{"id":990,"date":"2026-06-26T14:37:12","date_gmt":"2026-06-26T13:37:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bepeerless.co\/blog\/?p=990"},"modified":"2026-06-26T14:37:14","modified_gmt":"2026-06-26T13:37:14","slug":"core-banking-migration-mistakes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bepeerless.co\/blog\/core-banking-migration-mistakes\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Core Banking Migrations Fail: 9 Critical Mistakes Banks Make (And How to Avoid Them)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Replacing a core banking system is one of the biggest decisions a financial institution will ever make. It is not simply a technology upgrade. It touches every part of the bank, from customer accounts and lending operations to compliance, reporting, payments, and daily transactions. That is why many executives describe core banking migration as changing the engine of an aircraft while it is still in flight.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The challenge is understandable. Banks process thousands or even millions of transactions every day. Customers expect uninterrupted access to their money, regulators expect accurate reporting, and internal teams depend on reliable systems to keep operations running. Any disruption during a migration can affect customer confidence, operational efficiency, and business performance. As a result, many institutions continue operating on legacy platforms long after they have outgrown them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ironically, delaying core banking modernization often creates more risk than the migration itself. Legacy platforms become increasingly expensive to maintain, difficult to integrate with modern digital services, and slower to support new products. They can also make regulatory changes harder to implement, especially when every update requires extensive custom development or external vendor intervention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reality is that banks across Africa are under growing pressure to modernize. Customers expect seamless digital experiences. Fintechs are introducing products at a much faster pace. Regulators continue to strengthen expectations around reporting, security, and operational resilience. Meeting these demands requires technology that can adapt quickly, integrate easily, and scale with the institution’s ambitions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet despite these pressures, many executives remain hesitant to migrate to a new core banking system because they have heard stories of failed projects, budget overruns, extended downtime, or difficult data migrations. These concerns are legitimate. They deserve careful planning rather than dismissal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fortunately, today’s migration landscape is very different from what it was a decade ago. Modern implementation methodologies, cloud-native platforms, API-first architecture, and structured migration frameworks have significantly improved how banks approach transformation projects. Preparation, governance, and the right technology are now what determine successful migrations. Banks need platforms designed for continuous change, not systems that depend on periodic upgrades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this guide, we explore the most common core banking migration challenges, why core banking migration projects fail, and the practical steps institutions can take to reduce risk. Whether you are planning a cloud core banking migration, evaluating core banking implementation options, or simply researching how to migrate from a legacy core banking system, this article will help you make informed decisions with greater confidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Why Banks Delay Core Banking Migration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

If the benefits of modern banking platforms are so compelling, why do many institutions postpone migration for years?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The answer is simple. Most banks are not afraid of adopting new technology. They are afraid of what could happen during the transition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the biggest concerns is business continuity. Executives worry (and rightly so) that switching core banking software could interrupt customer transactions, delay payments, or affect critical banking services. Even planned maintenance windows require careful coordination because banking operates around the clock. This is why bank leaders often ask questions such as “How long does core banking migration take?”<\/em> and “Can we switch core banking software without downtime?”<\/em> during vendor evaluations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Data presents another major concern. Many institutions have accumulated decades of customer records, transaction histories, loan portfolios, and compliance data. Before migration begins, teams must cleanse, map, validate, and reconcile all that information. These data migration challenges in banking often reveal inconsistencies that have built up over many years of operating multiple systems. For many institutions, the migration project becomes the first opportunity to improve data quality across the organisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vendor dependency also influences decision-making. Banks running heavily customised legacy platforms often assume that replacing the system will require rebuilding every integration and business process from scratch. Many older platforms made integration difficult, but modern API-first core banking systems simplify connections with payment networks, mobile applications, credit bureaus, identity platforms, and other digital services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cost is another consideration. Beyond software licensing, decision-makers evaluate implementation, training, integration, testing, and operational readiness. Rather than asking, “What does migration cost?”, experienced executives ask a more strategic question: “What is the cost of doing nothing?” As legacy systems become more expensive to maintain and less capable of supporting growth, the business case for modernization becomes increasingly compelling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The banks that successfully replace legacy infrastructure are not necessarily those with the largest technology budgets. More often, they are the institutions that recognise migration as a strategic business initiative, invest time in preparation, and follow proven best practices for core banking migration. They understand that reducing migration risk begins long before the first line of data is moved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Below are 9 mistakes institutions often make when migrating to a new core banking platform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Mistake #1: Treating Migration as an IT Project Instead of a Business Transformation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

