Banking compliance programmes are among the most complex initiatives facing modern financial institutions. From Basel III and MiFID II to DORA and ESG reporting, organisations must navigate overlapping regulatory requirements, evolving supervisory expectations, and tight delivery timelines.
Effective project management in banking requires more than regulatory expertise, but strong governance, structured scope control, and clear accountability.
This article explores why many regulatory initiatives falter and how PMOs can transform compliance delivery into a strategic advantage. It examines common delivery challenges, proven scope management practices, and modern tooling approaches to show how institutions can build capability, reduce risk, and deliver regulatory change with clarity and control.
The banking industry continues to face waves of regulatory changes from international and domestic regulatory agencies, including the Basel Committee, European Commission, European Banking Authority, Prudential Regulation Authority and the European Central Bank.
Major frameworks illustrate the scale of change. Basel III reshaped capital and liquidity rules, driving new approaches to financial reporting and risk management. MiFID II expanded conduct and transparency obligations, while DORA (Digital Operational Resilience Act) set stricter expectations for ICT risk and operational resilience.
ESG reporting and general data protection regulation have added further layers of regulatory compliance.
These banking regulations are phased, overlapping, and interconnected, requiring financial institutions to manage multiple regulatory initiatives simultaneously.
For project managers, this creates a challenging regulatory landscape that demands precision and adaptability.
Banking compliance projects are inherently complex. They are multi-year, cross-border, and cross-functional, involving risk, finance, legal, IT, operations and front-office teams.
Non compliance can lead to fines, capital add-ons under Pillar 2, reputational risk, and regulatory findings.
Senior executives can also face personal accountability under SM&CR. A single missed Basel III reporting obligation can trigger internal audits, remediation programmes and financial consequences across the financial system.
This makes project management in banking fundamentally different from other sectors. It is about ensuring regulatory compliance, managing compliance risk, and protecting the bank’s licence to operate.
Despite large investments, many banking projects overrun or fail to deliver cleanly. Common issues include late rework when regulations shift, duplicated work across business units, and gaps found during compliance risk assessments or reviews.
These issues drain budgets and delay milestones, adding increasing pressure on the compliance department.
Across Basel III, MiFID II and DORA, unclear project scope consistently causes delivery problems.
Regulations evolve, interpretations differ, and without structured project management methodologies and the right project management tools, teams often struggle to maintain regulatory compliance.
When project management in banking is carefully controlled with a clear set of processes, using tools such as stage gates and RAG status, PMOs gain the structure and visibility needed to control scope, reduce risk, and ultimately deliver.
Clear scope turns regulatory complexity from a source of risk into a foundation for confident, controlled delivery.
Regulatory frameworks are moving targets. Legislation typically arrives in layers.
Initial texts set broad obligations, followed by consultation papers, Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS), FAQs, and local supervisory guidance issued incrementally.
National regulators then add their own clarifications, often late in the project life cycle, creating uncertainty for project managers.
The EBA’s roadmap shows phased implementation of the EU Banking Package through January 2025, with FRTB postponed to 2026. In the UK, the Prudential Regulation Authority has outlined a separate Basel 3.1 timeline. These shifts illustrate how regulatory requirements evolve, making early scoping difficult.
MiFID II is another example. RTS clarifications on transaction reporting were released after many financial institutions had already built their systems. This forced late rework and unexpected scope changes.
Regulatory change cuts across entire financial institution’s operations. A single regulation typically involves Risk and Finance, IT, Operations, Legal, Compliance, and the Front Office.
Each area has its own lens on regulatory compliance, creating scope creep, duplication, and gaps.
Without a single, authoritative project scope baseline and PMO-led coordination, these fragmented interpretations derail complex banking projects.
This issue has been repeatedly highlighted in PRA “Dear CEO” letters, which found “significant gaps in regulatory returns” and weak governance.
The PRA instructed firms to treat financial reporting with the same rigour as compliance procedures.
Specialist PPM tools like PM3 can help financial services PMOs overcome this fragmentation by acting as a single, structured source of truth for regulatory scope, ownership, and delivery.
