Permanent projects have become the normal state of operations
The quiet normalisation of permanent projects
Financial institutions, permanently in project mode, is no longer a provocative statement but a simple description of how large parts of the sector now operate. Across banks, asset managers, market infrastructures and service providers, permanent projects have become the normal state of operations. They no longer sit at the margins of the organisation. They define its rhythm.
This shift did not happen overnight, nor was it formally announced. There was no strategic decision to abandon a steady operating model in favour of endless transformation. Instead, regulatory accumulation, technological constraints and growing organisational complexity gradually eroded the very notion of “business as usual”.
When stability stopped being the default operating model
For decades, financial institutions were structured around a relatively stable core. Projects existed, sometimes large and disruptive, but they were temporary by design. Once completed, operations would return to a steady state.
That equilibrium has largely disappeared. Regulatory obligations now arrive in overlapping waves rather than discrete packages. Reporting frameworks evolve continuously. Control expectations tighten incrementally. Each new requirement may be manageable on its own, but together they create a permanent state of adjustment.
As a result, projects no longer interrupt operations. They are operations.
Regulation as a rolling programme
One of the most visible drivers of permanent projects is regulation. Compliance is no longer a matter of implementing a rule and moving on. It has become a rolling programme of interpretation, remediation, testing and reconfiguration.
Capital frameworks, conduct rules, AML obligations, sustainability disclosures and data governance requirements evolve in parallel. Each change triggers downstream impacts on processes, systems and controls. Before one programme is fully stabilised, the next adjustment begins.
In practice, this means that many institutions are permanently running several regulatory projects at once, often with overlapping teams and competing priorities.
Technology modernisation without an end date
Technology was once expected to be the way out of this cycle. Modern platforms, automation and data standardisation were supposed to restore stability. Instead, technology has become another source of permanent projects.
Legacy systems remain deeply embedded. Integration layers multiply. New tools coexist with old ones rather than replacing them. Modernisation programmes are launched, paused, re-scoped and relaunched under different labels.
The result is a technology environment that is always “in transition”. There is no clear finish line, only successive phases of partial improvement. Permanent projects thrive in that ambiguity.
What permanent projects do to organisations
The operational consequences are profound. Teams are asked to deliver transformation while keeping the lights on. Decision-making becomes more fragmented as projects cut across traditional silos. Accountability blurs between line management and programme governance.
Over time, this creates fatigue. Not the dramatic burnout associated with crisis situations, but a quieter form of organisational wear. Priorities shift constantly. Institutional memory weakens. The sense of completion that once came with closing a project largely disappears.
Permanent projects reshape not only structures, but behaviours.
The limits of internal capacity
Most financial institutions were not designed to operate this way. Their staffing models assume that projects are temporary and that expertise can be built and retained internally. Permanent projects challenge both assumptions.
Highly specialised skills are needed, often for limited periods, but repeatedly. Hiring permanently for every emerging requirement is neither realistic nor efficient. At the same time, relying exclusively on large, long-term consulting programmes can create rigidity and cost structures that are hard to sustain.
Internal capacity alone no longer absorbs everything.
A pragmatic response to permanent projects
Faced with this reality, many institutions are quietly adjusting their approach. Rather than trying to eliminate permanent projects, they focus on managing them more deliberately.
This includes accessing experienced professionals on a targeted basis, reinforcing teams during critical phases and scaling execution capacity without structurally increasing headcount. The emphasis shifts from ownership to delivery.
In this context, platforms such as We Put You in Touch play a discreet but practical role. By enabling access to vetted independent experts, they support execution where internal teams reach their limits, without turning every challenge into a long-term organisational change.
Permanent projects as a management reality
Permanent projects are not a temporary phase, nor a failure of strategy. They are the product of an environment where regulation, technology and market expectations evolve faster than organisational structures.
The institutions that perform best are not those waiting for stability to return, but those that accept permanent projects as a management reality and organise accordingly. In that sense, the question is no longer how to end permanent projects, but how to operate effectively within them.