When I sit down with tech leaders, one of the most common frustrations I hear is about the tangled mess of applications their teams are managing. Over the years, systems have been added piecemeal to solve urgent problems. A new tool here, a customised app there. Before long, you’re dealing with a patchwork of platforms that are all configured differently.
None of them talk to each other properly, and there’s very little oversight over who has access to what.
This is an operational headache and a barrier to progress. Instead of driving strategy, your team ends up bogged down in admin, support tickets, and firefighting. And as the complexity grows, so do the risks.
Hours delivered back to the business
SOX compliance in Settlement process automation
Success rate of bot case completion
For functional release of OBT, RTS and OGS
Why do decentralised applications create so much risk?
Let’s be honest – when it comes to decentralised applications, the intention is generally good. There’s often a quick fix for local teams who need solutions fast.
But when these grow unchecked, the result is duplication, high support costs and fragmented user experiences. Even worse, gaps in access control open the door to compliance failures and security breaches.
For tech leaders already under pressure to deliver with fewer resources, this lack of visibility is a nightmare. You can’t manage what you can’t see. And if you don’t know which systems are live, who owns them, or who has access, you’re left with blind spots that undermine both your credibility and your organisation’s safety.
How do you take back control?
The first step is mapping your landscape. Every system needs to be documented, so knowing what service it delivers, how it integrates, who owns it, and what business function it supports. Creating an application catalogue gives you a single view of your environment and a baseline for decision-making.
Access control is the next critical piece. Align permissions to job roles, automate provisioning and deprovisioning, and carry out regular reviews. Identity and access management (IAM) tools can make this far more manageable, providing clear audit trails and reducing risk.
Finally, a clear tech strategy should set the principles for future investments. How can you move forward without defining what good looks like, rationalising what’s already there, and ensuring that every new application serves a strategic purpose?
The payoff for tech leaders and their teams
With central governance in place, the benefits are immediate. Duplicated systems can be retired, cutting costs. Legacy tools can be phased out, reducing security risks. Compliance is strengthened, and the team has a clear, consolidated environment to manage.
But the real transformation is cultural. Instead of constantly firefighting, your people can focus on innovation, delivery, and the projects that actually move the business forward. The leadership team gains confidence in the tech team’s ability to deliver while they feel empowered rather than overwhelmed.
When I look at teams stuck in this cycle, I encourage leaders to ask themselves:
- Do we have a complete and current catalogue of the applications we’re running?
- Are access controls tied to job roles and reviewed regularly?
- Do we know which applications are redundant, duplicated or unmanaged?
- Is there a clear roadmap for consolidating and rationalising our systems?
- Are we confident our environment would stand up to a compliance or security audit?
If the answer to any of these is “no,” then your team is still firefighting, not leading. Isn’t it time to bring clarity, control and strategy back into your application estate?
