Operational Risk and Control Baselines for Banking Technology in 2026

At a Glance

An operational risk baseline for banking technology inventories systems, dependencies, controls, incidents, and recovery capabilities, quantifying exposure and gaps to guide investment, strengthen resilience, and inform transformation sequencing.

Why operational risk baselines are now a prerequisite for technology change

In 2026, banks are under pressure to modernize faster while proving that operational resilience and control effectiveness are not being traded away for speed. That shifts the role of the operational risk baseline. It is no longer a periodic description of “current controls”; it is the reference state that determines whether planned change is admissible, how it must be sequenced, and what evidence will demonstrate that risk has not increased beyond tolerance.

For technology-led transformations, risk and control baselines must be established before change because modernization alters the very signals that control monitoring depends on: event timestamps, system boundaries, third-party dependencies, and the way decisions are made (increasingly by automated workflows and AI). If the bank cannot baseline those conditions in a repeatable way, post-change assurance becomes disputed and strategy validation becomes fragile.

From reactive monitoring to engineered resilience: what “baseline” now means

Leaders often use “baseline” to mean “where we are today.” For operational risk, a decision-grade baseline is more specific: (1) defined critical services, (2) impact tolerances, (3) control evidence and monitoring coverage, and (4) the dependency graph—including third parties—needed to explain how disruptions propagate.

The practical shift is from reactive monitoring (detect after harm) to engineered resilience (define tolerances, monitor continuously, test severe-but-plausible scenarios, and prove recoverability). This change in posture raises the evidential bar: banks must be able to show that baselines are reproducible, comparable after technology change, and governed through change control.

Core technology risk and control baselines for 2026

While regulatory expectations differ by jurisdiction, the 2026 operating reality is converging around several baseline themes: AI accountability, formalized digital operational resilience, continuous third-party monitoring, and cryptographic transition readiness. Each theme drives specific baseline requirements that should be established prior to large-scale change.

AI accountability and governance baselines

As banks deploy AI into higher-impact domains, leaders increasingly treat AI as a core operational risk driver: it affects decision integrity, customer outcomes, and regulatory explainability. A credible baseline in 2026 should therefore inventory AI use cases in scope, classify their risk level, and document the minimum governance evidence expected: ownership, human oversight points, model/agent monitoring, incident response playbooks, and the ability to trace a material decision back to governed data and policy.

Where AI capabilities are being expanded from pilots to production, baseline discussions should include measurement-system readiness: whether the bank can monitor drift, detect abnormal behavior, and demonstrate that control objectives (fairness, transparency, and error handling) are satisfied consistently rather than episodically.

Digital operational resilience baselines

Digital operational resilience requires a baseline that starts with the services the bank must protect. That means defining critical business services, establishing impact tolerances for disruption, and proving that monitoring and testing are mapped to those tolerances rather than to infrastructure components in isolation. Leaders should expect baseline evidence that includes severe-but-plausible scenario coverage, test results, and remediation tracking, with a clear line from service tolerance to technical controls and operational playbooks.

Third-party risk management baselines

As open finance expands and banks depend on specialized providers, third-party risk increasingly determines the bank’s own resilience. A 2026 baseline should therefore capture the dependency map for critical services, the performance and availability expectations for third-party APIs, the monitoring coverage for security events, and the contractual and operational escalation paths when providers degrade. Without this, prioritization decisions tend to underestimate delivery risk and overestimate operational controllability.

Cryptographic transition and post-quantum readiness baselines

Cryptographic transition is often treated as a future concern, but modernization programs can either accelerate readiness or embed long-lived cryptographic debt. A forward-looking baseline should identify where sensitive data depends on long-lived encryption assumptions, where key management practices create concentration risk, and where technology roadmaps must accommodate algorithm agility. Even if full post-quantum adoption is staged, baselining the dependency footprint makes the sequencing trade-offs explicit.

Operational risk management trends shaping how baselines are built

Several trends are changing not only what banks measure, but how baselines are established and governed. The common thread is that technology is simultaneously increasing complexity and becoming the primary tool used to manage that complexity.

Agentic monitoring: automation as both control and risk

Banks are increasingly exploring autonomous or semi-autonomous systems to detect issues, triage incidents, and recommend actions. This changes baselining in two ways. First, the baseline must include current monitoring coverage and response behaviors so leadership can evaluate whether automation improves resilience or introduces new failure modes. Second, controls must be expressed in operational terms (what the agent is allowed to do, when human approval is required, how actions are logged and reviewed) so post-change evidence remains credible.

Quantified dependency modeling: making hidden interdependencies explicit

Complex banking systems fail through interdependencies that are not visible in traditional process maps. More advanced modeling approaches, including probabilistic methods, are increasingly used to quantify how disruptions propagate. For baseline purposes, the point is not to perfect the model; it is to document the dependency assumptions that underpin impact tolerances and scenario testing so leaders can validate whether strategic plans rely on fragile coupling points.

Proactive compliance: continuous controls and machine-verifiable evidence

As regulatory obligations become more digitized and change cycles accelerate, banks are moving from periodic compliance checks to continuous verification. Baselines should therefore document control evidence collection mechanisms, update cycles for rules (for example, sanctions lists), and the operational process for managing exceptions. This framing makes it easier to defend that modernization improved compliance capability rather than merely shifting where compliance work happens.

