AWS Partner Cloud & AI Consulting Australia-wide delivery

Financial Services & Superannuation

Cloud programs that survive
the risk committee

Financial services work carries a second audience. Whatever you build has to satisfy the engineers who run it and the regulator who reviews it — and retrofitting the second audience is where most programs lose a quarter.

Sector Banking, insurance, superannuation, fintechKey frameworks APRA CPS 234 · CPS 230 · ISO 27001Typical entry point Well-Architected Review or resilience uplift
What we hear

The three conversations we have most often in financial services

Core systems that cannot move, and cannot stay

A mainframe or vendor platform nobody will re-write, surrounded by integrations that have to keep working while everything around them changes. The answer is rarely a big-bang migration.

Evidence assembled by hand every quarter

Controls exist — in a spreadsheet, a Confluence page and someone's memory. Producing evidence for an APRA review consumes weeks of senior engineering time that should be spent building.

An AI mandate with no safe data access

The board wants an AI story. The data sits in systems that cannot be reached without a privacy review, so every initiative stalls at proof of concept.

How we help

What we do for financial services clients

Four workstreams that show up in nearly every engagement in this sector, usually in this order.

Regulated landing zones

Multi-account foundations where the CPS 234 control set is expressed as Terraform modules and Service Control Policies, so the control and its evidence are the same artefact.

  • Control-to-code mapping with traceability
  • Preventative guardrails, not detective-only
  • Evidence packs generated on demand

Operational resilience under CPS 230

Critical operation mapping, tolerance levels, tested failover and documented severe-but-plausible scenarios — the parts of CPS 230 that are engineering work rather than policy work.

  • Critical operations and dependency mapping
  • Tested RTO/RPO with evidence
  • Third-party and cloud concentration analysis

Data platforms for risk and finance

A governed lakehouse that serves regulatory reporting, risk modelling and member or customer analytics from one lineage-tracked source rather than four reconciled extracts.

  • Lineage and data contracts
  • Regulatory reporting pipelines
  • Consent-aware access controls

AI with an audit trail

Fraud and anomaly detection, adviser and member assistants, and document automation — designed so every output can be traced to its source and every decision has a named human owner.

  • Grounded retrieval with citation enforcement
  • Model cards and decision logs
  • Human-in-the-loop for consequential decisions
Regulatory context

The obligations we design against

We are consultants, not your legal advisers. But these frameworks sit on the desk throughout the design phase, and we produce the artefacts your risk function will be asked for.

APRA CPS 234

Information security capability, control testing and incident notification, mapped to deployable AWS controls with generated evidence.

APRA CPS 230

Operational risk management: critical operations, tolerance levels, scenario testing and service provider management.

ISO 27001 / SOC 2

Continuous control evidence for certification and for the due-diligence questionnaires your enterprise clients send.

42%
Run-cost reduction on a completed datacentre exit
70%
Less effort preparing quarterly control evidence
4 hr
Tested recovery time for critical member services
0
Priority-1 security incidents on platforms we run
FAQ

What financial services clients ask first

Yes, and we prefer to. Where a pattern has already been through your risk process, we extend it rather than propose a replacement that would restart the approval clock.

You do. Evidence generation runs from your pipelines, in your accounts, using your tooling. If we disappeared tomorrow the next quarter's pack would still generate.

We have migrated and integrated around them — including Oracle and SQL Server estates, mainframe adjacency patterns and vendor platforms with restrictive support terms. We are honest about where a vendor constraint makes an option unavailable.

Workloads run in ap-southeast-2 (Sydney) by default, with ap-southeast-4 (Melbourne) as a secondary region where resilience requirements call for it. Any exception is raised explicitly and requires written approval.

Bring us the constraint, not just the goal

The regulator, the vendor contract, the immovable audit date. The earlier those enter the design conversation, the cheaper they are to satisfy.