By the time delegates gathered at the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (“ASFA”) conference in 2025, one point was already clear: transformation in superannuation is no longer a discrete programme with a start and end date. It is a continuous discipline that touches technology, governance, people, and, ultimately, member outcomes.
That idea sat at the heart of the ASFA 2025 panel discussion Transformation at scale, which explored how large super funds are approaching change as an ongoing operating discipline rather than a one-off programme. Drawing on perspectives from fund leadership, consulting, and service provision, the discussion offered practical lessons as boards and executives look ahead to 2026 and beyond.
From projects to purpose
One of the strongest themes to emerge was the importance of clarity of purpose. Transformation often begins with a trigger, whether regulatory pressure, cost constraints, system limitations, or a merger. But successful programmes are rarely defined by the trigger alone. They are shaped by a clear articulation of what the fund is trying to achieve for members over the long term.
As several panellists noted, boards and executives increasingly face the challenge of balancing ambition with realism. Large-scale change must sit alongside business-as-usual operations, heightened regulatory scrutiny, and rising expectations around resilience and transparency. In that context, transformation works best when scope is disciplined, outcomes are measurable, and decision-making remains anchored to member benefit rather than technology for its own sake.
Too often, however, transformation shifts from purpose into procurement. When success is defined primarily by delivery timelines and negotiated implementation costs, funds risk losing sight of whether change is actually improving how their people operate and how members are served. Purpose-led transformation requires boards to look beyond price and ask harder questions about long-term capability, resilience, and sustainability.
Technology as an enabler, not the destination
Technology change featured prominently in the discussion, but not as an end in itself. Core system uplift, data platform renewal, and digital experience initiatives are now standard considerations for many funds. The real differentiator lies in architectural choices that allow funds to adapt as conditions change.
A recurring tension for many funds is the focus on reducing the upfront cost of technology change. While fiscal discipline remains essential, the panel cautioned against equating lower implementation spend with better outcomes. Transformations optimised for price rather than value often constrain architectural choices, compress change management, and limit investment in capability uplift.
Over time, this can leave funds with platforms that technically meet requirements but fail to materially improve productivity, decision-making, or resilience. By contrast, funds that treat technology as a long-term operating asset and invest accordingly are better positioned to support their people, adapt to regulatory change, and deliver sustainable member outcomes.
Artificial intelligence was another focal point. While enthusiasm is growing, panellists were measured in their assessment. The consensus was that AI delivers the most value when applied to specific, well-governed use cases, such as operational efficiency, member communications, and decision support. Governance, explainability, and alignment with regulatory expectations remain essential.
People and capability remain decisive
Technology alone does not transform an organisation. The panel returned repeatedly to people, culture, and capability as decisive factors in success or failure.
Large-scale transformation places sustained pressure on teams, particularly when change programmes run in parallel with regulatory initiatives and day-to-day delivery. Funds that invest early in capability development, clear communication, and leadership alignment are better positioned to maintain momentum.
Importantly, investment in people capability is not a soft consideration. It is a material driver of return on technology investment. Tools that are poorly understood, inconsistently adopted, or layered onto exhausted teams rarely deliver their promised benefits, regardless of how competitively they were procured.
The discussion also highlighted the growing importance of hybrid skill sets. Future-fit teams combine deep domain knowledge with digital literacy, vendor management capability, and the ability to work across organisational boundaries. For many funds, this means rethinking talent strategies, rather than simply adding new tools.
Rethinking economics and partnerships
Another key insight was the changing nature of partnership models. As transformations grow in scale and complexity, funds are increasingly selective about what they retain in-house and what they source externally.
Rather than transactional outsourcing, panellists described a shift towards strategic supplier relationships, where success is measured through shared outcomes, not just service levels.
Panellists emphasised that cost efficiencies should be viewed as an outcome of effective transformation, not its primary objective. When efficiencies are realised, the most resilient funds are deliberate about how those benefits are redeployed, whether into further capability uplift, improved member services, or long-term fee sustainability.
Looking ahead to 2026, strong transformation will look less like a completed programme and more like an embedded operating rhythm.
The differentiator will not be which funds delivered transformation at the lowest cost. It will be which funds used transformation to build enduring capability, making it easier for their people to do their jobs, simpler for advisers and employers to engage, and more intuitive for members to navigate increasingly complex retirement journeys.
For boards setting the agenda today, the message is clear: cost matters, but value lasts.
