SEPTEMBER 2020: Adam Tejpaul and Gabriele Zaninetti were just tasked with the most transformative project J.P. Morgan Private Bank had faced in over 15 years, i.e. the integration of advisory services as part of their offerings. Adam knew the private banking industry inside-out and had witnessed all major changes in the private banking industry. J.P. Morgan private bank was renowned for the quality of its services and an insightful advising culture, but it needed to capitalize on its strengths, namely its strong due diligence and advisory services. How could Adam convince the organization that a change in the investment service model was needed despite being profitable? What options did Adam have to change the advisory model and prepare the bank for the new market environment? How would the new model answer the needs of internal (advisors) and external (clients) customers? How could he implement such an important IT-heavy initiative to bring the most value to the client advisors and clients? What would be the key success factors in this new technology- and fee-based advisory model? What options did they have to implement Engage within J.P. Morgan's IT infrastructure?

MAY 2022: The planning phase for the Engage project has taken way too long, in part because the technological platform was so critical to the success of the project. After months of discussions with a fintech company, a proof of concept had been delivered, showing promising results but it was still far from the fully integrated solution that had been promised. The final quote for the full project finally came in late and higher than expected. This was a big setback for Adam and Gabriele. They thought they had signed up with a development partner, but now they had the distinct impression the fintech saw its role more as a simple service provider, agreeing to client requests without bringing up the cost issues. Adam was particularly upset as he had spent countless days with the technology provider to make sure they understood the requirements and came up with a realistic budget ahead of time. The time felt wasted now, with the whole project on the brink of a complete breakdown. Without the technology-enabled platform delivering the functionalities needed, the whole transition to a new active advisory function was in trouble... There was barely enough time to negotiate again with the fintech. Was it time to reconsider doing it internally? Was it even reasonable to expect they might be able to salvage the project by going to another solution provider? Were they in any way responsible for the budget creep, thanks to the engagement of some many parties, each with its own requirements? How could they ensure Engage did not head for the trash bin of project history? They still believed, but maybe it was time to put milestones and deadlines to the dreams. Very much the definition of strategy...