Technology

Core Processing: CUs Warm Up to Outsourcing

It’s time to toss out old assumptions about service bureaus.

December 08, 2012
/ PRINT / ShareShare / Text Size +

Conventional wisdom once held that credit unions with more than $1 billion in assets should keep core processing in-house, while an outsourced solution or service bureau was better suited to all other credit unions.

And, so the thinking went, any credit union opting to outsource would have to relinquish control of how and when it conducted its processing operations.

Information Systems Guide

But core processing experts say it’s time to toss out those old assumptions. “The technology has come a long way,” says Naseer Nasim, senior vice president at Fiserv. “The differences between in-house and service bureau delivery models are narrowing.”

In the traditional service bureau model, which is still the preferred outsourcing choice for many credit unions, vendors take over all core processing functions.

Today, however, credit unions can choose from a variety of outsourcing options that let them retain more control.

At Fiserv, for instance, one option offering a high level of control for clients is dedicated hosting, in which the service bureau assigns one of its servers to the credit union. “It’s similar to them having their own system in their own computer room,” Nasim says.

But the server is at Fiserv, and maintenance, upgrades, and security are Fiserv’s responsibilities, not the credit union’s.

Over the past five years, Nasim has seen more credit unions—including some of the largest—opt for some type of outsourced core processing.

“Asset size no longer determines the best delivery option,” he says. “It’s more a matter of what the credit union’s business strategy calls for.”

Symitar also is witnessing a movement toward outsourcing, says President Ted Bilke. Current in-house clients are migrating over, and more than half of Symitar’s new core processing customers are selecting some form of outsourcing.

“We’re also starting to see a few billion-dollar credit unions make that choice,” Bilke says, “and I think we’re going to see more.”

Part of what’s driving the shift is cost, Bilke explains. Credit union delivery channels have multiplied, making constant, uninterrupted connectivity at multiple points critical. With that, the cost of in-house core processing has climbed.

He says Symitar now sees more instances where the service bureau option doesn’t increase costs as it has in the past. “It’s actually becoming a savings opportunity.”

Still, the in-house model remains the top choice for many. In such cases, the key issue is maintaining total control of core processing, Bilke says.

Because outsourcing means giving up some measure of control, “you have to go into this with your eyes wide open,” he advises. “It’s difficult for a service bureau to be as nimble as you can be when you need to go into your system and change anything at any time.”

Failure to recognize that difference can lead to frustration with the outsourced model, Bilke says.

Stay tuned: The second of this five-part series examines how a hybrid of in-house and service bureau core processing systems can free up valuable technology and staffing resources.

Post a comment to this story

heroes

What's Popular

Popular Stories

Recent Discussion

Great article! Unfortunately, most employees don’t feel valued or appreciated by their supervisors or employers. In fact, research has shown that the predominant reason team members quit their jobs is because they don’t feel valued. This is in spite of the fact that employee recognition programs have proliferated in the workplace – over 90% of all organizations in the U.S. has some form of employee recognition activities in place. But most employee recognition programs are viewed with skepticism and cynicism – because they aren’t viewed as being genuine in their communication of appreciation. Getting the “employee of the month” award, receiving a certificate of recognition, or a “Way to go, team!” email just don’t get the job done. How do you communicate authentic appreciation? We have found people have different ways that they want to be shown appreciation, and if you don’t communicate in the language of appreciation important to them, you essentially “miss the mark”. Additionally, employees need to receive recognition more than once a year at their performance review. Otherwise, they view the praise as “going through the motions”. A third component of authentic appreciation is that the communication has to be about them personally – not the department, not their group, but something they did. Finally, they have to believe that you mean what you say. How you treat them has to match the words you use. If you are not sure how your team members want to be shown appreciation, the Motivating By Appreciation Inventory (www.appreciationatwork.com/assess) will identify the language of appreciation and specific actions preferred by each employee. You then can create a group profile for your team, so everyone knows how to encourage one another. Remember, employees want to know that they are valued for what they contribute to the success of the organization. And communicating authentic appreciation in the ways they desire it can make the difference between keeping your quality team members or having a negative work environment that everyone wants to leave. Paul White, Ph.D., is the co-author of The 5 Languages of Appreciation in the Workplace with Dr. Gary Chapman.

Your Say: Who should be Credit Union Magazine's 2014 CU Hero of the Year?

View Results Poll Archive