, most security budgets still focus outward.

    Traditional tools like data loss prevention (DLP) struggle to keep up with today’s dynamic and unpredictable user behaviour. Meanwhile, simulated phishing tests and punitive training schemes often breed resentment, not resilience. It’s time to rethink the model.

    Human Error, Human Fix

    We need to stop treating employees as the problem and start making them part of the solution. Enter Human Risk Management (HRM), a behavioural approach to cybersecurity that recognises the complexity of modern work. HRM tools monitor real-world user behaviour, detect anomalies in context, and deliver just-in-time nudges to prevent risky actions before they happen. Instead of punishing mistakes, they help users avoid them in the first place.

    Of course, technology alone won’t fix the issue, culture is key. Leadership must champion security as a shared responsibility, not an IT rulebook. Success should be measured by how quickly employees improve, not how often they slip up. Awareness campaigns need to be practical and rooted in real-world behaviour.

    Organisations also need to understand how digital transformation has changed the risk landscape. Shadow IT is no longer a fringe issue, it’s how work gets done. Whether it’s a developer using an AI plugin or a marketer sharing files via a personal drive, employees will always find the fastest path to productivity. Security must meet them there, not block the way.

    Cybersecurity Built on Trust

    The smartest businesses are those that treat identity like infrastructure, and behaviour like a vital data stream. They invest in tools that adapt to people, not the other way around. This means a move away from a surveillance approach and embracing the nuance of human error and design systems that support.

    In a world where threats are increasingly internal and AI is both a risk and a tool, cybersecurity can no longer be about control. It must be about trust, and that starts with understanding the humans behind the keyboards.

    Learn more at integrity360.com

    • Cybersecurity
    • Cybersecurity in FinTech
    • Digital Strategy
    • Infrastructure & Cloud

    Author

    Pierre Noel

    Published

    Estimated Read time

    4Mins

    Pierre Noel, Field Chief Information Security Officer at Expel, on why security with community-based governance is a key business pillar that better positions organisations to become more resilient and target growth

    It’s been a particularly rocky start to 2026 for the global cybersecurity landscape. From the Substack data breach to PayPal credential-stuffing attacks in February, we are not looking at IT failures alone. These attacks are balance-sheet events: direct assaults on business value, triggering remediation costs and long-term impacts on financial health. Compounded with the conflict with Iran, leading to potential ramifications in the cyber realm, it’s more important than ever for the C-suite to be aligned on cybersecurity priorities.

    Despite this, a glaring disconnect remains in planning and execution. Expel’s research found that while 85% of finance leaders view cybersecurity as a key component of business planning, only 40% express full confidence in security’s ability to align with business strategy. To bridge this gap, CISOs must move from reporting on activity and start reporting on resilience and unit cost.

    Translating Alert Volume Into Unit Cost

    CISOs must change how they present the value of their operations. CFOs are largely indifferent to technical metrics like the ‘millions of blocks pings’ or ‘SOC alert volume’ – to a finance leader, an alert is simply another form of disruption to daily operations.

    To fix this, CISOs should introduce the ‘unit of cost protection’. By breaking down security spend into the cost required for a single transaction or business unit, CFOs can understand and manage it from experience. A tiered approach works best here: high-risk business units justify higher protection costs than low-risk ones. This allows CFOs to treat security as a scalable operational expense rather than a black hole of additional tooling – the kind of framing that also resonates in a boardroom.

    Mapping Investment to Business Risk Exposure

    Expel’s research shows that while 43% of finance decision-makers are confident that security can prioritise investments based on risk, only 46% are confident that security can deliver cost-efficient solutions. To move in the right direction, CISOs should shift from ‘vulnerability management’ to thinking about ‘business risk exposure’, requiring a different view of how threats unfold over time.

    It’s all about asking the right questions. Instead of requesting more firewalls to protect a specific timeframe, start asking for the cost of securing diverse digital ecosystems across an extended risk window. The 2026 Winter Olympics is a good example: Russian-led cyber campaigns began raising concerns months before a single athlete arrived in Italy, proving that risk isn’t a one-day event but an ongoing operational cost.

    For European organisations, this framing is increasingly non-negotiable. While NIS2 and DORA help make the cost of under-investment concrete and quantifiable, the upcoming Cyber Resilience Act (CRA), with key reporting requirements starting in September 2026, extends this pressure to anyone manufacturing or selling digital products in the EU. Even for purely domestic UK entities, the new UK Cyber Security and Resilience Bill is moving the goalposts toward these same high standards. Ultimately, CFOs must understand that cybersecurity isn’t just about preventing loss; it’s a prerequisite for safe and secure growth.

    The Reputational Multiplier

    So those are the questions to ask, but how do CISOs deal with the ‘unknown unknowns’, specifically long-term brand damage? While compliance fines under NIS2 or DORA may be straightforward (and important) to model, they rarely represent the full scope of the potential damage. In such scenarios, CISOs should propose a reputation multiplier: a framework for quantifying the financial fallout of brand damage in a language CFOs know and trust, looking past immediate recovery costs to factor in the long-term implications of re-establishing market trust.

    The 2026 CarGurus breach illustrates this well. Impacting 12 million users, the cost wasn’t purely technical; it also came from the stock price dip and marketing spend required to repair the brand. For UK companies, where regulatory scrutiny is heightened, that multiplier effect is even more pronounced. This is the language of a CFO, and it helps CISOs better translate the urgency and relevance of a strong cybersecurity posture.

    Standardising the Language of ROI

    Closing the gap between CFOs and CISOs needs more than just better data; it needs a shared vocabulary. By standardising the language of ROI, CISOs transform cybersecurity from a vague insurance policy into a transparent value driver fully trusted by finance teams. Move away from complicated defensive jargon toward a unified framework of unit costs, and the gap between the CISO and CFO starts to close.

    Security has become a key pillar of business operations, and in the current threat environment, it’s genuinely a community-based governance issue. The organisations that get this right aren’t just more resilient. They’re better positioned to grow.

    Learn more at expel.com

    • Cybersecurity
    • Cybersecurity in FinTech
    • Digital Strategy
    • Infrastructure & Cloud

    Author

    Dr. Yvonne Bernard

    Published

    18 March 2026

    Estimated Read time

    5Mins

    Dr. Yvonne Bernard, CTO at Hornetsecurity, on meeting the challenge of managing the speed of AI adoption and harnessing its defensive capabilities while mitigating the risk of uncontrolled adoption

    The past year has been defined by acceleration. Threat actors rapidly embraced automation, AI, and social engineering. Scaling their tactics at unprecedented speed, while defenders raced to keep pace. Historically, defensive resilience evolves in step with attacker innovation, but in 2025 that balance began to falter.

    In an analysis of over 6 billion monthly emails, Hornetsecurity’s Security Labs found that the volume of sophisticated threats grew faster than most security teams could adapt to. Malware-infected emails soared by 131%, scams increased by nearly 35%, and phishing attempts – powered by access to advanced AI – rose by 21% from the previous year.

    Typically, attacks, even at volume, are easily filtered by good firewalls and secure email gateways. But the sophistication and AI-led nature of 2025’s boom made it even harder for organisations to defend themselves. The question now is: can security teams and businesses wrestle back control?

    Evolving Cyberattack Landscape

    ​​AI enhances efficiency and precision. As such, cybercriminals use it to launch faster, more convincing and adaptive attacks, ranging from deepfakes to credential stuffing. As an example, there is a concerning trend of attackers increasingly using ‘MFA bypass kits’ to create deceptive login pages. These pages capture not only the user’s credentials but also have logic built in to handle MFA prompts as well. ​​The unsuspecting user is then passed to the real login page for the target service and meanwhile the ‘kit’ grabs a copy of the user’s session token. This allows the attacker to impersonate the person and access their data. ​​​​​

    Examples of such kits include Evilginx (open source) and the W3LL panel. Protecting against these attacks can be challenging, as they are adept at bypassing MFA safeguards. Threat actors often use compromised LinkedIn accounts, for example, to gain access to substantial information and connections. This enables them to impersonate trusted business connections. Paired with the weaponisation of Agentic AI, this will magnify existing vulnerabilities within an organisation, while introducing new ones that defy traditional containment models.

    As it stands, the lack of oversight within organisations on the extent of AI’s adoption by cybercriminals has enabled the emergence of ‘Ransomware 3.0.’ Ransomware has evolved past simple encryption and exfiltration, with this next phase focusing on LLM-driven orchestration and a shift to data integrity manipulation.

    To counter AI-accelerated compromises and ‘Ransomware 3.0’ in 2026, organisations must adopt a Zero Trust-based cyber resiliency strategy. This requires businesses to implement strong, non-phishable machine authentication, strict least-privilege access, and constant monitoring to protect the integrity of the data that users and AI agents can access. It should become the baseline expectations rather than aspirational goals for this year.

    The Secret Value of ‘Least Privilege’ Access

    Another strategy to proactively improve cybersecurity defences in 2026 is to enforce the principle of ‘least privilege’ access. This tactic grants users access only to the data that’s needed for their role. Limiting excessive access is important for preventing the potential for widespread data exposure and damage in the case of an account compromise.

    Businesses, however, must strike a balance over access; if it’s too strict, it can hinder productivity and lead to shadow IT issues. Getting this balance right when it comes to privileged access is where sophisticated permission managers are invaluable tools to work with. They streamline the process and remove the guessing game of who and what to grant access to, thereby ensuring, in the case of an attack, that the entire organisation won’t be brought to its knees.

    How CISOs are Adopting ‘Resilience, not Perfection’

    The rate at which AI is advancing means not every organisation will be equipped with the tools or the know-how to tackle every AI-inspired attack. But as the saying goes, ‘prevention is better than cure’. It’s better to create a strong security culture than to continually chase after the next best tool. 

    Organisations can’t strengthen their resilience without involving every single person under their umbrella. That’s why CISOs must continue to invest in cybersecurity awareness programs.

    These should include simulated AI-phishing attacks (phishing remains the number one attack vector) to test users and enable them to apply learnings from the modules.

    If any user clicks on a phishing email, they should receive additional training at that very moment, to cement the learning. Over time, a good training system should automatically identify users who rarely fall for such attacks and reduce the training they receive while making the simulations they do receive more difficult. Conversely, giving persistent offenders additional bite-sized training and simulations can help improve security outcomes over time.

    The key challenge for 2026 is managing the speed of AI adoption and harnessing its defensive capabilities while mitigating the risk of uncontrolled adoption. But with excellent training, cyberattack practice runs, and the adoption of Zero Trust principles, organisations will find themselves in a strong position.

    About Dr. Yvonne Bernard

    Dr. Yvonne Bernard is the CTO of Hornetsecurity by Proofpoint, Proofpoint’s business unit leveraging the Hornetsecurity product suite dedicated to managed service providers (MSPs) and small to mid-sized businesses (SMBs), providing next-generation cloud-based security, compliance, backup, and security awareness solutions that help companies and organisations of all sizes around the world.