Configurable scope registers, change control workflows, and dashboards make responsibilities transparent across functions. By aligning Risk, Finance, IT, and Compliance within one system, PM3 could enable your PMO to coordinate delivery, prevent duplication, and close gaps before they become findings.
Many banking compliance programmes underestimate how far regulatory changes
extend.
Scoping often focuses narrowly, for example on updating reporting templates. In reality, project management in banking must account for deeper impacts.
For example, regulation affects data lineage and quality across systems, core architecture, controls, reconciliations, and accountability under regimes like SM&CR.
This “iceberg effect” means most complexity sits below the surface. When dependencies surface late, teams face expensive rework, delays, and budget overruns.
Poor traceability is a critical weakness in banking project management.
Many teams cannot map regulatory requirements cleanly to business needs, work packages, or testing artefacts. This leads to inconsistent interpretations, outdated spreadsheets, and gaps when regulators ask firms to demonstrate delivery.
During internal audits or supervisory reviews, this lack of traceability often leads to remediation programmes and increased scrutiny. Regulatory agencies like the PRA have warned that unreliable returns may trigger enforcement or skilled-person reviews. This is why having a single, central source of truth makes such a big difference.
The implementation of Basel III across the banking industry highlights how regulatory timelines and interpretations can evolve in ways that complicate project management in banking.
Basel III required large-scale data aggregation, capital calculations, and risk reporting changes.
Many financial institutions struggled with regulatory requirements shifting as the Prudential Regulation Authority and European Central Bank updated guidance.
Scope definitions often had to be revisited multiple times to reflect these updates.
Dependencies between finance systems, risk data warehouses, and core banking systems made changes more complex. Weak scoping early in the project life cycle led to downstream rework, strained budgets, and delayed compliance with banking compliance standards.
The rollout of MiFID II revealed the danger of underestimating regulatory breadth.
This regulation spanned transaction reporting, investor protection, market transparency, and systems resilience.
Early project planning often focused narrowly on legal interpretation and reporting changes, while banking project management teams overlooked the scale of required IT infrastructure upgrades.
As deadlines approached, many financial institutions faced last-minute efforts to align systems and data, causing costly overruns and operational disruption.
These issues underscored the need for clear project scope, strong risk assessment, and structured governance to maintain regulatory compliance throughout the project life cycle.
The Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) introduced new regulatory requirements for ICT risk, incident reporting, and operational resilience.
Many financial firms initially scoped DORA programmes narrowly, focusing on policy changes rather than the full range of technical and vendor impacts.
As compliance programs progressed, hidden vulnerabilities in legacy infrastructure and third-party arrangements emerged.
The scope expanded significantly, requiring project managers to coordinate technology, policy, and supplier workstreams.
Sustained PMO oversight became critical to ensure alignment and ensure adherence to resilience testing obligations, illustrating how underestimated scope rapidly escalates in complex banking and financial services projects.
Mergers, acquisitions, and integrations often magnify the complexity of banking compliance.
When two financial institutions combine, PMOs inherit overlapping regulatory obligations. They must consolidate disparate Basel III capital and liquidity frameworks, align MiFID II transaction-reporting regimes across legal entities, and harmonise DORA-related ICT risk controls across legacy systems and vendors.
These programmes frequently uncover regulatory gaps that were invisible in stand-alone firms.
Legacy platforms may interpret regulatory rules differently (e.g., different capital floors, data formats, or reporting frequencies).
A bank merging with another might encounter “hidden compliance debt” — obligations that one party was noncompliant with or simply ignored.
Without strong project management methodologies and governance, these misalignments lead to scope drift, remediation demands, and escalated compliance risk.
Over the past decade, U.S. banking M&A volumes have surged, putting pressure on integration teams. For example, in 2021 alone, there were 208 bank M&A deals with a combined deal value exceeding USD 77 billion, one of the highest totals in 15 years.
Given the stakes, PMOs in integration programmes must build a new unified scope baseline, embed design authorities, enforce rigorous change control, and maintain traceability across compliance obligations.