One of the most common core banking migration mistakes is assuming that migration belongs mainly to the technology team. It is easy to understand why this happens. The core banking system is software, the implementation involves data, integrations, testing, environments, and technical teams. But the moment the project starts, it becomes clear that the core touches almost every part of the institution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A core banking migration changes how teams onboard customers, book loans, manage deposits, apply charges, generate reports, run branch operations, resolve complaints, and produce compliance evidence. When a bank treats the project as an IT upgrade, it overlooks important operational realities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, the technology team may successfully migrate customer records, but if operations has not validated how account restrictions work in the new system, the bank may discover issues only during user acceptance testing. A lending team may expect loan restructuring flows to work the same way they did in the old system, only to discover that the new system requires reconfigured approval rules. Compliance may expect regulatory reports to look familiar, but the new platform may structure data differently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These are not software problems alone. They are business alignment problems too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A better approach is to treat core banking implementation as an institution-wide transformation programme. Every major function should have a clear role before migration begins. Operations should document current processes and identify what must change. Risk and compliance teams should validate controls, approval flows, audit trails, and reporting requirements. Finance should confirm ledger mapping, posting rules, fees, taxes, and reconciliation logic. Product teams should decide which products to migrate as they are and which ones to clean up before the transition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The goal is not to involve everyone in every meeting. That will only slow the project. Rather, ownership should be clearly defined. Each department should know what it must validate, when it must validate it, and what decisions it is responsible for making.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is one of the best practices for core banking migration because it prevents surprises later. The more alignment you create before build and migration begin, the less pressure you face near go-live.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A practical first step is to create a migration steering committee that includes business, technology, operations, risk, compliance, and finance leadership. This team should not only track project timelines. It should make decisions quickly, resolve trade-offs, and prevent the migration from becoming trapped between departments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Core banking migration succeeds when the whole institution understands that it is not simply changing software. It is redesigning the foundation on which the bank will operate for the next decade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Mistake #2: Underestimating Data Quality Problems<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Many banks do not fully understand the condition of their data until they attempt to migrate it. That is when old inconsistencies become visible. Duplicate customer records. Missing KYC information. Dormant accounts with incomplete histories. Product codes that no longer match active products. Loan records that require manual interpretation. Ledger balances that need deeper reconciliation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These data migration challenges in banking are not unusual. They build up over years of system changes, manual workarounds, mergers, new product launches, staff turnover, and evolving regulatory requirements. The problem is not always that the bank has poor data discipline. Sometimes, the old system simply allowed too many exceptions over time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Still, during migration, every exception matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When teams fail to clean and validate data before migration, the new core can inherit old problems. Worse, it may expose those problems in ways that affect operations. A customer may have two profiles. An account may carry the wrong status. A loan repayment schedule may not reconcile cleanly. A report may show figures that differ from what teams expect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is why data preparation should begin early. Teams should not treat data preparation as a technical activity that begins after the implementation project has moved far ahead. Before a bank decides to migrate to a new core banking system, it should carry out a detailed data readiness assessment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That assessment should answer practical questions. What data must be migrated? What historical data must remain searchable? Which records are incomplete? Which products are no longer active but still affect reporting? What data must be archived rather than moved into the live environment? Which customer profiles need deduplication? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bank also needs to define ownership. Technology teams can extract and move data, but business teams must confirm whether the data is correct. Finance must validate balances. Credit teams must validate loan records. Compliance must confirm that required customer and transaction information is complete. Operations must test whether migrated records behave correctly in real workflows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A strong core banking migration checklist should include data profiling, cleansing, mapping, trial migration, exception reporting, reconciliation, business validation, and sign-off. These steps may feel slow at the beginning, but they reduce serious risk later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is also an important mindset shift here. Migration is not only a chance to move data. It is a chance to improve data quality. Banks that treat migration as a clean-up opportunity often emerge with stronger reporting, better customer visibility, and more reliable operational controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Mistake #3: Ignoring Integration Complexity<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