    Learn more at hornetsecurity.com

    • Cybersecurity
    • Cybersecurity in FinTech
    • Data & AI
    • Digital Strategy

    Author

    Dr Megha Kumar

    Published

    17 March 2026

    Estimated Read time

    6Mins

    Dr Megha Kumar, Chief Product Officer and Head of Geopolitical Risk at CyXcel, on whether our risk and regulatory frameworks and institutional cultures can keep pace with Agentic AI

    Within the next couple of years, Agentic AI is likely to progress from early stages of operation to be fully embedded within systems. Its expansion will be subtle rather than spectacular. It will integrate steadily into enterprise platforms, logistics networks, compliance workflows, cybersecurity operations centres and executive decision-support tools. Processes will move faster, operating expenses will decline and performance indicators will trend upward.

    Yet these visible improvements mask a deeper challenge. The regulatory exposure, data governance pressures and erosion-of-trust risks associated with Agentic AI are being misjudged.

    Unlike earlier AI applications designed primarily to generate outputs – whether text, imagery, or predictive insights – agentic systems are built to act. They sequence decisions, draw from multiple data environments, initiate consequential processes and function at scale with differing levels of human supervision. In sandbox environments this can seem contained and controllable. Over extended periods in live environments, however, sustained oversight, traceability and effective governance become significantly more complex.

    Evolving Operational Complexity

    There are two key challenges that businesses must address.

    First, how do organisations monitor what agentic systems are doing once deployed? These systems evolve through updates, integrations and retraining and they interact with new data environments.

    Second, how do you ensure responsible behaviour throughout the lifecycle? Regulators, policymakers and customers will likely expect firms to shift from compliance assurance to risk assurance and demonstrable evidence of trust and transparency.

    The prevailing assumption is that human oversight will mitigate these risks. Human in the loop or human over the loop has become the default reassurance. In practice, however, that assumption breaks down far faster than many anticipate.

    When a system works 95 per cent of the time, human reviewers limit their scrutiny. Behavioural science tells us that automation bias and complacency occur when automated systems are high-performing. Employees often become validators of AI outputs rather than critical examiners. The diligence gap widens gradually and then suddenly.

    Facing Up to Difficult Questions

    How do you incentivise employees to remain diligent checkers when the system mostly ‘works’?  And how much time does effective oversight actually require? True review is not a cursory glance at a dashboard. It involves interrogating assumptions, validating inputs, checking context and assessing downstream consequences. In many cases, meaningful oversight may take nearly as long as performing the original task manually. When checking becomes more costly than doing the job yourself, pressure to ‘trust the system’ intensifies.

    And what happens to accountability when oversight exists on paper but not in practice? Governance documentation may show layered review structures, escalation pathways and audit processes. Yet if humans are functionally disengaged, responsibility becomes dispersed. When errors surface, organisations may struggle to attribute fault – was it the model design, the data, the integrator, the operator or the reviewer who signed off without fully scrutinising?

    Regulators are only beginning to grapple with these realities. In jurisdictions such as the European Union, the EU AI Act introduces risk-based obligations, documentation requirements and human oversight provisions. These are important steps, however, the operationalisation of those requirements in dynamic, agentic environments remain untested at scale. Compliance on paper will not automatically translate into resilient governance in practice.

    Addressing the Trust Challenge

    Beyond regulatory exposure, there is a broader trust challenge emerging.

    As Agentic AI systems scale across industries, they will generate vast volumes of automated outputs – reports, communications, risk assessments, content, decisions and transactions. If errors or manipulations spread through interconnected systems, confidence in digital outputs may erode.

    In geopolitically sensitive contexts, this has profound implications. Agentic systems interacting with external data sources could amplify disinformation, introduce biased datasets or make decisions based on manipulated inputs. The speed of automation may outpace the speed of verification. Trust, once diluted, is difficult to restore.

    Data protection risks will also intensify. Agentic systems frequently require broad access privileges to perform tasks effectively. They may access internal databases and personal data and interact with third-party platforms. Each interaction creates potential exposure points. A single misconfiguration or prompt injection attack could trigger cascading consequences across systems.

    The next phase of AI adoption will not simply amplify productivity: it will amplify regulatory, legal and reputational risk. This moment therefore demands serious scrutiny before agentic AI becomes deeply embedded in business infrastructure.

    The Moment for Action has Arrived

    So, what should organisations be doing now?

    To begin with, organisations need to look past superficial, tick-box compliance. Effective governance cannot live solely in policy documents – it must function in day-to-day operations. This means investing in continuous monitoring capabilities, robust audit trails and real-time anomaly detection tailored specifically to Agentic AI behaviours.

    In parallel, incentive structures should be redesigned. Meaningful human oversight will not happen if it is treated as secondary to speed or output. If employees are expected to provide meaningful review, organisations must allocate time, training and authority accordingly. Performance metrics should reflect risk management responsibilities, not just output rate.

    Clear lines of accountability are equally important. Senior leadership and boards should determine who carries ultimate responsibility for outcomes produced by agents. Where third-party vendors are involved, responsibilities must be contractually and operationally defined. Incident response mechanisms should be rehearsed in advance, rather than presumed to work when pressure is high.

    Expertise must also be integrated across functions. Legal, risk, compliance, cybersecurity, data protection and operational teams should be engaged from the outset. Deploying Agentic AI is not simply a technical upgrade – it reshapes the organisation’s risk profile.

    Finally, resilience demands deliberate stress-testing. Leaders should examine not only pathways to success but how models fail at scale. How would the organisation respond if a system update embedded systemic bias, if an integration vulnerability enabled unauthorised activity or if automated actions eroded customer confidence? Rigorous scenario exercises, however uncomfortable, are essential to building genuine preparedness.

    As Agentic AI advances, Risk Management Should Match its Pace

    None of this is an argument against adoption. Agentic AI presents meaningful productivity improvements and the potential for sustained competitive differentiation. Organisations that deploy it with discipline and foresight may secure a measurable advantage. The danger lies not in adoption itself, but in pursuing acceleration without knowing the risks and putting the right guardrails in place.

    The coming two years are critical for businesses. Before these systems become deeply embedded in core processes, organisations have an opportunity to shape the control environment around them.  However, once agentic systems are fully embedded, retrofitting controls will be far more difficult and costly. Leaders must therefore treat this period as a design phase for oversight, not merely a race for competitive advantage.

    Agentic AI is advancing rapidly. The defining question is whether our risk and regulatory frameworks and institutional cultures can evolve just as quickly.

    Learn more at cyxcel.com

    • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
    • Data & AI
    • Digital Strategy

    Author

    Adam Spearing

    Published

    5 March 2026

    Estimated Read time

    5Mins

    Adam Spearing, VP of AI GTM EMEA at ServiceNow, on why those that invest in AI foundations now will shape their operating models on their own terms

    Much of the debate around AI still centres on pilots: which tools to test, which use cases to prioritise, which risks to manage. Executive teams commission proofs of concept, establish governance forums and assess compliance exposure. Far less scrutiny is applied to the consequences of waiting.

    Traditional technical debt is familiar territory for CIOs. It stems from shortcuts, ageing platforms and deferred upgrades. It builds over time and is eventually addressed through structured modernisation programmes. Visible in legacy code, brittle integrations and manual workarounds. It appears on risk registers and capital plans. Leaders know how to describe it and, in principle, how to resolve it.

    Forward-looking technical debt is different. It arises when organisations postpone the foundational changes needed for new ways of working. It is not created by past expediency, but by present hesitation. And it accumulates faster.

    AI Adoption

    In the context of AI, the effects are already emerging. Each quarter spent debating readiness instead of building it increases the distance between legacy operating models and AI-enabled competitors. As models improve and user expectations shift, that distance widens, reshaping competitive baselines. What begins as a modest capability gap can harden into structural disadvantage.

    While companies debate whether to adopt AI, the margin for strategic choice narrows. Many organisations frame AI adoption as a binary decision: adopt now or wait until the technology matures further. In practice, the room for discretion is smaller than it appears. Time spent stalled in pilots or governance loops increases the gap between internal capability and market expectation.

    More than 75% of organisations are expected to face moderate to severe AI-related technical debt in 2026, predicts Forrester. The issue will not simply be missed efficiency gains. It will be structural misalignment between how their systems operate and how work is increasingly done.

    This misalignment often appears gradually. Teams rely on manual data preparation because underlying systems cannot support automation. AI tools are layered onto fragmented architectures and deliver inconsistent outputs. Employees experiment with external tools because internal platforms cannot provide the functionality they need. Each workaround creates further fragmentation.

    Over time, these patterns compound. Integration backlogs expand. Security and risk teams struggle to enforce consistent controls across proliferating tools. Data governance becomes reactive rather than designed. What began as caution begins to constrain strategic options.

    The AI Paradox

    Here’s the paradox: organisations are either rushing into unsuccessful AI pilots that create immediate technical debt, or they’re avoiding AI entirely and creating forward-looking debt through inaction. Both paths lead to the same place – systems that can’t support the future of work.

    AI isn’t just another technology layer to bolt onto existing infrastructure. It’s fundamentally changing how people interact with systems and how work gets done. Increasingly, AI becomes an interface through which employees access information, execute tasks and navigate processes. When AI becomes the interface – not just for customers but for employees navigating their daily tasks – organisations without AI-ready foundations will find themselves unable to compete on speed, efficiency, or experience.

    The companies that hesitate aren’t just missing out on automation benefits today. They’re building a deficit that grows exponentially as AI capabilities advance. Each new model release, each competitor’s successful implementation, each customer expectation shift adds to the debt. Each significant model improvement raises the performance benchmark across the market. Unlike legacy systems that degrade slowly, this gap accelerates.

    From Avoidance to Advantage

    Breaking free from forward-looking technical debt requires a fundamental mindset shift. This isn’t about buying more technology or launching more AI pilots. It’s about creating the conditions for sustainable AI adoption that builds capability rather than complexity.

    The organisations succeeding with AI aren’t the ones with the biggest budgets or the most aggressive rollouts. They’re the ones that took a deliberate, phased approach to ensuring their data, systems, and culture could support AI at scale. They treated readiness as an operational discipline rather than an innovation side project. They understood that AI adoption isn’t a destination, it’s a continuous capability that requires solid foundations.

    This starts with honest visibility into current technology estates. Leaders must understand what systems can realistically support AI workloads, where data quality creates barriers, and which processes are ready for automation. Only then can organisations introduce AI incrementally, modernising systems where necessary rather than forcing new capabilities onto brittle foundations. Without that clarity, AI risks being layered onto structural weaknesses.

    Modernisation therefore becomes targeted. Consolidating fragmented workflows, standardising data models and reducing unnecessary integration points increase the feasibility of scaling AI across multiple use cases. Early deployments focused on well-defined processes with clear data lineage can build internal confidence while strengthening governance practices.

    Clear Debt to Stay Competitive

    Forward-looking technical debt does not appear on a balance sheet. It shows up in slower product cycles, manual workarounds, integration backlogs and frustrated employees. It surfaces when competitors deliver AI-assisted services as standard and customers begin to expect the same everywhere. By the time these symptoms are visible, the underlying gap has already widened.

    Timing therefore becomes a strategic variable. AI capability builds cumulatively: early investment in clean data, modern workflows and interoperable systems creates a base for continuous improvement. Each iteration becomes easier, faster and more reliable. Those that delay face the opposite trajectory: increasing complexity, rising retrofit costs and shrinking room for strategic choice.

    The real issue is not adoption in principle. It is whether leadership teams are prepared to treat readiness as urgent rather than optional.

