The Three Paths: Why Banks Must Treat Data as Strategy, Not Infrastructure

The core challenge in banking is data misalignment, not technology; they need governance and semantic consistency for strategic value.

The Bank Director 2025 Technology Survey reveals a troubling disconnect: one third of bank leaders admit their institution's inability to use data effectively is among their top challenges. This isn't a technical confession; it's a strategic crisis hiding in plain sight.

While banks pour resources into cloud migrations, AI initiatives, and digital transformation programs, the underlying data foundations remain fragmented, ungoverned, and fundamentally misaligned with business objectives.  The numbers tell a stark story:

• 56% of banks maintain data siloed within originating systems

• 56% depend on core providers for data access

• 41% manage critical business-line data in spreadsheets

• Only 18% measure ROI on technology projects

These aren't isolated operational inefficiencies. They're symptoms of a systemic failure to treat data as a strategic asset rather than a technical byproduct. At Digiata, our work with financial institutions across South Africa and the UK consistently reveals that banks don't have a technology problem; they have a data problem that technology investments alone cannot solve.

‍

The Illusion of Control: When Dashboards Lie

The most dangerous aspect of data misalignment isn't what banks don't know; it's what they think they know. During an engagement with a major African bank, the Chief Data Officer proudly demonstrated their "360-degree customer view" dashboard. When asked how many distinct customer records existed across their systems for a client holding a mortgage, current account, and wealth portfolio, the answer required a week of investigation: seventeen.

Seventeen versions of the same customer, each with minor variations in spelling, addresses, and risk profiles. The dashboard wasn't providing insight, rather it was averaging seventeen different versions of reality. This is the hidden cost of data misalignment: confident decision-making based on fundamentally unreliable information.

‍

Three Layers of Data Debt

Banks have accumulated what we call Data Debt across three distinct but interconnected layers, each more challenging than the last:

Technical Data Debt represents the visible challenge: legacy cores, bolt-on platforms, and countless third-party systems. This layer attracts funding easily because technology executives understand how to articulate infrastructure requirements. However, addressing technical debt alone provides minimal business value without resolving deeper issues.

Semantic Data Debt creates the reconciliation nightmare. When "assets" means one thing in wealth management and another in commercial lending, when "customer" has seventeen definitions, and when every business unit maintains its own data dictionary, integration becomes impossible. This layer drives massive reconciliation costs, blocks real-time decision-making, and renders AI initiatives unscalable.

Governance Data Debt poses the most severe risk. When regulators ask where a number came from and the answer is a spreadsheet email attachment, you've created an audit trail that doesn't survive scrutiny. This layer leads directly to regulatory fines, failed stress tests, and catastrophic strategic decisions based on unverifiable data.

Most banks address Layer 1 (technical) while ignoring Layers 2 and 3 (semantic and governance). This approach resembles purchasing a faster car for a driver who doesn't know their destination or the rules of the road.

‍
The Standard Chartered Warning

The £46.5 million fine levied against Standard Chartered illustrates the concrete cost of data governance failure. A single spreadsheet error cascaded into months of regulatory misreporting. The financial penalty, while substantial, understates the true cost: loss of regulatory trust, operational disruption, reputational damage, and the emergency remediation effort that diverted resources from strategic initiatives.

This incident wasn't about inadequate technology. Standard Chartered operates sophisticated systems. The failure occurred in data governance—the processes, ownership, and accountability that determine whether data can be trusted when critical decisions depend on it.

Why Defence Isn't Enough

Most data conversations focus defensively: compliance requirements, risk mitigation, reconciliation accuracy. This mindset frames data as a cost center requiring management rather than a strategic asset enabling competitive advantage.

Consider the offensive possibilities enabled by clean, unified, governed data:

• Real-time product innovation: A business client's cash flow patterns, visible across their complete banking relationship, enable instant loan pre-approval at precisely the moment working capital is needed. To achieve this offering requires integrated data across product silos.

• Hyper-personalised wealth management: A comprehensive view of a retail customer's holdings across savings, investments, and credit products enables coordinated advice that maximises value without products competing against each other. A task simply impossible without semantic consistency.

• Strategic partnerships: Combining consented customer data with retailer transaction data creates targeted loyalty programs that drive revenue for both parties. To action, this requires governance frameworks that enable external data sharing while maintaining compliance.

Fintechs achieve these capabilities by starting with clean data. Legacy banks possess vastly richer data but cannot deploy it strategically. Solving the data problem isn't merely about avoiding regulatory penalties; it's about unlocking revenue opportunities currently trapped in silos.

‍

‍

The Fork in the Road: Three Strategic Paths

Bank leaders now face a fundamental choice between three distinct paths, each with predictable outcomes:

1. Path A: The IT-Centric Path

This path continues funding "data lake projects" and "AI initiatives" without first addressing foundational data problems. Banks following this route will spend the next five years generating similar survey results: disappointed by ROI, frustrated by persistent silos, watching market share erode to more nimble competitors who solved their data foundations first.

