We know that you're anxious or eager for updates about how the integration is going. We've heard you ask about timing, products and services. And we know you're anxious to learn how your personal accounts will be impacted when your state converts.
While we continue to seek out and blog about answers for your questions as they're available, we were recently able to get a few minutes with former Wachovia Chief Information Officer Martin Davis, who is now head of the Technology Integration for the merger.
MW: Hi Martin, thanks for taking the time to give our readers a little insight into all that is going on with the IT integration.
Martin Davis: Glad to do it!
MW: So is the work you're overseeing similar to anything you've experienced?
MD: Well, I actually moved to Charlotte in 2001 to help oversee the Wachovia/First Union merger. It was a huge undertaking.
MW: How has that experience prepared you to oversee this one?
MD: Well, I'd like to emphasize first that even though I might be overseeing these integration efforts, it's really and truly a team effort. Everyone in Technology Leadership is working together to make this possible!
But to your question, certainly no two mergers and acquisitions are ever alike. But the strategy behind them is always consistent. We seek out the best of the platforms that already exist, analyze all of them and find out which ones have the best scalability. That was a top priority during the Wachovia and First Union merger. We didn't want our customers to ever not be able to complete a transaction — or even to notice that there was a merger going on.
MW: So you have the experience, but when you took over your current role managing the IT integration of Wachovia and Wells Fargo, how huge did the job look?
MD: It was big. Between our two companies, there were more than 4,000 different systems being used. Just for e-payments, we had to decide on hundreds of systems. But there was no pressure to stick with either platform. We analyzed both systems to determine which would serve our customers better in terms of the company's go-forward business model....
MW: Can you give our readers some real-life examples?
MD: Of course! For mortgage lending, we found Wells Fargo's to be superior for scalability. At the time of the merger, we had huge needs to fill the demands created by the refinancing boom. We added 10,000 employees just to handle those orders. The Wells Fargo platforms were superior in handling that demand and conducting secure transactions, so we zeroed in on those. But, when it came to the retail brokerage side of the business, we liked what we had with Wachovia's systems, and that its systems were better equipped to help us compete.
MW: What have been some of the most challenging aspects of attempting to integrate so many systems?
MD: With anything like this acquisition, you're bringing disparate teams together and trying to get them all to be on the same page. However, with IT departments, every member has his or her own preferences regarding the systems they're using. There's nothing wrong with that! They helped develop those systems, are working with them every day and take a lot of pride in them. Our challenge was to get the teams to focus on the prize, which means evaluating which solutions satisfy the go-forward business model and then moving in that direction. Which systems allow us to serve our customers in order to be the best financial institution coast to coast? That's what we tried to get them to determine.
MW: Can you offer our readers another example of how that has played out?
MD: Sure. Let's talk about online banking. The online banking platform was found to be superior on the Wells Fargo side. Wells Fargo's customers constantly said how easy it was to use and how intuitive the interface was. So that's what we went with. At the end of the day, it's about the customer, and the customer wants convenience. The fortunate thing is that both Wells Fargo and Wachovia have constantly been among the highest-rated financial institutions when it comes to customer satisfaction. When you bring together two companies with such similar cultures in this respect, it makes it easier to bring the network systems together.
MW: Now the big question: When do you think you'll be finished?
MD: Well, as you know we're really driving this integration by what's best for our customers, not the calendar. So we expect some conversions will continue throughout 2011, though we're not going to rush anything to meet that time frame. There are multiple stages, all of which require analysis, planning, testing and execution. There's constant code-testing that needs to be completed for every stage, and there are a big number of systems out there that need this.
There's no magic cookbook for a major integration. Every project is different and requires different approaches and analyses. And there's a human component, too. We don't break everything down into technology terms because it's really about the people using the technology and the customers served by it.
MW: Thanks again, Martin. Undoubtedly you are busy man, but I think you've given our readers a really unique insight into what is going on behind the scenes with the merger!
MD: My pleasure!
The only information provided here is his resume, no actual information on what to expect related to technological changes in the future.
So far as a Wachovia customer, I find that the online banking services are not as quick and convenient as before. The timely manner in which Wachovia paid the bills is gone. It now takes over a week to pay some of the bills.
This is great news!
What does "platform" mean? Does it mean that when I login next year, the webpage and functions will be different for me as a Wachovia customer?
Platform means the system they will use going forward. As a Wachovia customer, it probably won't be as easy as just logging in like usual. Once your state converts, you will probably have to start using wellsfargo.com as I'm sure eventually Wachovia's website will be removed.
That was covered in the first two paragraphs. Nonetheless, as someone in the IT field, I found the article interesting.
It would be good to see one comp chart for employees and customers between legacy Wellsfargo and Wachovia in terms of what is changing between the two companies. For example: It would be good to Wachovia's 401K program compared to WFB 401K program and the final program for the combined company.
This article once again demonstrates Martin Davis' best personal skill - equivocating. As a former Wachovia IT Senior Leader, I am not surprised by anything in this interview. Martin wasn't joking when he said, "Just for e-payments, we had to decide on hundreds of systems." - and that was just on the Wachovia side! The lack of clear, decisive technology leadership is what led to this current environment of "4,000+ systems". If Wells Fargo wants to succeed in the long-term, they need to realize that banking in the 21st century is all about IT.
Nothing makes that clearer than a conversation I had in 2001 with then-First Union President Ken Thompson, in which he clearly stated, "We are a bank, not a technology company." Nothing could be further from the truth anymore, as every bank service is now dependent on, delivered by, and stored on massive complexes of computing infrastructure. If Wells Fargo doesn't want to repeat its corporate history from the First Union/CoreStates merger, they would do well to realize the vital role that IT plays in a modern bank.
Wachovia's IT is way behind today's standards. Their website doesn't take advantage of new technologies like AJAX. They don't offer many standard financial services like budgeting tools on their website. Not saying Wells Fargo is much better. If they really wanted to save money, they'd heavily invest in their website to push many branch functions to the website so customers could self-provision.
This interview is good at explaining why the integration is hard, but you would have to think that after all these months, Wells Fargo would announce when the offices in each state will be converted. The plan has to be understood well enough by now to tell everyone what it is.