Wealth Management Project Risk Control & Supervision
Helping a top-tier UK consultancy get on top of spiralling wealth management project costs & delivery risks.
The Pickle
Our client is a band-new wealth management start-up with a clear proposition and an experienced, well-funded management and professional team.
Following the selection of an underlying platform, the client began their delivery journey using non-specialist external consultants.
Our client had a problem because project delivery had itself become threatened – and a major problem – when it became apparent that the selected platform lacked several key features and the current consultants were unable to resolve issues.
Our Move
Measuring
We helped the client compare the core features of the selected/current platform.
These were cash management, resilience, instrument market access, portfolio management.
We compared this with what was deemed to be missing, such as more specialist, less frequently-used products etc.
And with what challenger platforms (or combinations thereof) could potentially provide as a late replacement.
Documenting
We drafted a 100+ slide presentation and end-to-end, detailed core architectural documents for review by the client.
We analysed the current trajectory of the project vs. the ‘must have’ scope items in the client’s proposition and against the client’s risk appetite.
Deciding
Based on our detailed analytical work and active conversations with (and challenges to) the client, we made a professional recommendation.
We suggested to our client that deployed the core features of the selected platform first.
The more specialist products and services would therefore follow-on in a second phase that would involve a ‘best of breed’ integration architecture.
The Result
The client did not follow our advice.
The client chose instead to be persuaded by the non-specialist external consultants (and against our recommendation) to abandon the project as it stood.
The client decided to select a different, sub-optimal, underlying platform.
As a result, project delivery was put at even greater risk and cost meaning the eventual delivery was more expensive than our recommended solution.
In the end, the client’s launch date was heavily delayed. To cover their costs, the client was obliged to raise several more millions in capital.