7/29/2019 Preparedness for the CRD IV
1/17
Copyright Quocirca 2013
Clive Longbottom
Quocirca LtdTel : +44 1189 483360
Email:[email protected]
Bob Tarzey
Quocirca LtdTel: +44 1753 855794
Email:[email protected]
Preparedness for the CRD IV
Financial institutions across the EU have been faced with getting ready for the
latest round of regulation around the Capital Requirements Directive, CRD IV.
February 2013
The latest round of regulation from the EU to attempt to create a
more stable financial system that can better withstand global
economic cycles and upheaval was meant to come into force on
January 1
st
, 2013. The Capital Requirements Directive (CRD), nowin its fourth iteration, brings new reporting structures into place. A
business-driven language, the eXtensible Business Reporting
Language (XBRL) is a mandated part of how financial organisations
across the EU will have to submit their prudential reports to the
necessary bodies.
Just how prepared were the financial markets across Europe for
CRD IV and XBRL?
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]7/29/2019 Preparedness for the CRD IV
2/17
Preparedness for the CRD IV
Quocirca 2013 - 2 -
Preparedness for the CRD IV
Financial institutions across the EU have been faced with getting ready for the latest round of
regulation around the Capital Requirements Directive, CRD IV.The deadline for initial
compliance with CRD IV
passed nominally in
January 2013
CRD IV was meant to come into operation as of January 1 st 2013, providing the legal framework
for Basel III and Solvency II. However, with the banking industry under stress, politicians have not
solidified the requirement. Even so, few financial organisations seem to be well prepared for CRD
IV, with high levels of confusion over what is involved and what technology needs to be put in
place to ensure compliance.
European financial
organisations are broadly
positive in their views on
regulation
54% of those interviewed felt that further regulation would be good for the financial markets as a
whole, with 19% seeing regulation as having a negative impact on the markets. However, 5% fewer
see regulation as being positive when the question is posed specifically about the impact on their
own organisation.
The biggest overallconcern for financial
organisations is around
brand and reputation
Although managing the risk of possible financial penalties against the organisation has more votesas a primary concern, brand and reputation management heavily outscores this when secondary
concerns are taken into account. Ensuring the right levels of transparency in dealing with
stakeholders also outscores managing the risks of financial penalties in this way. Managing the risk
of individual penalties such as jail terms and being banned from practising - is perceived as only
slightly less of a concern than organisational financial penalties.
The biggest areas for
competition are seen as
coming from other
national and EU
organisations
There is little sense of competition emerging from Africa, South America, APAC, China or the US.
Only Germany sees significant possible competition from the near neighbours such as Switzerland
or Turkey. This near-shore view may not help EU financial organisations if far-shore competitors
manage to leverage more lax regulatory environments in their dealings with the EU.
There is little real
preparedness for CRD IV
Although 47% stated that they were already, or would be, compliant with CRD IV in time, 22% hadlittle to no chance of meeting the deadline. A further 30% stated that the basics were in place.
XBRL awareness and
readiness is even worse
CRD IV compliance requires that XBRL is in place as a means of submitting prudential reports to
central bodies. However, 7% see XBRL as being of no importance to them whatsoever, 31% are yet
to understand the impact XBRL will have on their organisation, and 35% acknowledge that they
will have to adopt XBRL, but see it as being forced upon them. Only 9% have implemented an XBRL
solution, 16% have chosen a solution but have yet to implement it, 37% are still trying to identify
a suitable solution and 27% are still in fact-finding mode.
Much remains to be done:
it is unlikely that the
markets will be ready intime
48% stated that the changes required to meet the requirements for CRD IV either didnt bear
thinking about or would involve major changes to their existing systems. 65% stated that
integration of existing systems was a main concern, with 45% saying that data modelling was and
43% that the speed to create the required reports was an issue.
