AI strategy and an implementation-ready roadmap
We rank the AI work your firm is considering, explain each position, and define the scope of the first build.
What you get
This is the decision half of the diagnostic. Everything your firm is considering goes into one list, then into an order, with a reason written against each position.
It is a decision record rather than something that runs, so your own leadership owns it and changes it as evidence arrives. The most useful part is the shortest, naming what we will not build for you.
At handover
- A ranked list of what to build
- First, second, third, with the reason beside each one.
- What we are putting off, and why
- Each item moved down, and what would bring it back up.
- What we will not build for you
- The candidates we would turn down, and the reason.
- A named owner for each item
- Every position tied to a workflow and a person.
- What the order depends on
- The assumptions behind it, so you know what would change it.
- The scope of the first build
- What the next stage would cover, ready to price.
How the sequence was set
Two builds where the order mattered more than the ambition. In both, the first release shipped less than the plan allowed for, and the rest was named and dated rather than quietly dropped.
Financial services
A bank that shipped the register first
The estate was large enough that covering all of it in one release would have meant covering none of it properly. The first release took discovery and ownership, because an unowned system cannot be assessed by anyone.
Formal intake, deeper access-governance work and several platform integrations were held back to a later release. Each one was named at the time, with the condition that would bring it forward, rather than shipped half-built.
Financial technology
A fintech that started where the risk was
Engineering was moving faster than any review process could follow, so the first release prioritized discovery, security testing and runtime control. Those three answered the question that was actually being asked.
Complete governance automation and formal registration workflows came second by design. Sequencing them behind the runtime work meant the early releases were used, not admired.
Questions
No. It is written during the same two weeks as the assessment, and it depends on what the assessment finds in your environment. Written without that, it would be a document ordering work nobody has checked against reality.
Far enough to place the next two or three items and no further. Anything beyond that is written as a condition rather than a date, because the evidence for it does not exist yet.
Yes. The sequence names the workflow, the sources and the access each item needs, and you can hand it to an internal team or another firm. It is yours whether or not we build anything.
Get the order settled in two weeks
The sequence comes out of the same two-week diagnostic as the assessment. Tell us what is on your list today and we will tell you which item is first.