No core banking system operates alone. It sits at the centre of a wider technology environment. Mobile apps, internet banking, USSD, agency banking, card processors, payment switches, credit bureaus<\/a>, identity systems, CRM tools, accounting platforms, reporting engines, fraud tools, and notification services may all depend on the core in one way or another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is why integration complexity is one of the most important core banking migration challenges. A bank may focus heavily on moving accounts and transactions, only to discover that connected systems require just as much attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Every integration needs to be identified, documented, tested, and prioritised. Some integrations are critical for go-live. Others can be phased. Some may need to be rebuilt completely. Others may only require configuration changes. Without a clear integration inventory, the project team may underestimate both timeline and risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is especially important when replacing a legacy core banking system. Older platforms often rely on custom scripts, file uploads, batch jobs, direct database connections, or undocumented dependencies. Over time, these connections become part of daily operations, even if no one remembers exactly who built them or why. During migration, these hidden dependencies can create delays.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A practical way to reduce risk is to map integrations by business criticality. Teams may need to prioritise payment rails, customer channels, identity verification, regulatory reporting, and accounting interfaces early. Less critical integrations can follow a phased plan, provided the business agrees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is also where API-first core banking becomes valuable. An API-first platform makes it easier to connect with third-party systems through well-documented interfaces instead of fragile custom links. For institutions planning cloud core banking migration or broader core banking modernization, integration readiness should be a major evaluation criterion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, even with a modern platform, integration success still requires planning. APIs do not remove the need for business rules, security reviews, testing, data mapping, and exception handling. They simply make the connection layer cleaner and easier to manage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Banks should ask clear questions before migration begins. Which systems depend on the current core? What data do they read or write? How frequently do they connect? What happens if one integration fails? Are there manual fallback processes? Who owns each integration?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ignoring these questions is how banks replace one system and accidentally disrupt five others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The safest migration projects treat integration as a workstream of its own, not as an afterthought. This is how banks replace legacy core banking systems without losing control of the wider operating environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Mistake #4: Choosing the Wrong Migration Strategy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

One of the first strategic decisions in any core banking migration is deciding how the transition will happen. This decision has a direct impact on project risk, business continuity, testing effort, and customer experience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is no universal migration approach that works for every institution. The right strategy depends on the size of the bank, the complexity of its products, the number of connected systems, regulatory expectations, and the institution’s tolerance for operational risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some banks choose a phased migration, moving products, branches, or customer segments over time. Some institutions choose a parallel run, where the old and new systems operate together for a defined period while teams compare and validate outputs. In other cases, institutions adopt a single cutover, often called a “big bang” migration, where they retire the old platform and make the new one the system of record within a carefully planned implementation window.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The mistake is not choosing one approach over another. The mistake is choosing an approach simply because another institution used it successfully.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, a phased migration may reduce operational pressure, but it can increase project complexity because both systems must coexist for longer. A parallel run builds confidence because teams can compare results before full adoption, but it also requires additional operational effort and governance. A single cutover shortens the transition period but requires exceptional preparation because there is very little room for error once production begins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Banks planning to migrate to a new core banking system should evaluate these trade-offs early. The migration strategy should be based on evidence gathered during discovery, not assumptions made before the project starts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A useful exercise is to conduct a migration readiness assessment before selecting an approach. This should evaluate data quality, integration readiness, operational processes, internal capabilities, and business priorities. The findings often reveal which migration strategy is most practical for the institution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Good migration planning is not about choosing the fastest path. It is about choosing the safest one for your business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Mistake #5: Poor Change Management<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Technology projects often receive significant attention. People sometimes do not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That imbalance creates problems during core banking implementation because a successful migration depends as much on people adopting new ways of working as it does on the software functioning correctly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Employees develop routines over many years. Branch staff know exactly where to find information in the existing system. Operations teams have built workarounds that help them complete daily tasks. Credit officers understand how approvals flow through the current platform. Finance teams understand how to generate reports, even when the process involves several manual steps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Migration changes those routines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If staff only encounter the new system a few days before go-live, confidence falls quickly. Even well-designed software can feel difficult when users have not had enough time to understand new workflows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Strong change management begins long before implementation. Employees should understand why the migration is happening, what problems it is solving, and how it will improve their daily work. When people only hear about migration through project updates or technical meetings, they often assume it is an IT initiative with little relevance to them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Training should also be practical rather than theoretical. Users need opportunities to complete realistic tasks in the new environment before go-live. Branch staff should process customer transactions. Lending teams should originate and approve loans. Finance teams should generate reports. Customer service teams should resolve account enquiries. Practising familiar tasks helps users build confidence while giving the project team valuable feedback before production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Communication matters just as much as training. Staff should know the implementation timeline, expected changes, available support channels, and escalation procedures. Leadership should provide consistent updates throughout the project so that uncertainty does not create unnecessary resistance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One useful practice is identifying “super users” within each department. These are employees who receive additional training and become the first point of support for their colleagues after go-live. They help answer questions quickly and reduce dependence on the central implementation team.