    Reducing forward-looking technical debt requires acting before competitive pressure dictates terms, aligning technology modernisation with operating model reform, and accepting that disciplined progress now is less risky than accelerated catch-up later.

    AI adoption will continue irrespective of individual organisational hesitation. Vendors will continue to refine their offerings. Regulators will clarify expectations. Customers and employees will adjust their behaviours. Those that invest in foundations now will shape their operating models on their own terms. Those that delay risk reacting to a competitive gap that is already commercially significant.

    Learn more at servicenow.com

    • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
    • Data & AI
    • Digital Strategy

    Author

    Chris Gunner

    Published

    4 March 2026

    Estimated Read time

    4Mins

    Chris Gunner, vCSO at Thrive – a leading NextGen MSP/MSSP, delivering global AI, cybersecurity, cloud, compliance, and digital transformation managed services – on how CISOs can position their cyber strategy to to become part of how a business navigates uncertainty

    Quantification of cyber risk is a growing trend. While this can be genuinely useful, in practice it is often misunderstood or over-applied by security leaders. It can range from an arbitrary figure to attempting to model every possible risk on the register in a Monte Carlo simulation. The focus can fall on the mechanics of quantification, rather than how financial decision-makers actually use the information.

    Think of the CFO – they don’t walk through every penny in the budget. Instead, they usually focus on the board-level levers that can materially affect the business. These often include three key areas: strategic optionality, removing friction from capital events and avoiding shocks and smoothing operating costs. Security conversations should be anchored the same way.

    The Importance of Strategic Optionality

    If faced with a credible one-year growth plan, CFOs may recommend a one-year office lease despite a 20% premium. This is because it maintains the option later of moving or re-contracting once the growth trajectory becomes more visible. Like most strategic decisions, it is about preserving flexibility in the face of uncertainty, even if that flexibility comes at a short-term cost.

    If we apply this to a cyber context, there are often businesses that have taken a calculated gamble with their existing business strategies. While the plan is sound, there is a chance it might not land as expected. When they require security services, the choice between a ‘standard’ and ‘premium’ SOC frames the decision as one of optionality rather than security spend. Paying more now to preserve the ability to adapt later down the line. A simple illustration is incident response. An on-call retainer with defined response times can look more expensive than ad hoc support. Until an incident occurs and procurement becomes the bottleneck. In those moments, flexibility is often far more valuable than marginal savings achieved earlier.

    Removing Friction from Capital Events

    For CFOs, especially those operating in the alternative investment space, the focus is on structuring capital events. As opposed to managing day-to-day operational costs. One of the most painful points in that process is due diligence. The careful exchange between acquirer and target that aims to provide enough information for each to price risk, without giving the entire game away.

    CISOs can materially influence how smooth or painful that process becomes. The most effective support often comes from understanding upfront what the diligence process will look like and preparing accordingly.

    For example, they might develop executive-level ‘Security at ACME’ overviews to sit alongside more detailed trust centre or technical reports. Being available to diligence teams for interviews, and for example clearly articulating which services are outsourced to an MSSP, and why, builds credibility between those executive teams.

    Decision-makers often don’t look at penetration test reports at a deal level. They are assessing whether the organisation understands its own control environment. A well-prepared CISO who can clearly explain why certain controls exist acts as a trust amplifier during transactions.

    It is often the difference between a diligence process that closes cleanly and one that drifts. Two organisations can have similar maturity. Yet the one that can respond within a day with clear, consistent evidence reduces follow-up questions, avoids uncertainty premiums in pricing discussions and prevents security from becoming a late-stage negotiation point.

    Avoiding Shocks and Smoothing Operating Costs

    For any individual who has worked with a finance partner to define a departmental budget will know that predictability often takes precedence over absolute cost. Contract value can be secondary to payment terms, renewal timing or the ability to forecast spend with confidence.

    CISOs can align with this by looking to reduce unplanned operating expenditure. In addition to understanding the cost structure of their controls by communicating with the technical pre-sales engineer, procurement and account teams.

    A good example is cyber insurance. While often purchased directly by finance teams, many policies are relatively off-the-shelf and provide access to services the security team already operates or has under contract. Other policies include notable exclusions for the events most likely to occur. Such as a ransomware incident without business interruption cover. In many cases, these gaps can be addressed in-policy with a flat fee or a more predictable cost model.

    The value here extends beyond risk transfer and into more predictable costs: replacing reactive spend with planned expenditure.

    Aligning Cyber Conversations to Board Priorities

    Across all of the above examples, the common thread is that the board is rarely asking security to prove its value in isolation, and is surprisingly comfortable with uncertainty. But they are asking whether the cyber papers support better decisions, fewer constraints and more predictable outcomes for the business as a whole.

    CISOs who frame their priorities in those terms will find their conversations move away from justifying individual controls and towards understanding how security choices shape the organisation’s ability to respond to change. In that context, cyber becomes part of how the business navigates uncertainty, rather than a specialist function defending its budget. Speaking the board’s language, ultimately, is less about converting cyber risk into pounds and pence. It is more about understanding which levers matter at that level and showing how security choices influence them.

    Learn more at thrivenextgen.com

    • Cybersecurity
    • Cybersecurity in FinTech
    • Digital Strategy

    Author

    Adonis Celestine

    Published

    3 March 2026

    Estimated Read time

    5Mins

    Adonis Celestine, Senior Director – Global Automation Practice Lead at Applause, on the rise of AI and why In a world of autonomous systems, trust is the ultimate competitive advantage

    Every generation of technology has its defining disruptor – the force that rises above the rest and reshapes its environment. In the mid-2000s, Marc Andreessen captured the moment when digital systems began transforming entire industries with his famous line: “software is eating the world”. At the time, software was the apex predator of technology, defining how value was created and delivered. Today, that hierarchy has shifted. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has reached the top of the technology food chain. Not just accelerating software, but fundamentally reimagining how it’s created, tested, and deployed.

    AI is no longer just a tool; it is a co-creator. Developers now rely on AI daily to translate high-level intentions into working code. A practice sometimes known as ‘vibe coding’. Tasks that once took months can now be delivered in weeks, days, or even minutes. The pace is exhilarating, but it introduces challenges that traditional quality assurance (QA) practices were never designed to meet. And if QA cannot keep up, speed will come at the cost of reliability and trust.

    When AI Outpaces QA

    Conventional QA depends on predictability. Features are defined, code is written, and test cases verify the expected behaviour. However, AI disrupts this traditional model. Generative and Agentic AI systems don’t simply follow instructions; they interpret them. These systems adapt to context, learn from data, and can produce different outputs from the same prompt, influenced by factors such as training, temperature settings, and the model’s probabilistic nature. With development cycles now measured in minutes, traditional QA handoffs are often impossible.

    This has led to a growing gap between speed and certainty. Teams can ship products faster than ever, yet it’s becoming much more difficult to ensure consistent, ethical, or safe behaviour in real-world conditions. Enterprises are already experiencing AI-powered features that fail in ways conventional testing could not anticipate, undermining trust and creating new risks.

    Hidden Risks in Autonomous AI Workflows

    AI-driven development introduces blind spots that traditional QA often struggles to detect. One key issue is context drift. This occurs when AI performs well in controlled testing environments but behaves unpredictably when faced with edge cases, cultural differences, or ambiguous inputs. For example, a customer-facing chatbot might pass functional tests but produce biased or misleading responses when deployed on a global scale.

    Another challenge is compound autonomy. When multiple AI agents are involved in code generation, testing, and deployment, the system may begin to validate its own processes. Without human oversight, errors can propagate unnoticed. An AI agent might ‘approve’ certain behaviours because they statistically align with previous outputs. Rather than meeting user or business expectations.

    Invisible change also complicates QA efforts. AI models continuously evolve through processes like retraining, prompt tuning, or data updates. A feature that worked flawlessly last week may function differently today. Traditional regression testing often fails to capture these subtle but significant shifts.

    Most critically, AI workflows blur the lines of accountability. When failures occur, it can be unclear whether the issue lies with the model, the data, the prompt, the integration, or the deployment pipeline. QA teams must continuously validate not only the outputs but also the decision-making processes behind them.

    Redefining Quality and Trust in an AI World

    Slowing AI development is neither practical nor beneficial. Organisations must redefine quality in a probabilistic, AI-driven environment. Quality now extends beyond just correctness. It involves ensuring that systems operate reliably in real-world scenarios. This shift requires moving from static test cases to continuous, adaptive validation.

    QA teams must evolve into ‘quality intelligence’ teams, broadening their responsibilities from simply detecting defects to actively fostering trust in AI systems. AI-assisted testing is crucial in this process. It can automatically generate extensive test cases by analysing requirements and code patterns. It can predict defects using machine learning. Detect visual inconsistencies across devices, and produce realistic, privacy-compliant synthetic test data. Additionally, Agentic AI can autonomously maintain and self-heal test scripts, adjusting their logic as underlying code or user interfaces change.

    Furthermore, AI systems themselves need rigorous evaluation. Techniques such as red teaming, rainbow teaming, benchmarking, bias and ethics checks, and drift monitoring are essential to help promote AI’s reliability, fairness, and alignment with business objectives.

    Human oversight is critical. While AI can scale testing and automate numerous tasks, critical thinking, risk assessment, and judgment cannot be fully delegated. Humans must guide, validate, and refine AI outputs to maintain both quality and trust.

    Emerging Roles and Responsibilities

    AI is reshaping professional roles. Developers are increasingly using AI by instructing machines through natural language rather than traditional programming methods. This shift has led to the emergence of new roles such as AI agent orchestrators, prompt engineers, QA specialists for autonomous systems, and governance leads who ensure ethical and auditable AI practices.

    These roles are essential for maintaining human oversight. Developers and testers must experiment, validate, and continuously refine AI outputs while being cautious not to rely too heavily on AI.

    Trust in the Age of the Apex Predator

    As with any apex predator, AI has changed the rules of the game. Software once “ate the world” by making systems programmable. Today, AI “eats software” by making it autonomous, capable of creating, modifying, and deploying autonomously. In this new environment, speed is no longer the ultimate measure of success; trust is. Systems may move fast, but without rigorous QA, ethical oversight, and human judgment, they may not be reliable, accurate or ethical.

    The new apex predator demands adaptation. Organisations navigating this AI-driven era must embrace automation and innovation, but pair it with strong quality practices, governance, and continual human oversight. Only by combining these elements can companies ensure their AI systems are not only fast and efficient but also dependable and aligned with business objectives. In a world of autonomous systems, trust is the ultimate competitive advantage.

    Learn more at applause.com

    • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
    • Data & AI
    • Digital Strategy

    Author

    Tom Lanaway

    Published

    2 March 2026

    Estimated Read time

    4Mins

    Tom Lanaway is Head of Innovation at Connective3, a global brand & performance marketing agency. He leads a team building AI-powered marketing measurement and marketing intelligence tools.

    Most businesses are asking the wrong question about AI. They’re asking, ‘Which AI tool should we use?’ They should be asking: ‘Can our people actually think with AI?’ 

    I run an innovation team at a marketing agency. We’ve spent the last two years building AI into everything we do, including measurement, content, strategy, and automation. We’ve got lots of tools, 18 different products to be precise. 

