Hannah Buckle, head of UK sales at Dorsum, examines the risks of excessive customisation in wealth technology, warning that bespoke projects can quickly lose focus and become difficult to manage if they are not grounded in practical business needs.
Customisation in wealth technology is often seen as a mark of quality; it signals care, differentiation and ambition. Yet without discipline, it can derail the outcomes businesses set out to achieve.
Firms are drawn to customisation for good reason. Wealth management is a relationship business, and no two firms serve clients in the same way. Any integral technology, then, should reflect those nuances. It must support different client journeys, operating models, and compliance approaches. No firm wants to feel constrained by a rigid system that does not reflect how they work, or how they interact with clients.
Customisation projects can, however, spiral far beyond their original purpose. Whether it’s a branded portal, or something as complex as rebuilding and reworking a core system, projects gather momentum, more stakeholders join, and ideas multiply. What begins as a focused effort to improve a client experience can turn into what I might describe as “design by committee”. Everyone has a view, every feature seems crucial, and the original objective becomes harder to see. Excitement takes over and firms lose sight of why the project started in the first place.
So, what should firms consider before they request something bespoke? A simple place to start is to ask: who actually needs this? If a feature doesn’t clearly serve the end client or the internal teams who will use it daily, its value is questionable. Features should align with real inefficiencies that need solving, not hypothetical improvements that sound appealing in a workshop. Customisation is not the goal. It is the means to an end.
How issues develop
Problems begin when customisation drifts too far from practicality. Systems become difficult to use and workflows lose coherence. In extreme cases, firms end up with platforms that look impressive on paper but fail the people who rely on them. I’ve seen situations where decision-makers, far removed from the technology’s day-to-day use, shape outcomes that simply don’t work in practice. This becomes an operational problem for those closest to the tech and is a clear example of too many cooks spoiling the broth.
There is also a longer-term risk. Highly bespoke builds can limit a firm’s ability to evolve. If a platform is too heavily altered, adapting it over time becomes slower and more expensive. Firms must think beyond the immediate project and consider how their choices will hold up over the coming years.
This is where the role of the vendor becomes critical. A good vendor is not there to agree with every request and help their customers rack up a bigger bill. Instead, they are there to guide, to challenge, and at times to say no.
It may feel uncomfortable in the moment, but saying no at the right time is a sign of a strong partnership. If a provider simply agrees to everything, it raises a question: are they protecting the client’s outcome, or just securing the deal? A vendor has a responsibility to step in before a project becomes unmanageable.
Importantly, that does not mean rejecting customisation outright. There are cases where a high level of bespoke development is the right decision. Some firms operate with especially unique propositions or serve highly specific client segments, and in those cases, deeper customisation can deliver real competitive advantage. The key lies in intent – customisation should be purposeful, not superfluous.
Identifying the right partner for you
Before selecting a vendor, firms should look for a four concrete factors. First, does the provider offer a strong baseline product? If the core is robust, the need for heavy customisation reduces significantly.
Second, is their product built on a modular, API-driven architecture that integrates cleanly with existing third-party tools? This determines flexibility with existing and other third-party tech without forcing a full rebuild.
Third, does the vendor have a documented track record of delivering the specific features and outcomes you need? Trusting that a vendor can do something is a far riskier strategy than choosing one that has done it before.
Finally, firms should examine how a provider approaches partnership. Are they in it for the long-term? Are they willing to understand a client’s business, configure the right combination of existing capabilities, and only introduce custom elements where they add measurable value?
Customisation enables differentiation, supports innovation, and helps firms serve clients more effectively; it will always have a place in wealth technology. Yet it must be approached with care. The most successful projects are ambitious and flexible but grounded in practicality, with vendors willing to challenge as well as deliver.
By Hannah Buckle, Head of UK Sales, Dorsum