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Banks often focus on technical readiness. Operational readiness deserves equal attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Mistake #6: Not Testing Enough<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Testing is one area where shortcuts almost always become expensive later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A bank may believe its migration is ready because teams have loaded customer data successfully and integrations seem to be working. That is only the beginning. The real question is whether the system performs reliably under the conditions it will experience every day after go-live.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is why testing should extend beyond basic functionality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

User acceptance testing should involve business users from different departments completing real operational scenarios. Customers open accounts, apply for loans, repay facilities, transfer funds, reverse transactions, and request statements every day. Those same scenarios should be tested repeatedly before production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Performance testing is equally important. A system that performs well with a few hundred transactions may behave very differently when thousands of users access digital channels simultaneously. Banks should understand how the platform responds under expected peak volumes before customers do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reconciliation testing deserves particular attention. Account balances, customer records, loan positions, and financial reports generated from the new platform should match validated source data. Teams should investigate and resolve any differences before go-live instead of explaining them afterward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another area that is sometimes overlooked is failure testing. What happens if an integration becomes unavailable? What if a payment service experiences delays? And What if the migration must be paused or rolled back? These situations may never occur, but planning for them strengthens operational resilience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Testing should also involve regulators’ expectations where applicable. Teams should validate reports, audit trails, approval workflows, and security controls in advance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Institutions looking for how to reduce core banking migration risk often search for complex technical solutions. In practice, one of the most effective safeguards is disciplined testing. Every successful test increases confidence. Every failed test discovered before go-live is an opportunity to prevent disruption later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Banks that invest time in thorough validation rarely describe testing as a project delay. They see it as an investment in operational stability and customer trust.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Mistake #7: Ignoring Regulatory Readiness<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Every bank understands that regulatory compliance is essential. During core banking migration, teams sometimes overlook compliance until the final stage. Instead, they should build compliance into the migration plan from the beginning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A new core banking platform changes how the institution processes transactions, stores customer information, generates reports, and produces audit evidence. When teams fail to review these changes from a regulatory perspective early enough, they may need to make last-minute adjustments that introduce unnecessary risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is especially important in regulated markets where reporting requirements, customer due diligence obligations, and audit expectations continue to evolve. Migration teams should involve compliance and risk functions from the beginning of the project, not after they have completed technical configuration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One practical step is to create a regulatory readiness checklist alongside the technical migration plan. This checklist should identify every report the institution must produce after go-live, every approval workflow that requires validation, every audit trail the system must preserve, and every regulatory integration that depends on the core banking system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Banks should also verify that historical records required for compliance remain accessible after migration. Regulators and auditors may request information that predates the new platform. Having a clear archival and retrieval strategy is just as important as migrating active customer data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Modern platforms make compliance easier by supporting configurable reporting, detailed audit logs, and role-based controls. Technology can support compliance, but the bank must still validate that it continues to meet regulatory obligations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Successful core banking modernization depends on operational performance and the institution’s ability to satisfy regulatory expectations without disruption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Mistake #8: Focusing Only on Go-Live<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Many migration projects treat go-live as the finish line. In reality, it is the beginning of a new operational phase.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first few weeks after deployment often determine how users perceive the success of the project. Small issues can become larger operational concerns when teams do not have support structures in place from the start.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This period is commonly referred to as hypercare. During hypercare, implementation teams, business users, technology teams, and vendor specialists work closely together to monitor system performance, resolve issues quickly, and provide additional user support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Banks should plan this phase before the migration takes place rather than reacting once the system is live.