    Below is what I’ve learned. But the tools aren’t always the bottleneck; sometimes the skills are. 

    The Tennis Racket Problem 

    A colleague put it perfectly recently: “AI is a tool. Think of it as if you’ve got a smart assistant sat there. But it’s saying, I’m going to give you the best tennis racket, now go and play in a Grand Slam.” 

    That metaphor stuck with me because it captures something the artificial intelligence hype cycle keeps missing. We’ve convinced ourselves it democratises everything. That anyone can now do anything. That the barrier to entry has collapsed. And there’s truth in that, but it’s incomplete. The barrier to access has collapsed, but the barrier to effectiveness hasn’t. Give someone GPT-4, and they can generate text. Give them the best tennis racket, and they can hit a ball. But the gap between hitting a ball and playing at Wimbledon is still vast. Most organisations are stuck in that gap, wondering why their AI investments aren’t transforming anything. 

    Three Skills That Aren’t Always Present 

    When I look at where teams struggle and where I see the same patterns across other businesses, three specific competencies keep showing up as gaps: 

    1. Problem Decomposition 

    Not everyone knows how to break down complex work into chunks that AI can help with. This sounds simple, but it isn’t. Most people approach AI with whole tasks such as ‘Write me a marketing strategy’, ‘Analyse this data’ Or ‘Create a campaign’. AI will then produce something, but it’s usually mediocre, because the person hasn’t done the harder work of understanding which specific parts of that task AI is good at, and which parts need human judgment. The skill isn’t using AI; it’s knowing what to give it. Someone who is brilliant at their job but can’t decompose problems will get worse results from AI than someone more junior who understands how to break work into the right pieces.  

    2. Output Assessment 

    How do you know if what AI gives you is good? This is where intuition becomes essential and it’s also where the ‘AI replaces expertise’ narrative falls apart. You need domain knowledge to evaluate AI output. You need enough experience to feel when something’s off, even if you can’t immediately articulate why. You need the pattern recognition that comes from years of doing the actual work. Artificial Intelligence doesn’t replace that intuition; it requires it. The best AI users I’ve observed aren’t the most technical; they’re the ones who’ve built up enough expertise in their field to quickly assess whether AI output is useful, directionally correct, or completely off base. They know what good looks like, so they can recognise it when they see it, or notice when it’s missing.

    3. Articulation 

    Can you clearly express what you really want? This is the unglamorous core of the whole thing. Some people struggle to articulate their requirements to other humans, let alone to AI. We’ve all sat in meetings where someone spends 20 minutes explaining what they need, and you’re still not sure what they want. AI makes that problem worse. The skill isn’t ‘prompt engineering’ in the technical sense; it’s the much older skill of clear thinking and clear communication. If you can’t articulate what you want specifically, precisely, with the right context and constraints, you won’t get useful output from AI or from anyone else. 

    The Uncomfortable Implication 

    Here’s what this means for how businesses should think about AI investment: 

    Stop leading with tools: Most organisations have tool fatigue already. Another platform, another integration, another training session on which buttons to click. It’s not working. 

    Start with the human work: Before asking ‘What AI should we use?’, ask ‘Can our people break down problems, assess output, and articulate requirements?’ If they can’t do those things well without AI, they won’t do them well with AI either. 

    Invest in the skills, not just the access: This doesn’t mean AI prompt engineering courses; it means developing clearer thinking, better problem decomposition, and sharper articulation. These are old skills, applied to new tools. 

    Accept that expertise still matters: The people who’ll use AI best are the ones who already know their domain deeply. AI amplifies competence; it doesn’t create it.

    Connected Intelligence Isn’t About Connected Systems 

    I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about how different marketing channels and data sources connect and how you build intelligence across systems rather than in silos.

    But I’ve come to think the more important connection isn’t between systems, it’s between human judgment and AI capability. The integration layer that matters most is the one between the person and the tool. 

    Get that wrong, and it doesn’t matter how sophisticated your AI stack is. Get it right, and even basic tools become powerful. 

    Learn more at connective3.com

    • AI in Procurement
    • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
    • Data & AI
    • Digital Strategy
    • People & Culture

    Author

    Dan Brightmore

    Published

    Estimated Read time

    2Mins

    Hampshire Trust Bank (HTB) is using artificial intelligence (AI) to act faster on customer concerns. It is empowering its teams…

    Hampshire Trust Bank (HTB) is using artificial intelligence (AI) to act faster on customer concerns. It is empowering its teams to identify and respond quickly, whilst also meeting regulatory timeframes for handling complaints and supporting vulnerable customers.

    Netcall: AI-Powered Sentiment

    The specialist bank has worked with Netcall to deploy AI-powered sentiment analysis using Netcall’s Liberty Create platform. The solution reduces manual effort and improves operational efficiency by bringing customer emails from multiple mailboxes into a single interface. Incoming messages are automatically analysed to identify dissatisfaction, highlighting cases that may require faster intervention. This allows urgent cases to be prioritised, helping HTB to resolve issues before they escalate and improve the customer experience.

    “Our AI-powered sentiment analysis solution rapidly processes vast amounts of email data. Its efficiency allows our team to focus on resolving customer enquiries and issues rather than sorting priorities. The streamlined process ensures swifter responses and better customer outcomes, upholding our reputation for exceptional customer service.” Ed Eames, Head of Customer Savings Operations at Hampshire Trust Bank.

    The application was built by the Hampshire Trust Bank development team using Liberty Create. It worked closely with Netcall to integrate AI sentiment analysis into existing processes. Customer-facing teams were involved throughout to ensure the solution aligned with established workflows and regulatory requirements.

    Customer Service Control

    A key benefit of the approach is the level of control it gives internal teams. Keywords, sentiment thresholds, and classifications can be adjusted directly. This allows rapid refinement as customer behaviour changes or new regulatory considerations emerge, without waiting for development cycles.

    “Liberty Create has enabled my development team to work with remarkable agility. The ability to rapidly create and refine applications to meet ever-evolving business needs has significantly enhanced our efficiency. This allows us to deliver a wealth of new features to end users and customers with speed. With the integration of AI, we’ve been able to advance our processes while ensuring exceptional customer service. Our Sentiment Analysis application launch is a prime example of this.” Trina Burnett, Head of Engineering at Hampshire Trust Bank.

    The sentiment analysis system also supports automated and ad-hoc reporting. This provides a single source of insight into customer interactions and actions taken. This helps reduce manual effort, supports audit and compliance activity, and enables teams to continuously improve customer service operations.

    “As scrutiny around customer experience and accountability increases across UK financial services, the ability to listen, adapt and respond at pace is becoming a defining capability for banks seeking to maintain trust and service standards,” said Alex Ballingall, Key Account Manager at Netcall.

    “HTB’s approach shows how banks can use AI-driven insight practically. Turning customer communications into faster action without adding operational complexity,” Ballingall concluded.

    About Netcall

    Netcall is a leading provider of low-code and customer engagement solutions. A UK company quoted on the AIM market of the London Stock Exchange. By enabling customer-facing and IT talent to collaborate, Netcall takes the pain out of big change projects. It helps businesses dramatically improve the customer experience, while lowering costs. Over 600 organisations in financial services, insurance, local government and healthcare use the Netcall Liberty platform to make life easier for the people they serve. Netcall aims to help organisations radically improve customer experience through collaborative CX.

    Learn more at netcall.com

    • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
    • Data & AI
    • Digital Payments
    • Digital Strategy
    • Fintech & Insurtech
    • InsurTech

    Author

    Patrick Cooney

    Published

    27 February 2026

    Estimated Read time

    6Mins

    Patrick Cooney, CFO at Version 1, on why, in an AI-driven operating environment, financial discipline is more important than ever

    Over the last decade, digital transformation has become part of the CFO’s remit. As organisations invested in automation, cloud and data platforms, finance leaders were well placed to oversee spend, drive efficiency and ensure technology investments delivered measurable returns. As artificial intelligence (AI) moves from experimentation into the core of how organisations operate, that model is beginning to evolve. Primarily because AI-scale transformation demands a different balance of expertise.

    A recent move by Coca-Cola illustrates this shift. The decision to take digital strategy out of CFO John Murphy’s remit and appoint Sedef Salingan Sahin as the company’s first Chief Digital Officer is not a rejection of finance-led transformation. It reflects a practical reality. While strong financial discipline remains essential, the architectural complexity and technical depth required to embed AI across an enterprise now go beyond traditional finance capabilities alone.

    This raises a critical question for financial services leaders. If AI is now a balance sheet issue — shaping cost structures, risk exposure and long-term value — what should the CFO’s role look like in the years ahead?

    AI is Changing How Finance Operates

    In all industries, AI is no longer confined to innovation labs or isolated pilots. It is increasingly embedded in how organisations operate, make decisions and manage risk. At Version 1, our earliest focus on AI was external: helping partners use AI to transform their own businesses. We have quickly turned the lens inward. Over the past quarter, we have accelerated the use of AI across our own finance and operational functions, implementing a wide range of practical use cases that fundamentally change how work gets done.

    Some of these are relatively simple but have had a significant impact. Using AI to summarise documents, generate meeting notes or surface insights from large volumes of information has become normal and is already saving time across the organisation. Others are more structural. In finance, we are applying AI to areas such as accounts payable, accounts receivable and general ledger reconciliations, where large datasets and repetitive processes create natural opportunities for automation and acceleration.

    We are also rethinking reporting itself. Rather than manually producing variance analyses each month, we are developing standardised prompts that allow AI to highlight key trends, explain deviations from budget and surface insights that would traditionally take hours to compile. These are not abstract efficiencies. Rather, they directly affect the speed, quality and value of financial decision-making.

    What is striking though is the pace of change. Even over the past few months, usage has increased exponentially as people find new ways to integrate AI into their daily work. This is no longer an optional experiment. AI is reshaping how organisations function from the inside out.

    Modern CFOs Deliver Stewardship and Governance

    One of the biggest challenges CFOs face with AI is that traditional ROI models struggle to capture its true impact. Unlike earlier waves of digital transformation, AI does not deliver value solely through cost reduction or headcount optimisation. Increasingly, its value lies in better planning, faster decision-making, improved risk management and higher-quality outputs.

    I see this clearly in how we use AI for planning. Recently, we fed a combination of internal data, previous plans and external consultancy material into a large language model and spent time crafting a detailed prompt. The output was a first-pass design for a major simplification programme (including workstreams, resourcing requirements and sequencing) that would previously have taken weeks to develop.

    It is worth noting that this new process didn’t replace human judgement – it dramatically accelerated it. We are using similar approaches to shape annual finance priorities, drawing on historic plans and organisational context to generate structured, actionable starting points. This kind of value is real, but it does not always show up neatly in short-term financial metrics.

    At the same time, the risks associated with AI are increasing. Model drift, regulatory scrutiny, data security and vendor dependency all carry financial implications. This is why governance matters as much as innovation. At Version 1, we have put formal structures in place, including an AI oversight committee that reviews and approves new tools, ensures appropriate controls are in place and sets clear boundaries around responsible use. We tightly manage which platforms can be used and how data is protected, recognising that public, uncontrolled tools pose unacceptable risks in an enterprise environment.