Conclusions
The research shows that financial organisations across the EU were not in a position to be CRD IV compliant as of the
January 1st 2013 deadline. Lack of awareness of what CRD IV means at both a business and a technology level indicates
that the EU and the national financial regulators have done a bad job of educating the market. Combining this with a lack
of political solidity in carrying through the financial mechanisms behind CRD IV, and the financial markets feeling that
putting in place technology in preparation for a movable feast of regulation is not in their own interests as yet, it is likely
that the transition period will need to be viewed leniently for some time before general compliance can be demonstrated
across the EU financial markets.
7/29/2019 Preparedness for the CRD IV
3/17
Preparedness for the CRD IV
Quocirca 2013 - 3 -
Background
In 1988, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision came up with the Basel Accord, now known as Basel I, in order
to strengthen the banks through advising on minimum capital ratios. The EU implemented Basel through the Capital
Requirements Directive (CRD) in 2007, with financial institutions implementing the advanced approaches as of January
1st 2008.
Basel II was introduced in June 2004, and created a concept of three pillars. Pillar 1 sets out the minimum capital
requirements required for credit, market and operational risk. Pillar 2 sets out whether an organisation should hold
additional capital against risks not set out in Pillar 1 and Pillar 3 aims to improve market discipline through an agreed
framework for reporting and publishing against their risks, capital and risk management.
Although Basel II has been around for some time, the failure of the financial markets in 2008 and 2009 brought
increased focus on the stability and risk management of the financial institutions. Basel III was therefore proposed,
under which a strengthened regulatory regime was to be put in place to ensure that there was a higher quality and
quantity of capital, an enhancement of Pillar 1 requirements, a new leverage ratio to act as a backstop to risk-based
capital, a buffer on capital conversion and a countercyclical capital buffer along with an enhanced liquidity regime
through the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) and Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR).
Basel III nominally came into effect as of January 1 st 2013, with a transition period running through to 2021. Basel II
becomes part of European law through changes to the existing CRD, resulting in CRD IV. Through EU Regulation and
EU Directives, CRD IV is planned to be a major step in the harmonisation of financial oversight and legal frameworks
across the EU.
However, as the world economic climate continues to be poor, EU and national politicians have had to return to their
plans and have been discussing changes to the levels of capital and liquidity that the banks will be required to carry.This late intervention means that the actual financial mechanisms behind CRD IV are not, at the time of writing this
report, finalised.
As part of the new regulation, financial institutions will need to be able to provide all of their prudential reports
through a centralised means using XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language). XBRL is a specialist set of
eXtensible Markup Language (XML) tags which create a framework for the automated creation and submission of
prudential reports in a manner that will allow more timely visibility, and therefore action, against events that could
force a financial institution outside of the rules mandated by CRD IV.
Even with the financial mechanisms behind CRD IV still uncertain, financial institutions should be preparing for a
change in regulation. Technology can, and should, be put in place in order to support whatever changes come through
and can then be used as a platform to embrace any future changes in how regulation is imposed and modified onthe markets in the coming years.
This paper uses the analysis of research carried out by Quocirca during October 2012 across the UK, Germany, France,
Italy and Spain to show how financial institutions across these different geographies view regulation as a whole, and
how well prepared they are for the CRD IV rules that come into play in 2013.
7/29/2019 Preparedness for the CRD IV
4/17
Preparedness for the CRD IV
Quocirca 2013 - 4 -
Research approach
100 interviews were carried out via telephone in native language with a profiled set of respondents in the UK,
Germany, France, Italy and Spain. Respondents had to have a position that covered at least one of the following areas:Head of Compliance, Solvency II/Basel III programme or project manager, Chief Architect, Chief Risk Officer, COO, CIO,
CFO.
The respondents were provided with a series of questions or comments and were invited to choose from a series of
responses which one most closely matched their own feelings. Interviewees could also respond Dont know or
proffer their own response to any of the questions or comments.
