Making Strategy Work: Lessons from Bank Transformation Programmes

Many banks operate across multiple jurisdictions, each with its own regulatory environment and operational culture. A group-wide strategy is rarely implemented in a uniform way: it gets adapted, interpreted, and, in some cases, diluted. 

One institution we worked with had a group policy that was sound, but local differences in implementation meant they ended up with a wide variety of customer journeys across their international subsidiaries. This created problems for clients moving between jurisdictions, slowed onboarding, and introduced regulatory risk. 

The challenge in fixing this wasn’t simply about designing a better process; it was about designing one that was both practical and acceptable to multiple stakeholders. A rigid, top-down model wouldn’t work. Instead, the solution was a standardised core process, with flexibility for local adaptation where needed. 

Key takeaway: Standardisation improves efficiency, but it must work for each part of the business. A smooth customer experience should go hand in hand with compliance. Striking the right balance is an art, needing judgement, collaboration, and an understanding of local differences. 

When banks launch a major transformation, they often start with an exhaustive diagnostic, typically led by a large consultancy. This generates a long list of issues, usually grouped into multiple workstreams, all of which seem important. 

The problem is that trying to tackle everything at once leads to slow progress, rising costs, and over-complexity. In one institution we worked with, each of 20+ workstreams had an executive sponsor, yet after six months, very little had been delivered. The scale of the programme blurred priorities, overstretched resources, and made interdependencies hard to manage. 

In cases like this, organisations need ruthless prioritisation, focusing on high-impact changes that drive real progress while also securing quick wins to build momentum. Harder, long-term challenges shouldn’t be ignored, but tackling them alongside early successes makes large-scale change far more achievable. 

Key takeaway: Too often, organisations stall because they take on too much at once. The key is to prioritise the changes that will deliver the greatest operational and regulatory impact while ensuring early wins to keep things moving. 

Even the best-designed frameworks or systems won’t deliver results if people don’t use them. A common mistake is assuming that once a new process is introduced, it will automatically be adopted. In reality, without active engagement, workarounds will emerge, particularly in large, decentralised organisations. 

One of the more effective approaches we’ve seen is to start small, demonstrate success, and then scale up. In one transformation, we piloted a new process with local teams instead of mandating immediate change. Early adopters saw clear benefits and became advocates, helping drive wider adoption. Once the value was recognised, scaling up was far smoother: proving that demonstrating success works far better than forcing change. 

Key takeaway: Adoption happens when people see real benefits. Piloting changes, proving their value, and then scaling up – with early adopters as advocates – leads to lasting impact.

Another common issue is lack of coordination between workstreams. Many programmes have multiple teams working in parallel, often relying on shared resources (e.g., IT, HR, compliance). But without proper coordination, bottlenecks appear – leading to frustration and delays. 

One effective approach is introducing structured cross-functional sessions. Instead of workstreams escalating issues individually, they should come together regularly to discuss risks, dependencies, and shared constraints. This not only improves efficiency but also creates a more aligned decision-making process. 

Key takeaway: Transformation programmes don’t deliver effectively in silos. Clear mechanisms for coordination and escalation are critical to success.

One of the biggest risks in a multi-year strategy is that progress becomes hard to define. Many programmes track activity (abstract milestones met, documents produced) rather than actual impact. 

For any strategy to have value, it needs clear, measurable outcomes that link back to the original objectives. In one bank’s transformation, a key goal was to increase client acquisition in a new segment. But when we mapped the individual workstreams, it became clear that the initiatives in place wouldn’t actually generate the required numbers. 

Having a structured 'golden thread' from high-level strategy to operational impact helped clarify what was working – and, more importantly, what wasn’t going to work. Without that level of scrutiny, banks risk spending years on well-intentioned work that never delivers its intended results. 

Key takeaway: Strategy execution needs clear metrics that track real-world impact, not just activity.