This path feels productive as budgets are allocated, consultants are engaged, technology is deployed. But without addressing semantic and governance debt, these investments cannot deliver promised value. Teams remain trapped reconciling spreadsheets, regulators continue finding data quality issues, and strategic initiatives stall waiting for reliable data that never materialises.

2. Path B: The Risk & Compliance-Led Path

This path invests heavily in data governance, lineage, and controls to meet regulatory demands and avoid catastrophic fines. Banks following this route become safer and more auditable, transforming compliance functions from unmanaged cost centres into controlled ones that prevent regulatory penalties.

However, this remains fundamentally defensive. You build a robust, clean data foundation optimised for reporting and risk mitigation, but the organisation fails to leverage this expensive asset for growth. Business units, perceiving data governance as bureaucratic overhead rather than strategic enabler, create shadow systems and maintain spreadsheet workflows. Meanwhile, more innovative competitors leverage their data advantages to deliver superior customer experiences that erode your market position.

You survive regulatory scrutiny but miss the strategic opportunity. Your data moat protects you from fines but doesn't drive growth.

3. Path C: The Business-Led Path

This path declares data a core strategic asset and assigns clear C-level accountability for eliminating data debt across all three layers. Banks following this route invest first in the unglamorous but essential work: governance frameworks, master data management, and semantic consistency. Every technology investment requires explicit linkage to measurable business outcomes like faster loan origination, reduced customer churn, or new product revenue.

This path recognises that data governance isn't bureaucratic overhead but competitive infrastructure. It treats semantic consistency not as technical detail but as business strategy. It measures success not by technology deployed but by business capabilities enabled.

‍

‍

Implementation Reality: What Path C Requires

The most successful institutions following Path C adopt what we call the "Data Authority Test" for every new technology investment:

• Does it integrate cleanly with our semantic layer, or does it introduce new data dialects requiring ongoing reconciliation?

• Does it support compliance and regulatory requirements by design, or does it create new governance gaps?

• Does it contribute to trusted, governed data products, or is it another silo disguised as innovation?

‍

Choosing Path C demands more than strategic intent; it requires specific capabilities and organisational changes:

• Board-Level Accountability: Data strategy must elevate from IT concern to board agenda, with a C-level executive (whether titled CDO or otherwise) held accountable for measurable outcomes across all three layers of data debt. This executive requires authority spanning IT, risk, operations, and business units which is impossible when data "ownership" remains fragmented across silos.
  

• Shared Semantic Layer: The universal translator that ends reconciliation nightmares. A properly implemented semantic layer, anchored in master data management, ensures every system defines "customer," "account," "product," and "risk" consistently. This isn't optional infrastructure; it's the non-negotiable foundation for any successful analytics or AI program.
  

• Governed Automation: Rather than banning spreadsheets through policy, create such accessible, trusted, and comprehensive data products that teams no longer need manual workarounds. When finance professionals build spreadsheets to reconcile data, they're signalling that your data products don't meet their needs and the solution isn't prohibition but better alternatives.
  

• Business-Driven Metrics: Every data initiative must demonstrate clear impact on business outcomes. This requires moving beyond traditional IT metrics (system uptime, data quality scores) to business metrics (faster credit decisions, reduced customer complaints, new product revenue). When data teams can articulate their contribution to business P&L, they earn the strategic influence required for sustained investment.

‍
The Strategic Imperative: Why Path C is Non-Negotiable

Despite clear evidence, most banks will default to Path A (technology-only fixes) or Path B (regulatory compliance). These paths feel safer because they maintain existing organisational boundaries, yet they miss the strategic opportunity.

Path C, the only truly transformative option, is avoided because it demands uncomfortable organisational change: IT must acknowledge that technology alone cannot solve data problems, business units must accept governance constraints, and executives must fund unglamorous data infrastructure before visible customer capabilities.

The Bank Director survey, regulatory pressure, and competition from data-native firms all point to the same truth: banks that don't choose Path C won't need to decide between A and B, the market will decide for them when their competitive position becomes untenable.

Generic data platforms fail because they lack the necessary domain-specific intelligence to understand the fundamental differences in financial data flows (like fund administration versus retail credit risk). Therefore, success requires a modular implementation that addresses specific, high-impact use cases to build organisational trust and capability incrementally.

The technology exists and is accessible. The only remaining question is organisational will. Path C alone transforms data from a liability into a competitive weapon but only for institutions willing to confront organisational realities and invest in semantic consistency and governance before dashboards and AI.  

The bottom line: institutions that demand C-level accountability and make this investment will define the competitive landscape for the next decade.

‍

‍

About Digiata: We specialise in enabling financial institutions to transform data from operational burden into strategic asset. Our domain-specific solutions span asset management workflow automation, banking data governance, and self-service analytics platforms. We combine deep financial services expertise with modular implementation approaches that prove value incrementally while building toward comprehensive strategic capability.

‍