Figure 1: Breakdown by country of interviews
Views on regulation
Interviewees were asked their views on regulation within the financial services market (see Figure 2). Over one third
responded that they felt that industry regulation was a mess, with a further one in five saying that it was likely that
regulation would change to reflect the publics views of a need for greater centralised control. However, one in five
also felt that the amount of regulation was about right, and one in eight said that more regulation was required.
It is apparent that EU and national governments have failed to bring the financial institutions with them in their
approach to regulation. A lack of clarity and a perception that politicians are just bending to the will of the people
makes it unlikely that the financial markets will place meeting regulatory needs towards the top of the priority lists.
26%
25%10%
10%
29%
Country Breakdown
France
Germany
Italy
Spain
UK
7/29/2019 Preparedness for the CRD IV
5/17
Preparedness for the CRD IV
Quocirca 2013 - 5 -
Figure 2: What are your views on current legal regulation for your business?
At a geographic level, we see a greater contrast (see Figure 3). Germany has the largest number of respondents stating
that there is too little regulation, whereas Italy is the least positive on its views of regulation. France and the UK are
the countries with the greatest expectations of regulatory frameworks changing due to public pressure.
Figure 3: What are your views on current legal regulation for your business?
However, the overall feeling is that centralised and regional regulation is not operating well. When interviewees were
asked about how well they felt they were being informed around regulatory issues, the responses were also mixed
(see Figure 4).
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Too little we need more controls in place
About right
Its a mess what is there is contradictory
Too much we need a lighter touch to be able tooperate successfully
It makes no difference the current public view
of the finance industry means that regulation
will change anyway
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
France
Germany
Italy
Spain
UK
Too little we need more controls in
place
About right
Its a mess what is there is
contradictory
Too much we need a lighter touch
to be able to operate successfully
It makes no difference the current
public view of the finance industry
means that regulation will change
anyway
7/29/2019 Preparedness for the CRD IV
6/17
Preparedness for the CRD IV
Quocirca 2013 - 6 -
Figure 4: How well do you think regulatory bodies have kept you informed of what the CRD regulations mean to you?
Nearly half of interviewees (47%) indicated that they felt that they had not been kept informed adequately, with only
one in ten stating that they felt they had been given everything that they needed.
However, the amount of effort that interviewees feel that their organisations put into meeting their regulatory
requirements is also mixed (see Figure 5).
Figure 5: How much effort does your organisation already put in to meeting its regulatory needs?
39% state that they do enough to be leaders in compliance, but nearly one in five (19%) say that their organisation
does not do as much as they would like. However, as can be seen from other research analysis in this report, this
perception of leadership is probably badly placed the overall preparedness for changes in regulation is not high
across the respondents. Nearly one in ten (9%) states that their organisation does too much, which again is unlikely
based on the rest of the research.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Very badly
Badly
Not good
OK
Fine
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Very little
Not as much as I would like
Enough to meet the bare minimum of the
regulatory needs
Enough to be a leader in regulatory compliance
Too much its overkill
7/29/2019 Preparedness for the CRD IV
7/17
Preparedness for the CRD IV
Quocirca 2013 - 7 -
Market concerns
Interviewees were asked about where they saw competition coming from over the next few years (see Figure 6).
Figure 6: Please choose the top two concerns to you and your organisation re competition
By far the biggest primary concern is for competition within the interviewees national boundaries. When taking into
account secondary concerns as well, competition from other EU organisation runs a close second. Near neighbours
outside of the EU run a distant third, while competition from elsewhere in the world is not really seen as a concern.
However, Quocirca believes that this may well be an Achilles heel for financial institutions. If central EU regulation isseen as a burden, rather than as a means of creating better, more flexible and effective processes, then the different
regulatory approaches from other geographies could provide an opportunity for non-EU financial organisations to
enter the markets through different means.