    This combination of accelerating value and growing risk is precisely why ownership models are changing. Many CFOs continue to play a leading role in digital transformation, with research showing that around three-quarters of finance leaders now prioritise digital strategies at the highest levels of the organisation.

    People Remain at the Heart of AI Adoption

    As AI scales, the CFO’s role is shifting from delivery ownership to strategic stewardship. Finance leaders are uniquely positioned to connect technology ambition with financial reality, ensuring AI investments are governed properly, aligned to business outcomes and measured over time.

    This aligns closely with how we think about our own operating model at Version 1. We use what we call a ‘strength in balance’ business model, built around three equally important pillars: customers, people and a strong organisation. That final pillar includes financial performance, risk management, cybersecurity and governance, all areas that become more critical, not less, as AI adoption accelerates.

    People are central to this conversation. AI inevitably raises questions about job impact and cost optimisation, and organisations have a responsibility to approach this responsibly. That means clear communication, strong change management and treating people fairly where roles evolve. It also means investing in training and enablement. We have rolled out organisation-wide AI training focused on responsible use, and we are developing a network of AI champions with deeper skills who can identify and build use cases without relying solely on central teams.

    The most effective model I see emerging is a shared one. Specialist digital leaders focus on building and embedding AI capabilities at scale. CFOs retain accountability for financial discipline, data governance and value realisation. When these roles work in partnership, organisations are far more likely to capture the value they expect from AI.

    Financially Guided Value Delivery

    As AI becomes a baseline capability rather than a differentiator, debates about who ‘owns’ digital strategy are becoming less relevant. The more important question is how organisations ensure AI investments deliver measurable, sustainable value. For CFOs, AI is now undeniably a balance sheet issue.

    Investment in the latest technology affects cost structures, risk exposure, governance and long-term resilience. Those who engage proactively, shape governance and demand disciplined value creation will help their organisations unlock lasting advantage. Those who remain passive risk inheriting complexity, cost and compliance challenges that are far harder to unwind later.

    In an AI-driven operating environment, financial discipline is not diminished. It is more important than ever.

    Learn more at version1.com

    • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
    • Data & AI
    • Digital Strategy
    • Fintech & Insurtech

    Author

    Dr. George Papamargaritis & Dr. Konstantia Barmpatsalou

    Published

    26 February 2026

    Estimated Read time

    4Mins

    Obrela’s Dr. George Papamargaritis (EVP MSS) and Dr. Konstantia Barmpatsalou,  (Blue Team Support Manager) on why embracing a risk-led cybersecurity model will leave financial organisations better positioned not just to meet regulatory requirements but to strengthen resilience, protect customers and uphold the trust that is so essential to the future of financial systems

    Cybersecurity in the financial sector was once viewed as a compliance-driven discipline. But as attackers have increasingly targeted institutions with sophisticated, persistent and often internally driven campaigns, it has become a strategic priority.

    According to the Digital Universe Report H1 2025, financial services were the second most targeted industry globally, accounting for 19% of all observed cyberattacks. This reflects both the sector’s value to adversaries and the complexity of the digital ecosystems it now operates within.

    Regulatory frameworks such as the FCA and PRA’s operational resilience rules, the EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) and NIS2 have strengthened baseline protections. However, the report’s findings demonstrate that regulation alone cannot deliver true cyber resilience. Institutions must adopt a strategic, risk-led approach that looks beyond compliance to understand real threats, behaviours and operational dependencies.

    Tailored, Internal and Stealthier Threats

    One of the most striking insights from the report is how targeted financial sector attacks have become. Industry-specific security risks now represent 32% of all incidents in the sector. This is an indication that adversaries are designing attacks using detailed knowledge of financial operations, from trading workflows to payment systems.

    Internal activity is also a major concern. Suspicious internal activity accounts for 26% of detections across financial services, reflecting the frequency of compromised accounts, misused privileges and lateral movement. For a sector historically focused on defending the perimeter, this shift highlights the need for deeper visibility into user behaviour and identity-driven risks.

    The wider threat landscape reveals adversaries are moving away from overt, signature-based attacks. In H1 2025, brute force activity made up 27% of global alerts, while vulnerability scanning accounted for 22% and known malicious indicators for 20%. Notably, direct malware payloads dropped to 0% of trending alerts, replaced by fileless techniques and living-off-the-land methods that bypass traditional defences.

    For financial institutions, this is a challenge. Many compliance requirements still centre on endpoint protection, patching and malware controls. These will of course, remain important, but they cannot address threats that are increasingly behavioural, stealth-driven and identity-focused.

    Operational Complexity

    The financial sector’s cyber risk is intensified by its expanding operational footprint. Cloud adoption, open banking, digital identity models and extensive third-party ecosystems have all created new points of exposure. Financial services operate within a global digital infrastructure that is both vast and increasingly interconnected. This level of complexity cannot be effectively protected through compliance checklists alone.

    Regulators are recognising these realities. DORA’s emphasis on ICT third-party risk, operational resilience testing and continuous oversight reflects the need for more proactive, intelligence-driven approaches. But DORA still only sets a minimum standard. True resilience requires institutions to move beyond regulatory expectations and embed cybersecurity into broader business strategy.

    Strategic, Risk-Led Cybersecurity

    A risk-led approach begins with understanding the threats that pose the greatest risk to operations and customers. Financial institutions remain priority targets for groups such as FIN7, TA505, Cobalt Group and various state-backed actors. Their tactics, such as credential harvesting, remote access tools, web-injection frameworks and lateral movement, are specifically designed to exploit the digital fabric of financial services.

    This evolving threat profile puts identity and behaviour at the heart of cyber defence. With credential-driven and internal threats so prevalent, institutions must prioritise behavioural analytics, continuous authentication and zero-trust models that verify users and devices contextually rather than relying on static controls.

    Strategic cyber resilience also needs to have continuous assurance. Traditional audits, annual testing and scheduled penetration exercises cannot keep pace with rapidly evolving threats. Leading institutions are shifting toward continuous control monitoring, automated attack simulation and persistent adversarial testing. These practices align with the Bank of England’s CBEST framework and demonstrate a sector-wide move toward ongoing, intelligence-led assurance.

    Crucially, cyber risk must be treated as an operational issue, not just a technical one. Embedding cybersecurity into enterprise risk management, financial planning, product development and board oversight is essential. This integrated approach also mirrors the direction of FCA and PRA regulation, which increasingly emphasises governance, accountability, and resilience across the entire organisation.

    Beyond Compliance

    Financial services underpin national economies and public confidence. As digital ecosystems grow and adversaries become more sophisticated, the sector faces a dual challenge: meeting rising regulatory expectations while defending against complex, targeted attacks. It is clear that cybersecurity must evolve from compliance-driven activity to a strategic capability built on intelligence, continuous assurance and behavioural insight.

    Institutions that embrace this risk-led model will be better positioned not just to meet regulatory requirements but to strengthen resilience, protect customers and uphold the trust that is so essential to the future of financial systems.

    Learn more at obrela.com

    • Cybersecurity
    • Cybersecurity in FinTech
    • Digital Strategy
    • Fintech & Insurtech
    • InsurTech

    Author

    Gregory Mostyn

    Published

    24 February 2026

    Estimated Read time

    5Mins

    Gregory Mostyn, CEO and co-founder of Wexler, on why the era of generalist AI tools is over, and how the future will focus on high-precision AI designed for specific industries

    For decades, the UK’s professional services sector, including areas such as Law, Insurance, and Wealth Management, has argued that its business value is locked in its access to proprietary data and the specialised labour required to navigate it. Investors, lured by the moat of institutional knowledge, priced these companies accordingly. However, the first quarter of 2026 has seen significant AI disruption within the professional services market. The catalyst wasn’t a single event, but rather a move by foundational model providers that turned the industry’s most defensible assets into commodities. 

    When Anthropic launched its specialised legal AI plugin, OpenAI integrated a real-time insurance underwriting engine directly into its interface, and Alturist Corp automated bespoke tax strategies, the market reacted harshly. As professional services titans such as RELX, MoneySuperMarket, and St James’s Place saw their share prices decline by more than 10% in a matter of hours, the message became clear: the era of treating AI as a ‘future risk’ is over. 

    The market has been awoken to the fact that foundational AI models are no longer just plugins or nice ‘add-on’ tools; they are competitors. The move by foundation-model providers into professional services – like the legal sector – is not a one-off shock, but rather an inevitability. 

    The Proliferation of Information 

    Historically, a law firm’s competitive advantage was its access to information – repositories of case law, proprietary research, and historical contracts. Investors and clients valued these companies on the assumption that this data constituted an impenetrable barrier to competitors. Before AI entered the mainstream, the cost of extracting actionable information from thousands of pages of data required a small army of junior associates and hundreds of billable hours. 

    In 2026, that moat has mostly evaporated. Recent benchmarks show that frontier models now achieve 80% accuracy on complex documents, compared with the 71% average of a human associate. More importantly, they do it at a fraction of the cost. It is now estimated that the inference cost for a system at the level of GPT-3.5 dropped by more than 280-fold between November 2022 and October 2024. It’s predicted that UK law firms will reduce their chargeable hours by 16% through the implementation of AI. 

    The narrative that AI would be able to handle only ‘low-level’ tasks, such as NDAs or simple contract summaries, has all but evaporated. Anthropic’s move into high-stakes litigation support validates this trend. 

    AI – From Swiss Army Knives to Scalpels 

    An error made by many law firms when AI became entrenched within the market was to treat it as a ‘plug-in’, a nice-to-have built onto existing internal software. Many adopted general-purpose tools, often referred to as ‘Swiss Army knife’ solutions, that covered the breadth of legal work but lacked the precision, jurisdictional nuance, and risk-weighted requirements for high-stakes professional services. 

    The 2026 market reaction highlighted the needs of a ‘scalpel’ approach – those that go deep in a specialised vertical within a legal workflow. For example, instead of a junior associate spending billable hours searching through case files to establish the facts of a case, they could use a ‘fact intelligence’ platform that can automate that process into minutes, whilst increasing accuracy by 95% versus 78% for human reviewers and up to 90% savings in large-scale litigation. The market is no longer rewarding firms for having information. Rather, it rewards those who can apply it at the lowest possible cost and friction. 

    Reallocating Capital Across Professional Services

    We’re already seeing investors withdrawing from the traditional software market and reallocating that capital into specialised AI firms. However, the risk for legacy players is that they are being disrupted from both ends. From the bottom, they are losing the efficiency game to generalist foundation models from companies such as OpenAI and Google, which are commoditising the ‘knowledge’ aspect of professional services, including basic advice and contract drafting. At the top, they are losing the expertise game to specialised firms that use AI as a precision instrument; their overhead would be lower than that of a traditional Magic Circle firm, allowing them to undercut prices while maintaining profit margins. 

    The result is a massive reallocation of capital. Investments into vertical AI (AI built for one specific industry) are expected to surge to $115 billion by 2034. The market no longer bets on labour with tools, but on autonomous workflows. Investors have realised that the value lies in the middle layer – the software that sits between a general foundation model and a specific industry’s needs. 

    Innovation or Obsolescence 

    So far, the first market fluctuation of 2026 has taught us that you cannot outrun new technologies. To survive, firms must stop treating AI as an add-on and treat it as a foundation for their core business infrastructure. 

