70%

of large-scale FS transformations miss their original objectives, most often due to people and capability gaps picked up too late

Is it too late if you have not planned ahead? 

No. But the approach changes. 

Planning ahead means building capability before you need it, hiring specialist roles before they become urgent, and designing governance structures before a programme goes live. Most firms are not in that position. 

Being behind does not mean being stuck. It means prioritising differently. The firms that recover well from a late start share one thing: they get honest about where the gaps actually are before they start filling them. 

What should you do first if your programme is already live? 

Step 1: Name the gaps honestly before you try to fill them 

The instinct when a programme is under pressure is to hire quickly. But hiring fast for the wrong role, or the wrong level, costs more and takes longer to recover from than a brief pause to diagnose properly. 

Start with three questions. 

1. Where is delivery actually at risk right now? 
2. Which specific capability is missing, not which job title sounds right? 
3. What does the person we need actually need to be able to do? 

Specificity here is everything. A firm that knows it needs a model risk manager who can hold a line between AI outputs and FCA compliance is in a very different position from one that knows it needs to hire someone in governance. 

Step 2: Separate what needs to be permanent from what needs to be fast 

Not every gap requires a permanent hire. Some of the most acute capability shortfalls in financial services AI programmes right now, AI governance lead cover, DORA programme management, model risk oversight, can be addressed with interim or contract resource while a permanent search runs in parallel. 

This is not a compromise. It is a deliberate approach. Interim resource buys you time to hire the right permanent person rather than the available one. 

Speed and quality are not always in conflict. But you have to be intentional about which gap needs which solution. 

Step 3: Get your governance accountability named today, not next quarter 

If there is one thing that compounds more than anything else when it is unclear, it is AI governance ownership. Every week without a named, senior, authorised owner is a week where decisions are being made without proper accountability. 

This does not require a new hire immediately. It requires a decision. Who is accountable right now? Do they have the authority to act? Do they have a team? If the honest answer to any of those is no or not fully, that is the first gap to close. 

Step 4: Rebuild your hiring timeline with real numbers 

Three to six months is the realistic timeline for the roles that matter most. Model risk managers with AI experience. AI governance leads who understand FCA compliance. Change directors with DORA delivery background. 

If your programme plan has a capability gap that needs to be filled in six weeks, a permanent hire is unlikely to solve it. Knowing that now changes the options available to you. 

• Map each open capability need against a realistic hiring timeline 
• Identify which gaps can be bridged with interim or contract resource 
• Start permanent searches immediately for roles with the longest lead times 
• Brief your talent partner on the intersection skills, not just the job title 

Step 5: Use the pressure as a forcing function for better programme design 



Being behind on workforce readiness is uncomfortable. It is also, occasionally, useful. 

Firms that have been through the pressure of hiring specialist AI capability under urgency often come out with better workforce planning practices than those that never felt it. The lesson is visible and recent. The cost of getting it wrong is known. 

Use the current pressure to build the practices that prevent it happening again. Capability reviews at programme inception. Blended workforce models by design. AI governance placed deliberately, not by default. 

What does a realistic recovery look like? 

It depends on how wide the gap is and how much time the programme has. But the shape of a realistic recovery is usually the same. 

• Honest diagnostic: which dimensions are most at risk and which have more runway 
• Immediate governance clarity: name the accountable person and confirm their authority today 
• Interim cover for the most urgent gaps while permanent searches run 
• Parallel permanent searches for roles with long hiring timelines, started now 
• Revised programme timelines that reflect realistic capability arrival dates, not optimistic ones 

None of this requires having planned ahead. It requires being honest about where you are now, and making deliberate decisions from that starting point rather than hoping the gap closes itself.