Figure 7: Please choose the top two concerns to you and your organisation re competition
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Competition from South America
Competition from Africa
Competition from China
Competition from APAC
Competition from the US
Competition from near-neighbours not in the EU (e.g. Turkey,
Switzerland)
Competition from others in the EU
Competition from other national financial institutions
Primary concern Secondary concern
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
France
Germany
Italy
Spain
UK
Competition from South America
Competition from Africa
Competition from China
Competition from APAC
Competition from the US
Competition from near-neighbours
not in the EU (e.g. Turkey, Switzerland)
Competition from others in the EU
Competition from others national
financial institutions
7/29/2019 Preparedness for the CRD IV
8/17
Preparedness for the CRD IV
Quocirca 2013 - 8 -
Again, the breakdown of views across national boundaries raises some interesting differences (see Figure 7). As can
be seen, Italy is only concerned about national and EU competition. The UK has the biggest concerns about
competition from APAC, whereas Germany has the largest concerns about competition from near-neighbours outside
of the EU. France had the only respondent with any concern about the possible competition from China.
With regard to internal matters (see Figure 8), interviewees biggest concern was with the risk of financial penaltiesagainst the organisation with 28% stating this as their main issue. However, 26% stated that brand reputation was
highest for them and, when secondary concerns were counted, brand reputation was an overall larger priority than
the risk of financial penalties, with transparency towards stakeholders also being a greater concern. It is interesting
to note that, now that board-level individuals can be held directly responsible for certain elements of malfeasance
within a financial institution, managing the risk of penalties against individuals is also relatively high in interviewees
concerns.
Figure 8: Which of the following are the two most important areas for your business?
0% 20% 40% 60%
Risk of financial penalties to your
organisation
Risk of individual penalties (e.g.
banned from operating in the financial
markets, jail terms)
Need for transparency towards
stakeholders
Brand reputation suffering due to
inability to comply/competitive
standing
Risk of security breaches
Main problem
Secondary problem
7/29/2019 Preparedness for the CRD IV
9/17
Preparedness for the CRD IV
Quocirca 2013 - 9 -
Impact of regulation
Interviewees have a mixed perception of the impact of CRD regulation on their organisations (see Figure 9).
Figure 9: How much financial impact has/will preparing for CRD have on your organisation?
12% state that there will be substantial negative impact to the organisations bottom line, with a further 26% saying
that the business disruption will be significant. However, nearly one in four (23%) state that CRD regulation will be
positive for their organisation. Overall, this shows that there is an appetite within the financial institutions for
regulation as long as it is handled well between governments, the EU and the institutions concerned.
At a market level, interviewees further demonstrate this acceptance of good regulation, believing that future
regulation will be overall positive on the financial markets (see Figure 10).
Figure 10: Overall, do you see the impact of future regulation to the financial markets as being:
54% of interviewees believe that future regulation will be positive for the markets, with only 19% believing it will be
negative.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Substantial impact it will be adversely
measurable on the bottom line
Significant impact but it will not adversely
impact the bottom line to any significant extent
Little impact it has all been (or will be) part of
regular regulatory project expense
Its been (or will be) positive the improvement
in process and policy will help the business
Dont know
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Highly negative the markets need to be
innovative and regulation stifles this
Negative Rules need to be bent occasionally,
and more regulation will mean that there is a lack
of capability for differentiation in the markets
Neutral regulation has always been there;future plans make little difference
Positive regulation creates a level playing field
and so it is down to each organisation to perform
better than the competition
Very positive regulation will give us the
capabilities to out-perform those competitors
who will struggle to demonstrate compliance.
7/29/2019 Preparedness for the CRD IV
10/17
Preparedness for the CRD IV
Quocirca 2013 - 10 -
Comparing this with interviewees perception ofthe impact of future regulation on their own organisation, however,
gives a slightly different view (see Figure 11).
Figure 11: Overall, do you see the impact of future regulation to your organisation as being:
Here, 45% see it as being positive, with 20% as negative. There is a slight leaning towards a belief that more regulation
is for other organisations, and that this will improve the overall markets: more regulation for the interviewees own
organisation may not be quite so positive.