    For UK professional services, the choice is no longer whether to adopt AI, but whether they can evolve quickly enough to avoid becoming the training data for companies building foundational models. The firms that remain in 2030 will recognise that the competitive landscape has changed. You’re not just competing with your peers, but with the compute cycles of the world’s most powerful AI labs. 

    The era of generalist AI tools is over, and the future will focus on high-precision AI designed for specific industries. 

    Learn more at wexler.ai

    • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
    • Data & AI
    • Digital Strategy
    • Fintech & Insurtech

    Author

    Jack Bingham

    Published

    20 February 2026

    Estimated Read time

    5Mins

    Jack Bingham, Regional Director of Digital Native UK, Ireland & South Africa, Confluent on how data, treated properly, compounds in value to drive digital disruption

    When I talk to founders and tech leaders, one question seems to consistently come up: what separates today’s disruptors from the last decade’s? In 2010, being cloud-first was what made investors sit up and take note. In 2026, it will be streaming-first.

    I’ve spent the last year or so working closely with companies that are, quite literally, building their businesses in real time. For them, real-time capability isn’t a department or a layer that supports the business. It is the business. The acid test is simple: how quickly can you capture a critical event – a payment, a login, a failed delivery – and respond with the next best action? That focus shapes how they build products, structure teams, and think about innovation.

    Here’s what I’ve learned from them:

    Lesson 1: Data is a Product, Not a By-Product

    Many traditional companies still treat data as something to collect, store, and analyse later. The new generation of businesses, on the other hand, treats it as a reusable, governed product that everyone can access. When it’s built and shared this way, teams stop rebuilding the same foundations for every new use case. They move faster because they’re working from a single, trusted view of the truth, shortening product cycles, speeding up iteration, and spending more time solving problems that matter.

    That mindset, rather than the size of the tech stack or the number of engineers, is what sets disruptive businesses apart. In these organisations, technology, data, and business strategy move in lockstep. Decisions aren’t passed up and down hierarchies, they’re made by teams who understand both the data and the customer problem in front of them.

    When you can trust your data and respond in real time, innovation stops being a department. It becomes a reflex.

    Lesson 2: Real-Time isn’t a Feature, it’s a Foundation

    A few years ago, one of the world’s largest supermarket chains realised it didn’t have a single real-time view of its inventory. Without that visibility, omnichannel experiences were impossible. Once it shifted to a streaming architecture, every transaction became a live event that updated stock, triggered supply chains, and even made it possible to get your groceries delivered straight to your kitchen fridge – coordinated through live inventory data, smart home devices, and real-time security feeds.

    That’s the practical power of streaming: it connects what happens in your business to what should happen next so you can provide products and services that take customer satisfaction to a whole other level. Real-time data stops being a reporting tool and becomes the foundation of every decision, interaction, and innovation.

    I often ask businesses what they would do differently, if they knew the state of every event in their organisation. The most forward-thinking companies already have the answer. They’re using streaming to turn business events into reusable building blocks, creating new experiences by connecting the data they already have in smarter ways.

    Lesson 3: Culture is the Multiplier

    Being streaming-first is only half about architecture. The other half is attitude. The best digital enterprises don’t wait for permission to experiment. They map their most important business events, align teams around them, and empower people at every level to react fast and learn faster.

    And the difference is visible. Feedback loops are shorter. Structures are flatter. Failure is treated as information. This culture of continuous experimentation is why these companies can move at the pace they do.

    We often run ‘Event Storming’ workshops with teams to map their critical business events. The idea is to create alignment – getting people from engineering, product, and operations to agree on what really matters and how those moments connect. That process reveals a lot. 

    Digital disruptors go beyond simply deploying streaming architectures. They build streaming mindsets. Leadership plays a crucial role here: data must be treated as a strategic asset. If it isn’t up top, it won’t be anywhere else in the organisation either.

    Lesson 4: Streaming and AI will Converge

    AI is only as good as the data you feed it. Unfortunately, most enterprises are still feeding it yesterday’s data. Streaming-first companies already know this. They’re building intelligent data pipelines that give AI the context it needs to make decisions in real time.

    That’s how the next generation of innovators will pull ahead: not by having bigger models, but by having cleaner, faster, more connected data. Streaming is what will let AI move from reactive to predictive… and from predictive to autonomous.

    Too many organisations are cutting investment in data while pouring money into AI projects. But AI without quality data is just expensive guesswork. The companies doing this well understand that data has to be a product in its own right. And when business and technology teams design around that shared understanding, innovation follows naturally.

    Lesson 5: The Mindset of the Next Disruptors

    If I were starting a company tomorrow, I’d look closely at the critical events that run my business. I’d then make sure I had a way to capture those in the stream, make them reusable, and build every product and process around them. 

    When your business can see and act on what’s happening in the moment, you gain something no traditional architecture can give you: time. And in the next wave of disruption, that’s the only advantage that really matters.

    If we look to who we can learn from in the coming months, it’s financial services and healthcare that are moving the fastest. Real-time fraud detection, patient monitoring, and risk management are becoming operational necessities – and these industries will set the benchmark for real-time data excellence. 

    Looking Ahead to 2026

    By 2026, I don’t think we’ll talk about ‘real-time’ as a differentiator. It will simply be how modern businesses operate. Batch systems won’t disappear, but they’ll coexist within a single, streaming-first platform that delivers data whenever it’s needed.

    Once every process can react instantly, the question then becomes: can it anticipate? Can it learn? That’s where AI and streaming meet and where we move from reactive to autonomous enterprises that not only respond to the present but adapt to what’s coming next.

    Data, treated properly, compounds in value. The decisions you make with it become faster, sharper, and more confident. The companies that understand this will be the ones still leading when today’s titans look like yesterday’s news.

    Learn more at confluent.io

    • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
    • Data & AI
    • Digital Payments
    • Digital Strategy
    • Embedded Finance

    Author

    Jonny Combe

    Published

    19 February 2026

    Estimated Read time

    4Mins

    Jonny Combe, President and Chief Executive Officer, PayByPhone on how urban mobility is evolving from car-centric to multimodal and the opportunity the parking industry has to play a central role by integrating payment infrastructures that support a more connected, flexible mobility ecosystem

    The journey has changed. Over the past few years, the mobility industry has undergone seismic shifts toward more digital experiences. Cash payments continue to disappear and in the US made up only about 14% of all payments in 2024. Over half of the US adult population make use of mobile wallets and many companies provide payment opportunities via apps for their services. While this has made some processes more efficient and streamlined, it has also resulted in very fragmented data streams.

    Consider this scenario: a commuter drives an Electric Vehicle (EV) to a rural or suburban transit hub where they park and charge, then boards a train into the city. The final mile is completed on an e-scooter, shared bike or another mode of public transport to reach their destination. One journey, four separate payment interactions across four different apps.

    This is the daily reality for millions of commuters, and it exposes a fundamental challenge that not only the parking industry, but also the mobility industry as a whole must confront. Continuing to build payment infrastructure for journeys that end at the curb, is no longer enough; we should be facilitating one system for these evolved modern journeys.

    City Centres Reimagined

    A substantial amount of land in city centers has traditionally been dedicated to parking, but there is a growing trend where we see city centers worldwide redesigning their urban space. On-street parking is giving way to pedestrian zones and cycle lanes. Traditional car parks are transforming into multimodal hubs that are integrating EV charging, micro-mobility stations, and last-mile logistics. Technologies like automatic number plate recognition are helping to eliminate friction at entry and exit points. However, backend complexity of the redesign of urban mobility has grown exponentially.

    Local authorities now juggle relationships with cashless payment providers, meter operators, EV charging networks, micro-mobility vendors, and logistics partners. Each bring their own payment rails, reconciliation requirements, and data formats. For many municipalities, simply reconciling payments between a meter provider and a digital parking platform already strains finance teams. Adding multiple mobility partners brings a significant extra load to existing operational capacity and the operational burden is only part of the equation.

    The Hidden Cost of Fragmentation

    The more critical issue is strategic: fragmented payment systems can create fragmented data, and fragmented data can undermine intelligent policy.

    When payment information sits in siloed systems across multiple vendors, authorities lack the consolidated view needed to answer essential questions:

    • How does parking behavior correlate with public transit usage?
    • What pricing strategies would optimize utilization across the entire mobility network?
    • Where should we invest in EV infrastructure based on actual demand patterns?
    • How do we measure progress toward carbon reduction targets?

    Without integrated payment and usage data, cities are making significant capital infrastructure decisions with an incomplete picture.

    The Payment Layer as Strategic Infrastructure

    Forward-thinking cities are, however, beginning to recognize payment infrastructure not as back-office plumbing, but as strategic architecture for the mobility ecosystem.

    The solution lies in centralized payment platforms that serve as a unifying layer – ‘super apps’ as they are called in other industries. The backend of these apps should be able to consolidate transactions across multiple mobility services, automate complex multi-party reconciliations, and create unified data lakes that enable AI-driven insights.

    This approach can deliver immediate operational relief: finance teams spend less time manually reconciling disparate systems, and the strategic value compounds over time. With consolidated data, authorities can model the true economics of mobility transitions, identify underutilized assets, dynamically price services to manage demand, and measure environmental impact with precision.

    Building for What Comes Next

    The parking industry has always been about managing physical space, yet the future is about orchestrating mobility experiences. The question for industry leaders isn’t whether parking will integrate with broader mobility systems but whether parking operators will architect that integration intentionally.

    Doing so requires a fundamental rethink of the role parking payment providers play in the payment value chain, while investing and building the technology and the payment infrastructure that makes seamless, sustainable urban mobility possible.

    The infrastructure we build today will determine whether cities can deliver on their mobility and sustainability commitments tomorrow. For parking industry leaders, this is both a challenge and an opportunity: to evolve from transaction processors into the essential connective layer of urban mobility. Those with the vision, and the technological ability to rise to that challenge, have a real opportunity to lead the next generation of multimodal mobility payments.

    About PayByPhone                                                     

    PayByPhone is a global leader in mobile parking payments. We simplify journeys for millions of UK drivers with smart, intuitive technology and user-focused features. In addition to fast, secure parking payments, drivers can also locate nearby fuel stations and EV chargers – and pay for EV charging – all in the PayByPhone app. We work with over 1,300 cities and operators across the UK, North America, France, Germany, and Switzerland. More than 110 million drivers worldwide have downloaded the PayByPhone app to simplify their parking and vehicle payments to date. To discover how our products and services can elevate your driving experience.

    Learn more at paybyphone.co.uk

    • Digital Payments
    • Digital Strategy

    Author

    Dan Brightmore

    Published

    2 February 2026

    Estimated Read time

    3Mins

    Join thousands of attendees at FIBE Berlin for two days of groundbreaking inquiry into the future of financial services and the tech that will drive it

    Berlin’s importance in the finance and tech services industry is characterised by a combination of a vibrant startup scene, abundant capital, a supportive innovation environment and a broad network of events and collaborations. All these factors make Berlin a leading centre for financial technology in Europe. And this is where FIBE Berlin comes in – Germany’s first international international finance & tech festival.

    FIBE Berlin showcases the latest trends and developments acros the industry. FIBE Berlin bridges traditional banking with the disruptive FinTech sector and offers curated networking formats to ensure you get the most out of your attendance.

