After a period of accelerated transformation — driven by mergers, regulatory reform, and platform consolidation — many Australian super funds are pausing. Not to rest, but to reassess: what does our technology estate actually need to be? What was it built for, and is it still fit for that purpose?
This is not a sign of fatigue. It is a sign of maturity. Funds that have been through major transformation programmes in the past five years have accumulated significant experience about what works, what costs more than expected, and what the technology choices made in a period of urgency now mean for long-term operation.
The cost of urgency
The wave of mergers that reshaped the superannuation landscape between 2020 and 2025 required funds to make rapid decisions about technology. In many cases, those decisions prioritised timeline over optimisation — choosing platforms that could absorb a merged membership quickly, rather than platforms that were the best long-term fit for the combined entity's strategy.
The consequence is a generation of funds operating on technology estates that are functional but not optimal. Integration debt has accumulated. Workarounds have become entrenched. Capability that was described as "phase two" in the merger business case remains undelivered.
What funds are questioning
In conversations with fund leadership and technology teams over the past twelve months, we have observed consistent themes in what is being reconsidered:
- Build versus buy. A number of funds that invested heavily in bespoke development during the transformation period are now questioning whether that investment delivered the capability advantage it was intended to create.
- Integration architecture. Point-to-point integrations built for speed during mergers are now creating operational risk and limiting the ability to respond to new regulatory requirements.
- Data capability. Funds are increasingly aware that their ability to meet member outcome obligations and APRA reporting requirements is constrained by the quality and accessibility of their underlying data — regardless of what platform it sits in.
- Vendor relationships. With several major administration platform providers undergoing their own strategic and ownership changes, funds are reassessing the risk profile of their current vendor arrangements.
A more deliberate approach to the next phase
The funds we work with that are navigating this well share a common characteristic: they are separating the question of what they want from the question of how to get there. Too many technology roadmaps in superannuation conflate the two — allowing vendor capability and contract terms to define the destination rather than the fund's own strategic requirements.
The funds approaching the next phase of technology evolution with the most clarity are starting from a clear statement of what the technology estate needs to enable — member experience, operational efficiency, regulatory compliance, data governance — and working backwards from that to vendor selection and programme design.
If 2025 was the year of transformation, 2026 is shaping up to be the year of consolidation and intentional design. For funds that get that right, the next five years offer a genuine opportunity to operate with the kind of technology capability that members and regulators will increasingly expect.