It is important that this slight difference in perceptions is addressed all institutions have to apply the same levels of
focus on regulatory frameworks for harmonisation across a large trading bloc, such as the EU, to work. A view of its
for others, not for us will result in on-going issues and a possible failure in the regulatory framework due to lack oftransparency and capabilities for information to be exchanged effectively between institutions and central bodies.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Highly negative it will prevent us from working
effectively
Negative it will get in the way of work
Neutral we will find ways to work with or
around the regulations
Positive we need more controls in place
Highly positive the organisation will be far more
effective due to the regulations
7/29/2019 Preparedness for the CRD IV
11/17
Preparedness for the CRD IV
Quocirca 2013 - 11 -
CRD and XBRL preparedness
When questioned on their preparedness for CRD, over half of the interviewees (52%) said that they had, at best, only
the basics in place (see Figure 12). Only 13% stated that they were already compliant. At the time of interviewing, thedeadline for initial compliance was still being stated as 1st January 2013. This did not leave much time for getting
everything in place for compliance.
Figure 12: How prepared are you for meeting the needs of CRD (e.g. Basel II/III, Solvency II)?
The difficulties encountered in getting interviewees organisations as far as they have to date are shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13: How hard has it been/will it be to deal with the following in meeting the needs of CRD compliance?
The major issue seen has been in creating the reports required for CRD compliance. However, when combining
major and considerable problems, business process integration is a more pressing issue, followed by modelling
and then report creation.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Completely underprepared
Not well prepared
The basics are in place
We will be ready as and when the needs are
mandatory
We are already compliant
Dont know
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Availability of suitable business
Availability of data/information
In-house skills to manage the
Modelling capability to visualise the
Integrating the various aspects of
Speed to create the reports and data
Major problem
Considerable problem
A minor problem
Not much of a problem
No problem at all
7/29/2019 Preparedness for the CRD IV
12/17
Preparedness for the CRD IV
Quocirca 2013 - 12 -
The mandated framework for delivering prudential reports for CRD IV is the eXtensible Business Reporting Language,
XBRL. Through adoption of XBRL, financial organisations will be able to use automated reporting for centralised
prudential reports. However, the levels of knowledge around XBRL are not strong (see Figure 14).
Figure 14: In your view, which of the following statements best matches your opinion of what XBRL does?
Only 4% of respondents see XBRL as being a business-driven language for reporting against a mandated taxonomy,
whereas 29% see it as a data integration approach, 30% as a simple reporting schema and 34% as a method of data
aggregation. Again, as a distinct requirement for CRD IV compliance, it appears that little has been done by regulators
to get this need across. A greater emphasis on what XBRL is, and what it entails, needs to be in place.
There is also a distinct lack of appetite for XBRL (see Figure 15).
Figure 15: How important do you believe XBRL is to your organisation?
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
It is simply an output format for data that my IT
department can generate
It is a data format that enables businessapplications to interoperate without intervention
It is a way for data to be dealt with to create
internal and external reports
It provides a way for data to be more simply
aggregated to meet data-centric prudential
reporting needs
Its a business-driven language to enable central
reporting against a mandated taxonomy
Don't know
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Of no importance whatsoever
We know it is important but dont yet
know understand its real impact
It will be forced on us, so well have tocover it
It will change the way that we create all
regulatory prudential reports
It will change the way we interact with
all the organisations stakeholders
7/29/2019 Preparedness for the CRD IV
13/17
Preparedness for the CRD IV
Quocirca 2013 - 13 -
35% state that they will have to adopt XBRL purely because it will be forced on them. A further 7% see it as having no
importance whatsoever even though it is a legal requirement going forward. 31% state that they know it will be
important, but that they dont understand the real impact as yet. Only 27% see it as changing the way they create
their prudential reports or deal with their stakeholders.
As to preparedness for XBRL, the results dont quite agree with those stating that they are already compliant with CRD(see Figure 16).
Figure 16: How prepared are you for XBRL?