    Why Attend?

    Your benefits in a nutshell: Engage with the European finance and tech scene over two days. Listen to international expert speakers, participate in curated networking sessions, and attend the FIBE Recovery Breakfast.

    Whether you are a finance expert, a FinTech visionary or a tech investor, don’t miss out on this exciting opportunity to be a part of the FIBE Berlin community and create a new form of convention and exhibition. From Berlin for the world.

    In just two days, FIBE Berlin will delve into the most groundbreaking topics that are reshaping the financial landscape. With Handelsblatt, Germany’s business and financial daily, the conference has an expert partner responsible for curating the stage programme.

    In addition to dealing with the newest content, FIBE Berlin creates interactive formats and an exchange at eye level between the audience and speakers delivering expert insights. No matter whether it’s a debate, a live feed to correspondents around the world or a meet and greet with international speakers. You can count on FIBE Berlin’s conference program to be bang up-to-date, controversial and interactive.

    Check out the full program at FIBE to plan ahead…

    Three Unique Stages

    To help you navigate FIBE Berlin’s vast array of offerings, the festival program is divided across three different stages:

    • The Festival Stage, delves into the big questions and connections within the industry, if not the world, through panel discussions and one-on-one interviews. There’s plenty of space around this big stage to listen, ask questions, and join the discussion.
    • As the name Club Stage suggests, things are a bit more intimate here. Speakers and moderators take a behind-the-scenes look at companies (be it a unicorn or an early-stage startup), collaborations, investments, and more. Again, your questions and experiences are more than welcome here.
    • Experience Fintech Berlin style at the ever so popular Späti Stage. For many, a Späti (Berlin’s corner shops), replaces the living room or kitchen table and so does the Späti Stage. Completely informal and unconventional it features quick presentations, out of the box impulses, and meet and greet sessions. Grab an ice cream, a beer, or some crisps and join the Späti crowd!

    Book your tickets now

    • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
    • Blockchain & Crypto
    • Digital Strategy
    • Event Newsroom
    • Events

    Author

    Dan Brightmore

    Published

    19 January 2026

    Estimated Read time

    5Mins

    Michael Ault, Country Manager at integrated payments specialists myPOS, offers strategic advice for SMEs looking to scale through digital transformation and diversification

    Scaling a small business is one of the most rewarding, yet complex journeys for any entrepreneur. While growth brings opportunities for greater reach, higher revenue, and stronger market presence, it also demands foresight, discipline, and the ability to manage risk strategically. Securely integrating new technology is the main obstacle for 47% of SME’s, even though 76% of these businesses intend to expand their IT investment. This underscores a key point of tension, as many businesses want to grow through digital transformation but struggle to do so securely and sustainably.

    The business landscape continues to evolve with changing customer expectations, technology, and economic conditions. For UK SMEs, the key to long-term success lies in achieving growth but also in building resilience. Sustainable scaling comes down to three principles: embracing technology pragmatically, diversifying intelligently, and investing in people and partnerships that strengthen resilience.

    Leveraging Digital Transformation

    Digital transformation is the foundation of business growth, especially for small business. Cloud-based solutions, automation, and data analytics help to streamline operations, reduce inefficiencies, and create better customer experiences. However, transformation must be purposeful, not performative.

    The smartest approach is to scale technology investment incrementally, integrating flexible, modular systems that evolve with business needs. This approach not only lowers risk but also helps ensure digital maturity evolve over time. When SMEs use modular, cloud-based technology, operations run more smoothly and changes can be effectively analysed. Ultimately, resilience is not built through one-time upgrades but through a culture of continuous digital evolution.

    Diversifying Revenue Streams

    Depending on a single product, service, or market leaves a business vulnerable to sudden changes in demand. Diversification, when guided by customer insight and data can turn volatility into opportunity. Expanding into online sales, introducing subscription models, or targeting fresh customer segments can make income streams much more stable and sustainable.

    At myPOS, we know that even simple changes based on data, such as adding additional payment options or tapping into cross-border e-commerce, can help cash flow and protect against market shocks. The goal of technology is to mitigate specific challenges without adding layers of complexity.

    Investing in Employee Development

    Your people are pivotal to your ability to grow as a business; empowered teams are the engine of sustainable scale. A team that feels supported and motivated will bring fresh ideas, adapt to challenges, and push the business forward. Investing in training, mentoring, and development opportunities builds skills that pay back in the form of innovation and improved performance.

    In fast-changing industries, having employees who are confident in learning and adapting can make the difference between struggling through disruption and taking advantage of it. Equally, strong partnerships extend this resilience beyond the organisation. Building resilience at the team level creates resilience for the whole business, so fostering a culture of continuous learning and celebrating employee contributions is key to maintaining motivation.

    Focusing on Financial Health and Flexibility

    Financial resilience underpins sustainable growth. Scaling often requires upfront investment, and without healthy cash flow or reserves, opportunities can be lost. Monitoring income and expenses closely, cutting unnecessary costs, and preparing for seasonal fluctuations gives businesses more control.

    Having flexible financing options, like credit lines, small business loans, or even crowdfunding, provides a level of agility. Instead of being caught off guard by unexpected challenges, businesses with financial flexibility are positioned to respond quickly and strategically.

    Financial management software can make it easier to track performance, spot issues early, and forecast future needs. When you can see your finances in real time, you can make proactive, data-driven decisions instead of waiting for problems to happen. In markets that change quickly, this kind of financial management helps small firms plan with confidence, stay flexible, and establish a stronger base for long-term growth.

    Prioritising Customer Relationships and Feedback

    Your customers are not just buyers; they are advocates, sources of insight, and the foundation of repeat business and brand loyalty. Businesses that scale successfully often place customer relationships at the heart of their strategy by actively gathering feedback, responding quickly to issues, and personalising interactions, which shows customers they are valued.

    This loyalty becomes a form of resilience. In periods of uncertainty, a base of satisfied, returning customers provides more stability than constantly chasing new ones. Successful businesses use CRM tools to track customer preferences and automate follow-ups so no opportunity to strengthen a relationship is missed.

    Building Strategic Partnerships

    Partnerships can accelerate growth while also spreading risk. Working with other businesses, organisations, or influencers can provide access to new audiences, shared expertise, or additional resources. Collaboration can also create opportunities for joint marketing, co-branded initiatives, or innovative product and service offerings.

    In times of uncertainty, strong partnerships act as a support network. By aligning with others who share your values and vision, you create opportunities that are mutually beneficial and more resilient than going it alone. It is important to find partners whose goals and audiences complement your own for the best long-term impact.

    The next stage of small business success will be defined by resilience rather than speed, the ability to adapt, recover, and continue to create value in the fact of uncertainty. For SMEs, this means developing adaptable growth plans that include flexible technology, diverse models and empowered employees.

    Learn more at mypos.com

    • Data & AI
    • Digital Payments
    • Digital Strategy
    • Fintech & Insurtech

    Author

    Dan Brightmore

    Published

    16 January 2026

    Estimated Read time

    5Mins

    Ben Goldin, Founder and CEO of Plumery, explores the key banking trends for 2026 – from fraud and digital assets to stablecoins and AI applications

    As we head into the second half of the decade, several emerging trends will come to the fore in 2026. The interconnectedness among these trends is also noteworthy. Artificial intelligence (AI) and progressive modernisation act as common threads.

    A strong current throughout 2026 is the shift from customer-first banking to human-first banking. This relates to the concept of ethical banking. It focuses on creating financial services that have a positive social and environmental impact. 

    Human-first banking aims to get even closer to the customer by understanding their actual human needs, rather than just consumer needs. For example, a bank should be acting as a coach to improve a customer’s financial health, not solely as an advisor on which products they should buy. Banks can build trust in a digital world through tailored and empathetic interactions, effectively simulating the experience customers formerly had with their personal banker.

    To attain that level of hyper-personalisation, banks will need to be capable of processing vast amounts of transactional data, which can only be accomplished by deploying AI and big data tools. This requirement, in turn, will turbocharge progressive modernisation, another trend that has been bubbling under the surface for the past few years.

    Traditional banks are using progressive modernisation to deal with legacy infrastructure that is not fit for purpose in a digital-first, AI-driven world. Instead of a big bang replacement of core banking systems, which is risky and can take years, banks are creating change from within existing architecture. Banking is leveraging technologies that support a multi-core strategy. With this approach, banks can add new cores for specific products that require greater agility and innovation. Modern cores are necessary for deploying the latest AI and big data tools because they provide a unified, real-time data foundation to deliver hyper-personalisation.

    Fraud Threats

    Fraud will remain a top concern throughout 2026. Adversaries use AI to expand the range of techniques, such as impersonation scams and identity theft, as well as accelerate and scale fraudulent activity.

    According to the UK Finance Half Year Fraud Report 2025, £629.3 million was stolen by criminals in the first six months of this year, and there were 2.09 million confirmed cases across both authorised and unauthorised fraud. Card not present cases rose 22% to 1.65 million and accounted for 58% of all unauthorised fraud losses.

    However, the good news is that there was a 21% increase in prevented card fraud in the first half of 2025. The £682 million which was stopped from being stolen is the highest-ever figure reported.

    To combat fraud, new and improved tools to help banks identify, verify and onboard customers will come to market in 2026. The move away from paper-based identity (ID) and widespread adoption of digital ID will play a key role in the fight against fraud. Hence the UK government’s recently announced plans to roll out a new digital ID scheme.

    In addition, I expect to see a fundamental shift in fraud detection using real-time behavioural analytics, data analytics for proactive risk identification, and other applications of AI and machine learning in this space.

    Digital Assets and Stablecoins

    Digital ID verification is also essential for fighting fraud in the digital assets and stablecoins space. Another hot topic at several banking and payments industry conferences last year.   

    In 2026, digital assets and stablecoins will become much more mainstream. Banks have left the sidelines and are now actively engaged with running pilots. For example, in September a consortium of nine European banks, including CaixaBank, ING and UniCredit, announced an initiative to launch a euro-denominated stablecoin.

    Central banks and regulators are developing a comprehensive agenda for digital assets. Banks will need to blend traditional fiat currencies and assets with their digital counterparts. This trend is also driving a progressive modernisation approach, as legacy core banking systems weren’t designed to manage digital assets, nor do they support moving money via blockchain-based rails. I expect to see more banks looking to deploy a multi-core strategy where digital assets are managed and stored elsewhere, but they can still provide a seamless and unified experience to customers.

    AI

    Last year, I predicted that the industry would adopt a ‘meet-in-the-middle’ approach to AI, with banks beginning to uncover the real value that the technology can deliver. I also predicted consolidation, recalibration and stabilisation in the market.

    GenAI Banking Applications

    My predictions held true, by and large. In 2025, institutions explored what is possible, relevant and achievable within the banking context, then specifically for each individual institution within its legacy architectures and technological environments.

    This trend will evolve into more practical actions and initiatives over the next 12 months to provide greater clarity around where GenAI shines versus where it’s not applicable.

    To gain clarity, it’s important to understand the difference between AI and GenAI. The latter is built on stochastic principles, which uses probability to model systems that appear to vary in a random manner. This means that the same input could potentially generate different outputs – this isn’t acceptable for automated financial operations, which requires much more determinism. Hence, I believe that GenAI will be used chiefly in scenarios where there’s human intervention.