Only then can they synchronise compliance deliverables with business integration timelines without running foul of regulatory expectations.
For financial institutions, scope control begins with robust governance.
PMOs should establish a formal scope baseline, agreed with sponsors and the compliance department, and maintain a version-controlled register linking each item to specific regulatory requirements.
This will ensure that obligations under Basel III, MiFID II, and DORA are clearly defined and auditable.
A Regulatory Change Control Board brings together Legal, Risk, Finance, IT, and Operations to review scope changes systematically. Every modification is assessed for impact on budgets, timelines, and compliance risk.
Escalation routes are pre-agreed, and an auditable decision trail is maintained to satisfy regulatory agencies and internal audits.
According to PMI’s Pulse of the Profession, organisations with strong governance frameworks report 28% lower scope creep and 8% lower budget loss on failed projects, demonstrating the value of structured control.
Complex regulations like Basel III and DORA cannot be delivered effectively without structured decomposition.
PMOs should run workshops with subject matter experts to break down legislative articles, RTS documents, and FAQs into clear, testable requirements.
In practice, this involves taking a regulatory text (such as a Basel III article, a MiFID II RTS, or a DORA requirement), breaking it into discrete obligations or interpretative statements, and translating those into testable business and technical requirements.
Each requirement is then mapped to specific owners, workstreams, systems, and testing artefacts, while assumptions and interpretations are logged in a version-controlled way so they remain visible and auditable.
These are mapped using a Regulatory Traceability Matrix, which links regulatory text to interpretations, requirements, systems, testing, and evidence.
Two-way traceability prevents “orphan” deliverables and ensures that project teams can prove compliance procedures to supervisors.
A central evidence library, organised by obligation ID, captures decisions, test results, reconciliations, and links to regulatory submissions.
This addresses a key weakness highlighted by the Prudential Regulation
Authority, which has repeatedly criticised firms for unreliable returns and weak traceability in regulatory reporting.
Banking compliance projects touch many parts of a financial institution’s operations, from Legal to IT.
Fragmentation is one of the biggest threats to project management in banking, as different functions interpret regulations in different ways.
PMOs play a critical role in aligning these perspectives. Design Authorities for Data, Reporting, Risk Models, and ICT provide structured forums for resolving differences and embedding standard patterns.
Cross-entity alignment is also essential. For example, Basel 3.1 timelines diverge between the EU and UK, so entity-level scoping ensures nothing falls through the cracks.
This structured alignment helps PMOs manage complex projects consistently and maintain regulatory compliance across jurisdictions.
Regulatory timelines evolve, and PMOs must plan accordingly. Rolling-wave planning allows teams to detail the near term while keeping future phases at a high level until RTS and Q&As are finalised.
A regulatory drop calendar tracks consultation releases and supervisory guidance, so PMOs can plan impact assessments and change management activities in advance.
This approach prevents over-specification early on and reduces the risk of costly late-stage rework.
The importance of this is clear from MiFID II implementation, where RTS clarifications landed late, leading to estimated cost overruns of $2.1 billion across major firms. Incremental planning helps project managers keep project scope stable in a shifting regulatory environment.
In banking project management, “done” means more than delivering functionality. PMOs must ensure that every regulatory obligation has test evidence, reconciliations, and clear control ownership.
This involves mapping data lineage from source systems to regulatory reports, setting data quality SLAs, and ensuring reconciliations are complete before go-live. Readiness gates verify that obligations are fully delivered, tested, and documented.
Regulator-ready evidence packs allow PMOs to respond confidently to regulatory agencies or internal audits. This level of assurance reflects the PRA’s expectation that regulatory reporting be treated with the same rigour as financial reporting.
Most banking institutions run several regulatory programmes at once. PMOs need portfolio-level visibility to coordinate resources, dependencies, and delivery timelines.
A regulatory portfolio board helps identify where obligations overlap and where resource conflicts may occur. Critical-path analysis tied to regulatory milestones ensures that delays in one area do not cascade into others.