Only 9% state that they have a solution in place, whereas 13% profess to already be CRD compliant. 60% are still at a
fact-finding stage or are still trying to identify a solution. Again, this was leaving it very late to meet the 1st January
2013 deadline for compliance, with the research being carried out in October 2012.
Figure 17: How much work do you think would be required to adopt XBRL in your organisation?
Over 48% of respondents state that the amount of effort required to adopt XBRL would either be a lot of work or a
complete replacement of systems (see Figure 17). Only 3% state that their systems are ready for anything, with a
further 15% saying only tweaks would be required against their systems. Again, with three months between the
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
We are leaving it up to an external (software
vendor, systems integrator, etc)
We are still at the fact-finding stage
We understand the basics, but are trying to
identify the solution
We have chosen a solution but havent
implemented it yet
We have implemented a solution and are ready
for XBRL reporting
Don't know
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
It doesnt bear thinking about we would need
to do a complete replacement of central systems
A lot we would need to change all the data
schemas for all our applications
A fair amount some systems would need
changing, others would be OK
Most of our systems would be OK however, we
would need to tweak some of them
No problem our systems are ready for anything
Don't know
7/29/2019 Preparedness for the CRD IV
14/17
Preparedness for the CRD IV
Quocirca 2013 - 14 -
interviews and what was, at that point, the expected start of a need for being able to demonstrate CRD IV compliance,
these statements show how poorly prepared financial institutions are for CRD IV.
However, interviewees did seem to have a reasonable awareness of when the deadline was meant to come in (see
Figure 18).
Figure 18: Are you aware of the mandated timescales for CRD and Solvency II?
At the time, depending on whether you took the deadline as December 31st 2012 or January 1st 2013 (the EU works
on a January 1st date), then 63% of respondents were reasonably correct. However, 20% believed that they had until
the end of 2013, with 7% believing that the deadline had not been set yet, and 5% not knowing. With the capital and
liquidity levels still not agreed at the EU level, the actual date for CRD IV compliance has turned out to be a moveablefeast as yet, at the time of writing the report, agreement had still not been reached on the financial measures that
will underpin CRD IV.
Conclusions
For the EU and the national financial regulatory bodies, this research should raise flags about how ready financial
institutions across the EU are to become compliant with CRD IV and the regulations it supports, such as Basel III and
Solvency II. There is a great deal of confusion over what is involved, over what is required from a technology point of
view to attain levels of compliance and also around the actual dates for when compliance has to be put in place. This
last one has proven to be well founded, as prevarication and political indecision has led to late changes in the corefinancial measures behind CRD IV.
For the financial institutions involved, the research must also raise issues. The lack of preparedness for CRD IV may
well be overlooked for a period of time by the regulators during an initial transition period, but the pressure from the
public, coming through politicians, will mean that such leniency will be short-lived.
Financial organisations should be far more prepared than it seems they are. Although the hard timescales for CRD IV
have slipped, at the time of the interviews being carried out, the initial deadline for compliance was still January 1st
2013. For this, the use of XBRL to meet the requirements for the centralised submission of prudential reports was a
key aspect yet few seem to be prepared for this. Unfortunately, XBRL is not just a simple bolt-on that can be bought
and plugged in to existing systems a lot of pre-planning and integration into existing systems is required, and
financial institutions will have to speed up their planning to be able to demonstrate suitable capabilities within areasonable timescale.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
The deadlines have already passed for
them
The deadline is before the end of 2012
The deadline is within the first half of
2013
The deadline is before the end of 2013
The deadline has not been officially
agreed as yet
Don't know
7/29/2019 Preparedness for the CRD IV
15/17
Preparedness for the CRD IV
Quocirca 2013 - 15 -
In the UK, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) has stated that it will still expect to be gathering prudential reports
centrally via XBRL as of 1st July 2013 under the terms of Common Reporting a little bit of a breathing gap for financial
institutions, but not much.