    One area where GenAI is applicable is in conversational applications. For example, banks will begin launching more interactive user interfaces. Customers will be able to interact with the bank as they would a human. Moving beyond simple, frequently asked questions to actual actions.

    GenAI in the Back Office

    Similarly in the back office, banks can leverage GenAI to provide guidance to their employees and accelerate certain tasks. Using the technology to improve efficiency and help staff do more will have a positive impact on customer experience. Processes will take much less time.

    It will also help to bring unbanked segments or non-standard customers, which are difficult and costly to onboard because they require a bespoke assessment, into regulated financial services. Applying GenAI can make the bespoke process much more efficient by providing data-driven insights to support faster and smarter decision-making. This will make it much cheaper to serve these segments. Including smaller and medium-sized enterprises, which will drive financial inclusion and improve customers’ financial health.

    Learn more at plumery.com

    • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
    • Blockchain & Crypto
    • Cybersecurity in FinTech
    • Digital Strategy
    • Fintech & Insurtech
    • InsurTech

    Author

    Ben Francis

    Published

    9 January 2026

    Estimated Read time

    4Mins

    Ben Francis, Insurance Lead at Risk Ledger, on navigating cyber threats by reinforcing security from the inside out

    Cyber insurance has evolved from a straightforward risk transfer mechanism into an integral component of enterprise risk strategy. As a result, the conversation has shifted beyond simply securing coverage to embracing three foundational elements: transparency in risk exposure, accountability for security measures, and active collaboration throughout the digital ecosystem.

    Rather than asking ‘are you covered?’, the more pertinent question has become ‘can you demonstrate measurable risk reduction?’. Insurers and insureds alike are recognising that what matters now is how well an organisation understands and manages its digital exposure, especially across its extended supply chain. Recent data reveals that 46% of organisations experienced at least two separate supply chain-related cyber incidents in the past year, a clear sign that exposure often lies beyond direct control. 

    From Risk Transfer to Risk Visibility 

    In recent years, the cyber insurance market has matured significantly. Once viewed as a reactive safety net to cushion the financial impact of attacks, it is now becoming a proactive tool for managing and mitigating risk. This shift is partly driven by insurers, who increasingly expect and work with organisations to demonstrate strong security practices and a nuanced understanding of their threat landscape, including risks deep within their digital supply chains; an area where many businesses still fall short.

    At the same time, the industry faces a growing challenge from systemic cyber risk within their portfolios, as many businesses rely on the same cloud providers, payment systems and digital platforms, increasing the chance of a single point of failure. Insurers must gain visibility into how policyholders are connected, not only to suppliers but to each other. Tools and frameworks that map and monitor these interconnections will be essential to avoid underestimating the wider impact of seemingly isolated cyber events.

    Mapping Beyond Third Parties

    It is no secret that cyber attackers often target the weakest link in a supply chain. These are not always direct suppliers, but fourth, fifth or even sixth-tier vendors that have indirect but critical access to systems and data. Unfortunately, many organisations lack visibility beyond their first tier, creating blind spots that attackers can easily exploit. From an insurance perspective, this presents a clear challenge. If an organisation cannot account for who it is connected to, it cannot adequately quantify its risk and neither can its insurer. Mapping these extended connections is more than just a technical exercise; it means actively practiced risk governance and responsibility. Insurers increasingly want to know how their policyholders are identifying and managing indirect dependencies, particularly in sectors like financial services and retail where disruption can ripple across entire markets.

    Collaboration as a Risk Strategy 

    One of the more underappreciated aspects of cyber resilience is the role of peer collaboration. Unlike physical incidents, cyber threats rarely exist in isolation. A single compromised vendor can impact multiple organisations simultaneously, a fact that has been highlighted by high-profile supply chain attacks such as SolarWinds and MOVEit. 

    As a result, businesses need to think beyond their own perimeters and adopt a more collective mindset. This includes building relationships with industry peers, sharing threat intelligence and participating in sector-wide initiatives aimed at improving visibility and preparedness. 

    In highly regulated sectors, such as insurance, this collaboration is increasingly being encouraged by oversight bodies. Frameworks like the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) in the EU and initiatives from the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the UK are pushing for more transparency around third-party risk. In this context, openness is no longer optional; it will be a regulatory expectation. 

    For insurance providers, greater collaboration between policyholders also means better data on emerging threats and more accurate portfolio management. For businesses, it offers a chance to anticipate vulnerabilities that may not yet have hit their own networks but are affecting others in their industry. 

    Proactive Transparency Builds Trust 

    Organisations that take a proactive, transparent approach to cyber risk management are more likely to secure cover and potentially favourable terms, not just in terms of premiums, but also in access to additional services such as forensic support, incident response sources and legal counsel. 

    Demonstrating a mature cyber posture is not about claiming perfection. No organisation is immune to breaches. What insurers are looking for is evidence of a structured approach: the existence of incident response plans, robust governance, effective supply chain risk management, and above all, an honest view of risk. 

    A Shift in Mindset 

    Ultimately, our understanding of cyber insurance must keep evolving. It should not be treated as a simple checkbox exercise, but as a collaborative relationship between insurers and the organisations they support – one built on shared insight, clear communication, and a drive for continuous improvement.

    The organisations best equipped to navigate today’s threats will be those that prioritise transparency. Not only does it lead to stronger protection, but it also builds a culture of accountability that reinforces security from the inside out.

    Learn more at riskledger.com

    • Cybersecurity
    • Cybersecurity in FinTech
    • Digital Strategy
    • Fintech & Insurtech
    • InsurTech

    Author

    Jan Van Hoecke

    Published

    5 January 2026

    Estimated Read time

    5Mins

    Jan Van Hoecke, VP AI Services at iManage and a highly experienced computer scientist with a passion for technology and problem-solving. on navigating the AI landscape for success in 2026

    The AI landscape faces a number of big shifts in 2026. Agentic AI will undergo a reality check as enterprises discover the gap between marketing hype and actual capabilities, while organisations will go through a mindset change from treating AI hallucinations as crises to managing them, acknowledging the inherent limitations of the technology. There will also be a shift in how data will be structured in AI systems, to help the move from just finding facts (“what”) to understanding reasons (“why”).  Middleware application providers will face new challenges, as those vendors controlling both platforms and data will become more influential. Finally, standardised AI chat interfaces will evolve into smarter, dynamically generated, task-specific user experiences that adapt to immediate needs.  

    Agentic AI Reality Check  

    2026 is the year when agentic AI will get a reality check, as the gap between marketing promises made in 2025 and their actual competencies will become starkly visible. As enterprise adopters share the mixed successes of agentic AI, the market will begin to differentiate between true autonomous agents and the clever workflow wrappers.

    Currently, many products promoted as AI agents are, in reality, rigidly programmed systems that simply follow predefined paths. They cannot independently plan or adapt in real-time to accomplish tasks. The current evolution of AI agents closely resembles the development of autonomous vehicles: early self-driving cars could only maintain lane position by relying strictly on preset instructions, and likewise, today’s AI agents are limited to executing narrowly defined tasks within established workflows. True autonomy, where AI agents can dynamically perform and solve complex problems better than humans and without human intervention, remains, for now, an aspirational goal.

    AI Hallucination Goes from Crisis to Management

    In 2026, the AI hallucination crisis will reach a critical juncture as organisations realise they must learn to coexist with the current fundamentally imperfect technology – until a new technology comes into play that can effectively address the issue. The focus will shift from AI hallucination ‘crisis’ to management.

    As the industry deliberates who carries the liability for AI’s mistakes and inaccuracies – the tool makers or the users – enterprises will stop waiting for vendors to solve the problem and take matters into their own hands. They will adopt a variety of pragmatic risk mitigation strategies – from double and triple-checking work, and enforcing human oversight for high-stakes decisions, to taking hallucination insurance policies.

    Major model builders acknowledge that current foundational LLM technology cannot eliminate hallucinations and ambiguity through incremental improvements alone. New technology is needed. Until then, and perhaps with the realisation that a technological breakthrough is years away, users will start driving the hallucination conversation – both by building systematic defenses within how they use AI, and forcing vendors to accept shared responsibility through better documentation and clearer model limitations.  

    The Next Evolution in AI Data Architecture Lies in a Shift from “What” to “Why”

    There will be a fundamental shift in how data is structured for AI systems, driven by the limitations of current approaches in answering complex questions. While Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) has proven effective at locating information and answering “what” questions, it struggles with the deeper “why” and “how” inquiries.

    This limitation stems from RAG’s flat-file architecture, which excels at locating information but fails to capture the complex interconnections and relationships that underpin meaningful understanding and knowledge, especially in specialised domains like legal and professional services information.

    The solution lies in AI-driven autonomous structuring of data. These systems will be better placed (than humans) to reveal critical relationships across multiple data points at scale, also highlighting the contextual dependencies essential for answering the “why” and “how” questions effectively.

    Consequently, in 2026, with machines taking the lead, the method of structuring data will undergo a complete transformation, gradually eliminating the human role in creating structure, to reveal the business-critical interconnections across multiple data points.

    Middleware AI Apps Squeeze

    Given the essential link between data and AI, middleware companies that specialise in building custom applications layered on top of data platforms will begin to get pushed to the margins, forced to compete on niche features – while the core value of data and insight is captured by the platform owners. The true leaders will be those organisations that both own and manage their data, while also offering an AI-powered interface that enables users to interact with their data securely and efficiently, fully leveraging the capabilities of modern AI technology.

    Shift to AI-generated, Task-Oriented User Interfaces

    In 2026, the current traditional vendor-designed, standard AI chat-based user interfaces will transition to dynamically AI-generated task-specific user interfaces that adapt to users’ immediate needs. This represents a fundamental shift from standardised software – for example, where everyone uses identical Microsoft Word or SharePoint interfaces – to personalised, short-term user interfaces that exist only as long as the user requires them for a specific task.

    This transformation will also address the critical pain point that users typically have – i.e, the crushing cognitive load of navigating bloated, feature-rich software. Instead of searching through endless menus in an overstuffed application like Excel, the user will simply state their goal – “Compare the Q3 and Q4 sales figures for our top 5 products and show me a chart” – and the AI will instantly generate a temporary, purpose-built interface – a “micro-app” – solely designed for that one single task.

    In the context of dynamically generated user interfaces, both data storage and the creation of bespoke interfaces will be managed by AI. The AI organisations that will truly lead in providing such bespoke user interface-generating capability are those that possess and control their own data.

    About iManage

    iManage is dedicated to Making Knowledge Work™. Our cloud-native platform is at the centre of the knowledge economy, enabling every organisation to work more productively, collaboratively, and securely. Built on more than 20 years of industry experience, iManage helps leading organisations manage documents and emails more efficiently, protect vital information assets, and leverage knowledge to drive better business outcomes. As your strategic business partner, we employ our award-winning AI-enabled technology, an extensive partner ecosystem, and a customer-centric approach to provide support and guidance you can trust to make knowledge work for you. iManage is relied on by more than one million professionals at 4,000 organisations around the world.

    Learn more at imanage.com

    • Artificial Intelligence in FinTech
    • Data & AI
    • Digital Strategy