Key metrics, such as the percentage of obligations traced end-to-end and the volume of open scope changes, help project managers track delivery health. This integrated view allows PMOs to maintain regulatory compliance while supporting broader strategic objectives.
Mergers and acquisitions introduce additional layers of compliance risk. PMOs must reconcile different Basel III reporting approaches, align MiFID II transaction reporting, and harmonise DORA resilience controls across legacy systems.
The EBA has highlighted that operational risk models and reporting frameworks can diverge significantly between merging entities, complicating scope alignment. PMOs need to establish a unified baseline and coordinate regulatory and business integration timelines carefully.
Without this, integration programmes risk uncovering hidden regulatory gaps that lead to remediation costs and scrutiny from regulatory agencies.
Successful PMOs rely on a consistent set of artefacts and forums. These include a live traceability matrix, scope registers with decision logs, regulatory calendars, and evidence libraries tagged by obligation.
Key forums, such as Design Authorities, Regulatory Change Control Boards, and portfolio boards, ensure alignment across teams. Automated reporting and dashboards support effective project management, risk assessment, and oversight.
This structured approach allows PMOs to manage complex banking projects efficiently, maintain audit readiness, and ensure that regulatory compliance is embedded throughout the project life cycle.
Regulatory change portfolios in the banking industry are complex, multi-stream, and high-stakes. PMOs managing Basel III, MiFID II, DORA, ESG, or M&A integrations need more than spreadsheets and ad hoc trackers. They need project management tools that offer structured visibility, integrated change control, and audit-ready traceability.
PM3 stands out because it is intuitive, configurable, and outcome-focused. It supports project management in banking environments where regulatory frameworks evolve and project scope is fluid.
Rather than replacing PMO governance, PM3 enables it at scale, giving senior stakeholders clear oversight while reducing administrative overhead for project teams.
PM3 provides PMOs with a structured cockpit to keep regulatory programmes aligned — from regulatory interpretation through to delivery and evidence.
One of the biggest challenges in banking compliance is translating regulatory texts into structured, traceable scope. PM3 allows teams to build configurable scope registers that mirror regulatory requirements.
Each item can be tagged to specific regulatory articles or RTS, linked to related projects, milestones, risks, and test artefacts, and version-controlled for full audit visibility.
Its two-way traceability ensures that every regulatory obligation is decomposed and delivered (top-down) and that no orphan activities exist outside regulatory scope (bottom-up).
PM3’s artefact linking allows teams to attach decision logs, test evidence, and regulatory correspondence to each scope item, making it simple to respond to PRA or ECB reviews.
This directly addresses traceability gaps highlighted in multiple Prudential Regulation Authority Dear CEO letters, which criticised weak governance in regulatory reporting.
PM3 embeds governance directly into banking project management workflows. Configurable Regulatory Change Control Boards (R-CCBs) allow Compliance, Legal, SMEs, and sponsors to review scope changes within the platform. Impact assessments are automated, decisions are timestamped, and escalation routes are predefined.
Scope baselines can be locked at key milestones, with delta reports showing what changed, when, and why — a critical capability during regulatory inspections or internal audits. Escalation workflows push major issues up to executive governance where needed.
This governance layer transforms regulatory compliance management from fragmented and ad hoc into a controlled, transparent process.
Most financial institutions run multiple regulatory programmes simultaneously, often across jurisdictions.
PM3’s dashboards and over 200 reports give PMOs real-time visibility across Basel III, DORA, MiFID II, and ESG reporting. Scope delivery can be tracked by obligation, workstream, or legal entity.
Regulatory drop calendars can be integrated, allowing PMOs to anticipate RTS or Q&A publications and align planning cycles accordingly. This capability is invaluable for banks managing overlapping timelines like the EU Banking Package (2025), UK Basel 3.1 (2027), and DORA (2025).
By consolidating portfolio-level insights, PM3 helps PMOs manage complex banking projects more efficiently while ensuring adherence to regulatory changes.
PM3 supports integrated risk management across regulatory programmes.
Each scope item or workstream can be linked to specific risks, giving PMOs early visibility of where regulatory deadlines may be at risk and enabling proactive intervention.
