70%

of large-scale FS transformations miss their original objectives, most often because of people and capability gaps, not technology failure 

What is the execution gap? 

The execution gap is the difference between what a programme commits to at board level and what the organisation can actually deliver with the team it has. 



Senior leaders set the ambition clearly. But one level below in the change, compliance and technology functions doing the actual work; the picture is often very different. 

Those middle-layer leaders are under-resourced in almost every large financial services firm we work with. 

Why do so many transformation programmes miss their targets? 

Three things come up consistently across the firms we work with. 

The roles that matter most don't have a clear pipeline 

The people financial services firms need most right now didn't exist as defined job roles three years ago. AI governance leads. Model risk managers with commercial AI context. Change directors managing DORA obligations alongside live AI deployments. 

Hiring for these profiles takes three to six months. Most programme plans never accounted for that timeline. 

Teams are stretched beyond what's realistic 

Change teams are overloaded. Compliance functions are carrying more than they were built for. Technology teams are doing the work of teams twice their size. Nobody says it out loud because everyone is trying to deliver. 

Governance accountability is unclear 

Who is actually responsible for AI governance? DORA compliance? Consumer Duty accountability? In most firms, the honest answer is: it's not fully clear. That ambiguity is where risk builds quietly until delivery slips and it becomes obvious. 

What do the organisations ahead of this do differently? 

The firms managing this well aren't better resourced. They made different decisions earlier. 

They identified gaps before go-live 

Capability reviews at the start of a programme, not six months in. They know where the gaps are before the pressure forces reactive decisions. 

They built in flexibility from the start 

Permanent, contract and interim resource designed into the programme from day one. Not added as a fix when delivery starts slipping. 

They placed AI governance deliberately 

A named owner near CEO or COO level, with real authority and a team behind them not governance left to fall between the CTO and the CRO. 

They moved on talent before it was urgent 

They knew what specialist capability cost, where to find it and how long it took to hire before they needed it urgently. That changed their programme timelines completely. 

Seven questions worth asking before your next board presentation 

If any of these give you pause, you have an execution risk worth addressing now. 

• Do we have the specialist capability this programme needs or are people growing into critical roles while delivery is already live? 

• Who owns AI governance, and do they have the authority and team to act on it? 

• Are our change, compliance and technology functions resourced for what we've committed or for what we delivered last year? 



• What is the regulatory cost of a capability gap here, and has that reached board level? 

• If our three most critical delivery leaders left next quarter, could we keep momentum? 

• Are we building flexible resource into the programme design or bolting it on when things slip? 

• If our AI-assisted pricing or claims models were reviewed by the FCA tomorrow, could we name the accountable person and show the documentation? 

The firms that manage this well act before the gap becomes visible. They build the capability while they still have time to do it properly.