The capability to operate against an agreed standard reporting language should not be seen nor positioned as amandated, centrally-driven, forced adoption. Through adoption of XBRL for business facilitation, organisations should
find that their overall business processes, along with internal and external governance, compliance and audit, are
improved. Financial organisations should not be fighting XBRL adoption but should be looking at ways where it can be
used for competitive gain and for addressing the main issues that interviewees voiced in this research in dealing
with the speed of creating reports, in dealing with brand and reputation issues, in mitigating the risks of organisational
and individual penalties and in improving the transparency in how they communicate with the many different
stakeholders in their businesses.
7/29/2019 Preparedness for the CRD IV
16/17
About EMC
EMC Corporation is a global leader in enabling businesses and service providers to transform their operations and
deliver IT as a service. Fundamental to this transformation is cloud computing. Through innovative products and
services, EMC accelerates the journey to cloud computing, helping IT departments to store, manage, protect and
analyse their most valuable asset information in a more agile, trusted and cost-efficient way. Additionalinformation about EMC can be found atwww.EMC.com.
http://www.emc.com/http://www.emc.com/http://www.emc.com/http://www.emc.com/7/29/2019 Preparedness for the CRD IV
17/17
About Quocirca
Quocirca is a primary research and analysis company specialising in the
business impact of information technology and communications (ITC).
With world-wide, native language reach, Quocirca provides in-depthinsights into the views of buyers and influencers in large, mid-sized and
small organisations. Its analyst team is made up of real-world practitioners
with first-hand experience of ITC delivery who continuously research and
track the industry and its real usage in the markets.
Through researching perceptions, Quocirca uncovers the real hurdles to
technology adoption the personal and political aspects of an
organisations environment and the pressures of the need for
demonstrable business value in any implementation. This capability to
uncover and report back on the end-user perceptions in the market
enables Quocirca to provide advice on the realities of technology adoption,
not the promises.
Quocirca research is always pragmatic, business orientated and conducted
in the context of the bigger picture. ITC has the ability to transform
businesses and the processes that drive them, but often fails to do so.
Quocircas mission is to help organisations improve their success rate in
process enablement through better levels of understanding and the
adoption of the correct technologies at the correct time.
Quocirca has a pro-active primary research programme, regularly
surveying users, purchasers and resellers of ITC products and services on
emerging, evolving and maturing technologies. Over time, Quocirca has built a picture of long term investment trends,
providing invaluable information for the whole of the ITC community.
Quocirca works with global and local providers of ITC products and services to help them deliver on the promise that
ITC holds for business. Quocircas clients include Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, O2, T-Mobile, HP, Xerox, EMC, Symantec and
Cisco, along with other large and medium-sized vendors, service providers and more specialist firms.
Details of Quocircas work and the services it offers can be found athttp://www.quocirca.com
Disclaimer:
This report has been written independently by Quocirca Ltd. During the preparation of this report, Quocirca has used
a number of sources for the information and views provided. Although Quocirca has attempted wherever possible to
validate the information received from each vendor, Quocirca cannot be held responsible for any errors in information
received in this manner.
Although Quocirca has taken what steps it can to ensure that the information provided in this report is true and
reflects real market conditions, Quocirca cannot take any responsibility for the ultimate reliability of the details
presented. Therefore, Quocirca expressly disclaims all warranties and claims as to the validity of the data presented
here, including any and all consequential losses incurred by any organisation or individual taking any action based on
such data and advice.
All brand and product names are recognised and acknowledged as trademarks or service marks of their respective
holders.
REPORT NOTE:This report has been writtenindependently by Quocirca Ltd
to provide an overview of theissues facing organisationsseeking to maximise theeffectiveness of todaysdynamic workforce.
The report draws on Quocircasextensive knowledge of thetechnology and businessarenas, and provides advice onthe approach that organisationsshould take to create a moreeffective and efficient
environment for future growth.
http://www.quocirca.com/http://www.quocirca.com/http://www.quocirca.com/http://www.quocirca.com/