A major Australian bank has confirmed it has temporarily paused its long-running core banking migration programme while a newly convened steering committee considers options. The migration, first announced in 2015, has been variously described as transformative, foundational, generational, and in flight. It is now in its eleventh year and is, the bank confirmed, currently paused.
The pause was disclosed at the bank’s most recent investor briefing, where executives noted that the institution had reached “a natural decision point” in the programme. A natural decision point, in this context, follows the third successive deferral of the programme’s go-live date. The previous decision points were also natural.
The bank emphasised that the pause was not a setback. “This is not a setback,” an executive sponsor said. “This is a deliberate review, calibrated to the complexity of the environment, and designed to ensure we make the right decisions for the long term.” The long term is currently on its third extension.
The Options Under Review
The steering committee has been mandated to evaluate a comprehensive set of options. According to materials reviewed by The Ledger, four options have been formally tabled.
The first option is to continue the programme on its current trajectory, with no changes to scope, vendor, or architecture. This option is supported by the programme team. The programme team has produced 380 pages of architectural documentation in support of the option. The architectural documentation has been described, by the bank’s technology risk function, as comprehensive.
The second option is to restart the programme. A restart would re-baseline the programme charter, refresh the steering committee, and reissue the request for proposals. The bank’s procurement function has indicated this option is “operationally feasible”. The bank’s legal function has indicated that the existing vendor contract would need to be renegotiated. The renegotiation is anticipated to take 18 months.
The third option is to redefine the programme’s end state to match its current state. Under this option, the programme would be declared complete, with a celebration event and a press release. A consultant familiar with the proposal said the option had “strong appeal”, particularly to executives whose performance scorecards reference programme delivery.
The fourth option is to do nothing. The fourth option has not been formally evaluated, but is understood to be operating as the de facto fifth option already.
“All options are on the table,” a senior official said. “The table is round, by design, so that no option is at the head of it. We will move forward, in due course, with the option that best serves customers, shareholders, and the executive team’s incentive structures.”
We accept anonymous submissions from inside the industry. Steering committee post-mortems, vendor demo recaps, and lightly fictionalised consulting anecdotes are particularly welcome. Monthly featured contributors receive recognition and a modest prize.
Contributor guidelines ›The Programme’s History
The programme was launched in 2015 with a planned five-year delivery and an initial budget of $450 million. Since then, the programme has had four directors, two technology partners, three architectural patterns, and an evolving definition of “core”. Total spend to date is publicly reported as exceeding $1.4 billion. The bank declined to confirm whether the figure included the cost of the steering committee.
The original implementation was scheduled to occur in three waves. Wave one was completed in 2019, two years late. Wave one delivered a customer-facing identity service that has since been retired. Wave two was rescoped in 2021 and is now part of wave three. Wave three has not commenced.
The programme’s previous milestone, originally described as “systems convergence”, was renamed in 2024 to “integration readiness”. Integration readiness was renamed in 2025 to “forward platform foundations”. Forward platform foundations are the prerequisite to the next phase. The next phase has not been named, pending agreement on terminology.
The Pause Itself
The bank confirmed that, during the pause, the existing core banking system would continue to operate. The system, originally installed in 1996, has been described variously as resilient, robust, regrettable, and immortal. The system processes approximately 90 per cent of the bank’s daily transactions. The replacement programme has, to date, processed none.
The programme team has been asked to remain in place. Members of the team will continue to attend daily stand-ups, weekly steering meetings, and the monthly programme review. The monthly programme review will continue to track velocity. Velocity, in the absence of programme activity, will be reported as zero with an annotation.
External observers have noted that several international peers have completed similar migrations during the same period, on similar budgets. Asked whether the bank had drawn lessons from those institutions, the bank confirmed it had benchmarked extensively. “We have studied the international peer set,” an executive said. “We believe our context is unique.” The context has been unique for eleven years.
The steering committee’s recommendation is expected before the end of the financial year. The recommendation will be reviewed by the executive committee. The executive committee will make a decision in the next strategic planning cycle. The next strategic planning cycle commences after the end of the financial year. A spokesperson confirmed that the timing was “well-aligned”.
