It feels like they are not done. And it looks like keeping your fingers crossed works.
9 replies (most recent on top)
For Truist to survive it has to keep its retail and commercial base; that is not happening. Truist is bleeding and there is no bandaid strong enough out there. EDA and all its people on the payroll can only thrive if Truist performs. It is easy to cut, cut, and cut; buying time for existing people on the payroll..all that does is slow down the bleeding without solving the issue. The issue is the culture at Truist and its lack of business strategy to bring in more revenue. Surviving is different from thriving, and Truist is barely surviving. The worker bees left in EDA are now test cases to see how Tom’s ill planning works out; those worker bees shouldn’t feel valued because they weren’t cut yet.
I hear what you're saying but I disagree that "the EDO model was so broken". You need to look at it in terms of why it was created (I don't want to say "purpose", I'm not that wounded yet) - when viewed as to why it was created, it's been an extraordinary success. The EDO was formed to convince regulators that things had changed and that controls were in place, but not to change anything or put any controls in place. It was a safe haven for the duck's cronies (a few just finally said bye bye recently) and busted LDPs with little data experience, who all knew that the less they did the more likely it would be that they could just keep the RSUs rollin' in. The talent was laughable, but loyal, and BB&T valued that more than anything. Those of us in Risk knew, but quack was king at the time. Ok, it sounds cynical, and your first reaction might be to disagree but walk through this: The EDO was created in response to the crisis and a regulatory consent decree that basically said what you did: "Reporting couldn't be delivered because the underlying data platforms were all over the place or the report developers couldn't get access to the data." That consent decree was lifted because the regulators were somehow convinced that reporting had become more dependable, integrated faster, of better quality, and under governance. But you're saying that's not the case today? That basically nothing has changed? And yet the regulators were somehow convinced something had changed? Sounds like the EDO was a success as measured by the BB&T yardstick.
He sure is openly packing these leadership vacancies with people from WU. I've counted 4 so far, between his directs and managers under his directs. Non-solicitation agreements really are toothless, I guess. Or maybe WU just doesn't care/didn't make him sign one.
How’s Tom M and his band of merry Western Unioneers doing?
I see that Project STAR is officially over, but I wonder if they'll take a page from Wealth's playbook and start pulling that Accenture nonsense, now that they've isolated those with institutional knowledge and skills. I could see that happening if the org fails to execute on the Chief Buzzword Merchant's grand vision of technical excellence.
The EDO model was so broken. Large consolidation projects that cost a ton, but never were able to deliver. Was it a leadership issue that we bounced from one platform to another: PDOA, HIVE, DataLake, TERM, HUB, etc. None of the big projects finished, money ran out. Reporting couldn't be delivered because the underlying data platforms were all over the place or the report developers couldn't get access to the data. There was a big push on controls which is great but not when you can't even deliver the base needs of the business units. Data was locked away from the people that needed it to run their departments. We were quoted outrageous costs to get our application data into EDO approved repositories and while management argued over internal "charge backs" our business lost opportunities and couldn't identify issues because we could do the analytics. I don't blame the developers, their hands were tied by leadership chasing the next big thing/buzz word while ignoring the day-to-day needs for reporting.
"Underwhelming" is being truly kind. The EDO (which became EDA) was pretty much a farce from the beginning. They hired a guy named Jim Tyler to be CDO and told him to "fix things". The only problem was he misunderstood - the real goal was to LOOK like you're doing stuff but don't actually do it (that was the key to success at BBT). This came from the top (Quack Quack) and she immediately filled that group with her pals and failed LDP graduates. The only purpose of the EDO was to make sure that the regulators HEARD the right things. If "fingers crossed" is who i think it is, she was part of that Quack inner circle.
Rinse and repeat. Centralize processes every 3 years then break them up and put back in the business units. Same old tired game.
They want to shrink it, what was formerly known as EDO has been underwhelming in the eyes of their customers, slow and unreliable delivery.
More Analytics is going to return to the business units with smaller faster teams