Resource management tools help allocate scarce regulatory expertise — such as SMEs, data engineers, and risk modelling teams — across overlapping initiatives, avoiding over-allocation and delivery bottlenecks.
PM3 can also track strategic benefits, such as data quality improvements or resilience gains, which support corporate governance and strategic objectives beyond pure compliance.
Regulatory programmes often combine waterfall delivery (to meet regulatory milestones) with agile or iterative approaches for technology components. PM3 supports agile, waterfall, and hybrid methodologies in a single platform.
This flexibility is crucial for initiatives like DORA resilience testing, where iterative development and testing phases sit alongside fixed regulatory deadlines. PMOs can manage technology projects and regulatory milestones without forcing workstreams into unnatural frameworks.
For Heads of PMO and Regulatory Change Directors, PM3 provides a single source of truth across Basel III, MiFID II, DORA, ESG, and integration programmes. It offers defensible audit trails, portfolio-level visibility, and structured control over project deliverables.
For delivery teams, PM3 reduces administrative burden, provides clarity on scope, and integrates decision logs and evidence seamlessly. For regulatory agencies, it enables transparent evidence chains and structured responses during inspections.
In short, PM3 acts as the digital backbone for banking compliance, giving PMOs the tools to control scope, manage risk, and deliver with confidence across multiple regulatory regimes.
Strong scope management is often treated as a defensive tactic: avoiding fines, missed milestones, or supervisory findings. But for high-performing financial institutions, effective scope control becomes a strategic asset.
It enables predictable and transparent regulatory delivery, gives executives and regulatory agencies confidence in the control environment, and reduces rework and remediation spend.
Banking compliance programmes will always be demanding, but they don’t have to be chaotic.
With the right project management methodologies, PMOs can shift from reactive firefighting to proactive control.
PMOs that embed structured scoping, governance, and traceability evolve from programme administrators to custodians of regulatory assurance.
By applying consistent processes, maintaining regulatory traceability matrices, and enforcing controlled change, they create repeatable delivery patterns that work across Basel III, MiFID II, DORA, ESG, and future regimes.
This institutionalises how the bank delivers regulatory change, rather than reinventing the wheel with each new mandate. It protects the bank’s licence to operate while improving efficiency, transparency, and resilience across financial institution’s operations.
Basel III, MiFID II, and DORA are not isolated events. Over the next decade, firms face Basel 3.1 phasing through 2027, new ESG disclosure regimes, expanded operational resilience rules, and emerging frameworks for digital assets and AI.
PMOs that master regulatory scope control now will handle future waves with foresight rather than urgency. In project management in banking, this capability becomes a foundation for sustained compliance, strategic clarity, and operational strength.
Achieving this maturity is not about technology alone. It requires strong PMO governance, supported by the right project management tools. Platforms like PM3 provide the structured backbone for scoping, traceability, risk assessment, and portfolio oversight, enabling PMOs to apply best practice consistently across regulatory programmes.
Technology amplifies capability; it doesn’t replace it.
For banking institutions managing multiple regulatory programmes simultaneously, PM3 acts as the connective tissue that links governance, planning, and delivery.
Its scope registers, change control workflows, and real-time dashboards give PMOs the structure and transparency needed to manage complex banking projects with confidence.
By embedding traceability and oversight into everyday workflows, PM3 helps PMOs move beyond firefighting and build repeatable, auditable processes that stand up to regulatory scrutiny.
Banks that deliver regulatory change with structure and clarity gain tangible advantages. They minimise supervisory friction, reduce costs through better prioritisation, build credibility with regulators, and free up change capacity for innovation rather than endless remediation.
In a regulatory landscape that will continue to evolve, scope mastery is a competitive differentiator. PMOs that evolve from compliance firefighters to structured scope leaders don’t just protect the bank — they position it to thrive in the next regulatory wave.
Our products help you deliver successful change programmes and projects by always focusing on the overall business outcomes. Find out how our products can help you.
Discover PM3 Schedule a demo
PPM for Regulated Institutions: Governance, Audit Readiness, and Risk Control
