Why Governance Gaps Are Costing Financial Services Clients Before Go-Live Even Starts

An expansion, like Visa and Fiserv's European unified acceptance platform rollout, might seem straightforward on paper. But in practice, it comes down to one question: who owns what. The gap between a signed deal and a delivered product is where governance either accelerates value or quietly destroys it.

Marvin Norfleet, Director of Program Management for Enterprise Implementations at Fiserv, has spent his career in that gap, leading PMOs and enterprise transformations across fintech, hospitality, and consulting at organizations including Accenture and EY. What he's seen consistently is that governance gets dismissed as red tape, when it's actually the thing that determines whether a client reaches go-live cleanly or gets stuck while teams sort out ownership mid-engagement.

"We shouldn't have to run a discovery every time there's a blockage," he says. "We should know who to go to, who can support, and who can make decisions. If you have a solution, a product, and a go-to-market strategy, but implementation still has to reinvent the wheel every time, that's a big red flag." That breakdown starts with a push to execute faster.

• Sheriffs and software: "The push for speed comes at the cost of clear governance. We're acting fast, but operating like the Wild West, pulling in resources without knowing who owns what instead of having clear delineation of responsibility as a vendor," Norfleet explains. "We've been trained to cut corners to get there. That confusion separates a clean go-live from one where teams are still sorting out decisions mid-engagement. "We should be able to rinse and repeat. Governance set up early avoids discovery just to figure out ownership and unblock issues." When that structure is in place, it gives teams the authority to act.

• Protecting the promise: "From a partner lens, we have to work together to deliver with confidence. I can push back and point out when an implementation has been mis-sold. We need to correct that to save our reputation, or we end up churning and burning through resources," Norfleet emphasizes. That clarity doesn't always exist across the organization. "I’ve been asked to stand up a PMO with a team and resources, but do other parts of the business understand why I’m here? Do they know that in an implementation for PMO, my goal is to take that off their plate so product teams can focus on deliverables?"

Without that cross-functional visibility, ownership defaults back to ambiguity, and the cycle repeats. "It becomes a 'who's on first situation' if there isn't a clear understanding. There are a lot of discussions at the executive level that I may not have visibility into, so I rely on leaders as partners to help me navigate through those decisions," he says. "Having that outline early on has helped us show revenue and solidify reputation." That same behavior carries into how teams communicate.

The instinct to automate communications and move faster isn't wrong, but without governance underneath it, speed produces distance, not efficiency. When no one owns the engagement structure, teams default to tools that feel transactional, clients lose confidence, and the human element that separates a partnership from a vendor relationship erodes quietly. "I push for in-person meetings, whether it's a corporate visit or a kickoff, to humanize the implementation process and create confidence," Norfleet says. "You can't sit in a meeting with your camera off or communicate strictly via email."

The same governance clarity that prevents "who's on first" confusion also creates the space for teams to show up as partners rather than ticket-resolvers. When ownership is defined early, people stop scrambling and start building trust. The alternative is a cycle Norfleet has seen too many times: ambiguity, churn, and clients who never quite believe the next engagement will go differently.