As the final quarter of the year gathers pace, regulatory and compliance teams are being pulled in two directions at once. Year-end deadlines are adding pressure to an already heavy workload, while the annual planning cycle demands that those same teams set out their priorities for the first quarter of 2027.
According to ACA Group, for many firms, the default response is to ask staff to stretch a little further to keep the plan intact.
That approach can hold for a short period. However, when the work is sensitive, deadline-driven or prone to generating rework, relying on goodwill and extra hours is unlikely to be sustainable.
The real question for compliance leaders is not whether their team is busy, but whether its capacity matches the type of work coming down the line. A backlog of routine tasks can usually be reprioritised. A regulatory examination, a remediation programme, a policy overhaul, a transaction or an extended staff absence is a different matter. Each creates work that requires experienced judgement, momentum and clear ownership immediately.
Four signals suggest a team may be facing a genuine capacity gap. The first is when decisions stall because the same senior individuals must sign off on every material matter. The second is when the team finds itself choosing between forward-looking planning and urgent remediation, rather than advancing both. The third is when temporary gaps are filled informally, leaving no one clearly accountable for the outcome. The fourth is when the Q1 plan assumes current workloads will simply fade away, despite no credible reason to expect that.
None of these signals automatically means a permanent hire is needed. They do, however, suggest the existing resourcing model deserves a fresh look. Depending on how long the pressure will last, how complex the work is and what expertise it demands, firms may choose to reprioritise, shift internal resources or bring in interim support.
Before the calendar turns, leaders should map the work that cannot be delayed, pinpoint the decisions that require senior input and separate a short-term spike from a deeper structural shortfall. From there, they can decide what must remain in-house and what could be handled by an embedded resource. This exercise is far more valuable than a generic headcount request, as it defines the mandate, seniority and timeframe needed to safeguard outcomes.
Where the requirement is clear but not permanent, interim support can complement internal reprioritisation. A secondment can absorb a defined workload, cover a leadership transition or period of leave, support a regulatory change initiative or keep business-as-usual activity moving through a critical window, all without the long-term commitment of a full-time appointment.
Ultimately, the aim is not just to survive Q4. It is to ensure teams enter Q1 with critical work on track, clear ownership of identified risks and enough capacity to tackle what comes next.
Read the full ACA Group post here.
Copyright © 2026 RegTech Analyst
Copyright © 2026 RegTech Analyst