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, transaction monitoring should become more frequent during the first few days of production. Teams should review reconciliation reports carefully. They should also capture user feedback daily so they can identify recurring issues quickly. Customer service teams should have clear escalation paths for problems they cannot resolve immediately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Teams should also recognise that they do not need to deliver every improvement on the first day. They can schedule some product enhancements, workflow refinements, and integration improvements after the platform has stabilised. Trying to include every desired feature before go-live often increases complexity without improving outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another common mistake is disbanding the project team too quickly. Business users will continue discovering opportunities to optimise processes as they become more familiar with the new platform. A dedicated support structure helps teams implement these improvements in a controlled manner over an agreed period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Banks that experience smooth transitions usually view go-live as one milestone within a broader transformation programme. Continuous optimisation becomes part of normal operations rather than a separate project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Mistake #9: Choosing Technology That Will Become Legacy Again<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps the most expensive mistake is replacing one ageing platform with another system that will face the same limitations a few years later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Technology decisions made today should support the institution’s long-term strategy, not simply solve today’s operational frustrations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many banks begin migration because their existing platform has become difficult to maintain. Product launches take too long. Integrations require extensive custom development. Infrastructure costs continue to increase. Reporting becomes increasingly manual. Unfortunately, some replacement projects repeat those same challenges because teams do not pay enough attention to architecture during vendor evaluation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When assessing a new platform, decision-makers should look beyond the feature list. Features change over time. Architecture determines how easily the platform can continue evolving.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An API-first core banking platform makes it easier to integrate with payment networks, fintech partners, digital channels, identity providers, and future technologies without repeatedly rebuilding connections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cloud-native architecture gives institutions the flexibility to scale infrastructure according to demand instead of investing heavily in hardware long before they need it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Microservices architecture allows individual business functions to evolve independently. Updating a lending workflow should not require changes across the entire banking platform. This flexibility becomes increasingly valuable as institutions introduce new products, respond to regulatory updates, or expand into new markets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Configuration is another important consideration. Banks should be able to adjust business rules, pricing, approval workflows, and product parameters without depending on lengthy software development cycles for every operational change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These capabilities matter because banking continues to evolve. Customer expectations change. Regulations change. Competition changes. A platform that cannot adapt efficiently eventually becomes another legacy system, regardless of how modern it appeared during procurement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For institutions planning how to migrate from a legacy core banking system, vendor selection should therefore focus on long-term adaptability as much as immediate functionality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most successful banks do not ask, “Does this platform solve today’s problems?”<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

They ask a more valuable question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Will this platform still support our business five or ten years from now?”<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That question shifts the conversation from software replacement to strategic investment. It encourages institutions to choose technology that supports continuous innovation instead of forcing another large-scale migration in the near future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

What Successful Core Banking Migrations Have in Common<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Successful core banking migration projects rarely happen by accident. They are usually the result of careful preparation, disciplined execution, and honest conversations about risk before implementation begins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One thing they have in common is strong executive ownership. Migration affects the whole institution, so the technology team should not carry it alone. Senior leadership must set priorities, approve trade-offs, and keep teams aligned when difficult decisions arise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another common feature is early visibility into data quality. Banks that wait until late implementation to inspect customer records, account balances, loan schedules, and historical transactions often expose themselves to avoidable delays. A good migration team studies the data early, identifies exceptions, and agrees on how to clean, migrate, archive, or reconcile each category of data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Successful migrations also depend on clear scope. Not every legacy process should be carried into the new system. Some workflows exist only because the old platform could not support a better way. Migration gives banks a chance to simplify processes, remove outdated products, and improve controls. That opportunity is lost when the goal is simply to recreate the old system on a new platform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Testing is another major difference. Strong migration teams test real business scenarios, not only technical functions. They check customer onboarding, loan booking, transfers, reversals, reporting, end-of-day processing, user permissions, and exception handling. They also involve the people who will use the system every day, because business users often catch issues that technical teams may not see.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, successful migrations plan for life after go-live. Hypercare, issue tracking, user support, reconciliation monitoring, and continuous improvement are treated as part of the migration journey, not as afterthoughts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Core Banking Migration Checklist<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Before you migrate to a new core banking system, your institution should be able to answer these questions with confidence:<\/p>\n\n\n\n