What a pre-change risk and control baseline must contain

To be useful for strategy validation and prioritization, risk and control baselines must be expressed as an evidence package rather than as a narrative. Leaders should expect at least the following baseline components for technology transformations:

• Critical service inventory with defined impact tolerances and rationale
• Control objectives mapped to services and to enabling technology components
• Evidence lineage for key controls (what proves the control works, where it is sourced, how often it is produced)
• Monitoring coverage and blind spots (including alerting quality and response SLAs)
• Scenario test coverage, results, and remediation backlog
• Third-party dependency map with performance and security monitoring expectations
• AI governance inventory (where relevant) including oversight points, logging, and incident response
• Definition and change control for all baseline measures so comparability survives platform change

This baseline package becomes the mechanism for holding strategy to reality: it makes constraints visible and prevents the program from treating assurance as an afterthought.

How risk and control baselines validate whether ambitions are realistic

Strategy validation requires leaders to test feasibility under constraints. Risk and control baselines provide the most direct evidence of those constraints because they reveal where the bank’s control environment is strong, where it is dependent on manual workarounds, and where resilience assumptions are unproven. In practical terms, the baseline should answer: what change can be safely accelerated, what must be sequenced behind readiness work, and where the bank must invest first to reduce operational fragility.

For example, a bank pursuing aggressive cloud and AI modernization may find that the limiting factor is not engineering capacity but the ability to evidence controls continuously, maintain service-level impact tolerances across third parties, and demonstrate governance over autonomous behaviors. A baseline that makes those conditions explicit improves decision confidence and reduces the risk of later “surprise” findings that force costly rework or de-scoping.

Objective risk baselining for strategy validation and prioritization decisions

Assessment-led baselining becomes most valuable when it evaluates the operational risk and control preconditions required before change: resilience discipline, evidence lineage, third-party dependency management, and governance over AI-assisted decisioning. Those dimensions translate directly into whether strategic ambitions are realistic, and whether the bank can prioritize initiatives without accumulating hidden operational risk.

Applied in this way, a structured assessment approach helps executives judge readiness, identify sequencing constraints, and raise decision confidence without turning baselining into a documentation exercise. Used as part of that discipline, DUNNIXER’s perspective on maturity dimensions can connect control evidence, resilience readiness, and governance effectiveness to the prioritization trade-offs leaders must make. The DUNNIXER Digital Maturity Assessment supports establishing an objective baseline that surfaces where risk and control gaps are the real blockers to strategic ambition—and where targeted readiness work can unlock credible acceleration.

References

• https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/banking-regulation-2026#:~:text=The%20new%202026%20Banking%20Regulation,and%20the%20latest%20regulatory%20developments.
• https://landing.newgensoft.com/hubfs/_2020%20Website%20files/Reports/Banking%20Tech%20Trends%20Report%202026.pdf
• https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/regulatory-trends-shaping-technology-risk-management-vimal-mani-d5a4f
• https://informaconnect.com/top-5-risks-for-financial-risk-managers-in-2026/#:~:text=Key%20areas%20that%20risk%20managers,management%20frameworks%20for%20climate%20risks.
• https://www.metricstream.com/learn/operational-risk-management-in-banking.html#:~:text=manage%20operational%20risks.-,What%20is%20Operational%20Risk%20in%20Banks?,regulatory%20compliance%2C%20and%20operational%20disruptions.
• https://www.capgemini.com/insights/research-library/banking-top-trends-2026/#:~:text=Today's%20banking%20industry%20trends%20are,download%20our%20full%20trends%20book.
• https://www.corporatecomplianceinsights.com/2026-operational-guide-cybersecurity-ai-governance-emerging-risks/#:~:text=Ultimately%2C%202026%20demands%20a%20different,risk%2C%20not%20an%20IT%20issue.
• https://www.hsfkramer.com/insights/reports/2026/fsr-outlook-2026/top-5-whats-in-store-for-financial-services-in-2026#:~:text=finance%20use%20cases-,Summary,and%20audit%20readiness%20are%20essential.
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927538X2300077X#:~:text=5.,is%20consistent%20with%20systems%20theory.
• https://www.intuition.com/top-5-operational-risks-for-banks-in-2026/
• https://corasystems.com/blog/how-to-implement-operational-risk-management-ppm#:~:text=Technology's%20Role%20in%20Operational%20Risk%20Management%20Framework,solutions%20that%20actively%20prevent%20operational%20risk%20materialization.
• https://anderson.ae/article/how-technology-is-transforming-risk-management-processes#:~:text=Technology%20is%20no%20longer%20just%20a%20tool%E2%80%94it,manage%2C%20and%20mitigate%20risks%20like%20never%20before.
• https://govcomapi.mtnima.gov.mr/gembarkp/S79636R/korganisei/S399741R50/risk__assessment__and-decision-analysis_with__bayesian-networks__by__norman__fenton-nov_7-2012.pdf#:~:text=Improving%20techniques%20for%20expert%20elicitation%20and%20uncertainty,represents%20a%20significant%20advancement%20in%20the%20field.
• https://www.kroll.com/en/publications/alternative-asset-advisory/overview-of-global-prudential-and-risk-management#:~:text=Advanced%20approach:%20Implementation%20of%20advanced%20approached%20calculation,scope%20of%20modelling%20can%20be%20quite%20extensive.