What senior banking leaders need to get right when buying a 4th-generation core solution – insights from our webinar with experts from Aperture, GFT and Tungsten Automation.
PART OF THE CORE BANKING PLAYBOOK SERIES
Part 1 —> How to buy a 4th-gen core banking system
Part 2 —> How to migrate to a 4th-gen core banking system
Part 3 —> How to unlock commercial value from your 4th-generation core
Most core transformations don’t fail because of technology. They fail because of how the decision is made.
Banks approach core replacement as a procurement exercise – a process of comparing features, scoring vendors, and replicating what they already have. That’s the problem.
“Banks are very, very good at trying to recreate what already exists… rather than looking at the strategic outcomes.”
Andrew Ng, Head of Payments and Embedded Finance at Tungsten Automation
At a time when every platform claims to be “cloud-native” and “API-first”, the real challenge isn’t understanding what a modern core is. It’s knowing how to choose one and what to optimize for.
This is exactly what banking industry experts unpack in our latest webinar. Watch the full session for detailed guidance or read on for the three mistakes that most often derail core selection.
Watch the how to buy a 4th-gen core webinar
Get access to recording in your inbox after submitting your email.
The three mistakes that most often derail core banking selection
1. Starting with requirements instead of strategy
Most core selection processes begin with a familiar pattern: defining requirements based on what the current system already does.
The problem is those requirements are anchored in a different generation of technology, and a different operating model.
What looks like a structured, objective process can quietly lock you into replicating the past, rather than enabling the future.
“Those lists are designed for the previous generation… so you end up asking the wrong questions.”
Simon Farmilo, Banking Partnerships Director at GFT Technologies
Stop asking: What does the platform do today?
Start asking: What do we need to be able to do in 5–10 years?
2. Evaluating demos instead of reality
Vendor demos are persuasive, but they can also be misleading. They show what a platform can do, not how it performs under real-world conditions like scale, change, or regulatory pressure. That’s why running a proof of concept that tests these conditions is critical early in the selection process
“There’s a very, very big difference between cloud native and being built for the cloud versus putting a legacy system into the cloud.”
Lewis Ide, SVP APAC at 10x Banking
Stop asking: Does the demo show what we need?
Start asking: How will this platform perform under real conditions and over time?
3. Running proof of concepts (PoCs) that prove nothing
Proofs of concept are often treated as a formality, something to validate that the technology “works.”
But in practice, they can reinforce the same flawed thinking that shapes the rest of the selection process.
“Most people are looking for the wrong things when they run a PoC.”
Andrew Ng, Head of Payments and Embedded Finance at Tungsten Automation
Too often, PoCs focus on replicating existing functionality rather than testing whether the platform can support future outcomes.
The real purpose of a PoC isn’t to confirm what a system can do – it’s to validate what it enables. As Andrew Ng highlights, you need to think: “What is the end goal? Not what is the technology.”
A PoC is essential, but its value depends entirely on shifting the focus from features to outcomes.
Great core banking platform PoCs focus not on features, but outcomes:
-
Can this support our future operating model?
-
Can we launch and evolve products quickly?
-
Does this unlock new value, or just replicate existing processes?
Stop asking: Does this PoC prove the technology works?
Start asking: Does this prove we can achieve the outcomes we actually care about?
The one question that determines everything
At every stage of the process, from defining requirements to running a PoC, one question should anchor the decision:
What strategic outcome are we trying to unlock by moving to a 4th-generation core banking platform?
Because if that’s not clear:
-
You’ll recreate legacy instead of designing for the future
-
Innovation will remain slow, complex, and costly
-
You risk locking yourself into the wrong platform, and the wrong vendor.
Get it right, and the outcome is very different. You move to a cloud-native core banking platform that is future-ready by design – one you can evolve, innovate on, and grow with over time.
Watch the full webinar to learn how to structure a core banking selection process, evaluate vendors, and build a business case that gets approved. Then read our practical buying a 4th-gen core guide.
Get access to the how to buy a core banking platform webinar
Find the recording in your inbox after submitting the form.
Frequently asked questions
Q: Why do most core banking platform selections fail? Most core selections fail not because of technology, but because of how the decision is made. Banks typically approach the process as a procurement exercise: comparing features, scoring vendors, and replicating what they already have. That anchors the decision in a previous generation of technology and a previous operating model, rather than the strategic outcomes the institution needs to achieve.
Q: What is the biggest mistake banks make when selecting a core banking platform? Starting with requirements instead of strategy. Requirements lists built from existing system capabilities are designed for the previous generation of technology. They lead banks to ask the wrong questions of vendors and to select platforms that replicate the past rather than enable the future. The right starting point is clarity on strategic outcomes: what does the institution need to be able to do in five to ten years?
Q: How should banks evaluate vendor demos during core banking platform selection? Vendor demos show what a platform can do, not how it performs under real-world conditions of scale, regulatory change, or operational pressure. The right question is not whether the demo shows the required features, but whether the platform can perform under real conditions over time. A well-designed proof of concept is a more reliable signal than any demo.
Q: What is a proof of concept (PoC) in core banking selection, and how should it be designed? A proof of concept is a structured test of whether a platform can deliver the outcomes a bank actually needs, not simply a demonstration that the technology works. PoCs that focus on replicating existing functionality reinforce the same flawed thinking that shapes the rest of the selection process. The right PoC tests whether the platform can support the future operating model, enable rapid product launch, and unlock new value rather than just replicate existing processes.
Q: What is the most important question to ask before choosing a core banking platform? What strategic outcome are we trying to unlock by moving to a 4th-generation core banking platform? Without clarity on this, banks risk recreating legacy under a modern label, locking into the wrong vendor, and continuing to operate at the pace and cost of the previous generation. Every stage of the selection process, from requirements definition to PoC design, should be anchored to this question.
Q: How long does a core banking platform selection process take? Timeline varies by institution size and complexity. For large banks, formal RFP processes, vendor evaluations, and proof of concept phases typically run over several months. The more significant risk is not the length of the process but starting it with the wrong frame: selecting for today's requirements rather than tomorrow's operating model.
