What we doSmart IT SolutionsRegulatory Capital & Risk Platform
Your capital numbers, computed by a system your team owns.
The regional market for capital systems offers two bad ends: vendor platforms three years into implementation with licence fees that outlive the sponsors who signed them, and the spreadsheet estate — capital adequacy computed in workbooks with formulas nobody dares touch. BIZENIUS builds the narrow middle: a capital computation and reporting platform on your data, working inside a quarter, documented for your engineers and your examiner alike — with source code that belongs to you.
Where this begins
The systems this build replaces.
The workbook nobody touches
Capital adequacy lives in a spreadsheet inherited twice over. One formula error away from a misstated ratio — and the supervisor has started asking about controls.
The implementation that never lands
The vendor platform was licensed years ago; the go-live date still moves. Meanwhile the team runs the old process alongside the project that was meant to retire it.
The framework outgrew the tooling
The advisory work is done — ICAAP rebuilt, methodology sound — but the monthly numbers still travel by hand. The framework deserves machinery.
What we build
Computation with an audit trail.
A capital platform build delivers the working system, the documentation that explains it, and the handover that makes it yours — scoped against one measurable KPI before a line of code is written.
The computation core
Capital requirements computed on your data under the applicable framework — every figure traceable from submission back to source, with the methodology encoded, not improvised.
Monitoring & alerts
Ratios, buffers and headroom watched continuously — with a named owner alerted when a number moves in a way that needs explaining.
Supervisory reporting
The capital returns produced from the same computation the management numbers use — one version of the truth, filed on schedule.
The audit file
Architecture, methodology and control documentation written for two readers: the engineer who maintains the system and the examiner who inspects it.
Handover & source code
Your team operates the platform, your institution holds the code. Training runs through the Capability Arc; nothing about the system is a black box to its owner.
How the build runs
Scope. Build. Integrate. Hand over.
Scope
The computation perimeter, the KPI it must move, and your security team’s review of the architecture — before any code.
Build
Working software in increments your risk and IT teams review — the methodology encoded with practitioners at the bench.
Integrate
Into your core systems, data warehouse and access controls — inside your perimeter or your own cloud tenancy.
Hand over
Documentation, training, source code — and a parallel-run against the old process until your team retires it with confidence.
One bottleneck, one measurable KPI, a fixed perimeter — priced before we build. First working software inside the quarter.
Proof
Judged by what changes.
Weeks
not years — first working software inside a quarter, scoped against one measurable KPI
The BIZENIUS build standard
Mandate Nº 04
Capital frameworks built to run the bank, not to satisfy a filing
Two African banks · Africa
Asked before engaging
The questions CROs and CTOs put to us first.
Who owns the platform when the build ends?
You do — source code, documentation and the running system. There is no licence, no per-seat fee, no dependency on us for the platform to keep working. Clients retain us afterwards by choice, not by lock-in.
Where does it run, and who sees our data?
Inside your perimeter or your own cloud tenancy — data residency respected by design, encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access and full audit trails. Your information-security team reviews the architecture at scoping, before code exists. Your data does not leave your control.
How can you build in a quarter what vendors take years to implement?
By building less, deliberately. A vendor platform carries every feature any client ever asked for; your institution needs the computation your framework specifies. We scope one perimeter with one KPI, encode your methodology, and integrate with what you already run — the narrowness is the speed.
How is the build priced?
Fixed at scoping, against the fixed perimeter. If scoping shows the perimeter should be different from what you asked for, we say so before pricing — a quotation follows the scoping session, not the enquiry form.
What do you need from our side?
A data owner who can grant access, a risk counterpart who owns the methodology, and your security team’s time at scoping. The build reviews run inside your existing sprint or meeting rhythm.
How does this differ from BIZENIUS Accord?
Accord is our licensed platform — seventeen integrated engines covering the Basel stack, deployed in days and configured to your rules. A custom build is for institutions whose methodology departs from the standardised frameworks, or who want machinery designed around a bespoke process and owned as source code. The scoping session tells you honestly which path fits — sometimes the answer is Accord, sometimes a build, sometimes both.
The Capability Arc™
This build is one point on the arc.
The platform holds only if the team commands the framework it automates — most clients pair the build with the masterclass and the advisory engagement.
The ask
Request a scoping session.
An engineer and a risk practitioner, together, walk the process you want to retire — and return a fixed perimeter, one KPI, and a priced proposal. If the honest answer is that you don’t need a platform, that is the answer you get.
Scoping sessions are working meetings, not sales calls. A senior engineer responds within two working days.
Regulatory Capital & Risk Platform
Leave the question with us.
Two lines on the mandate is enough — a senior practitioner replies within one business day.