Map an AI advisory platform before choosing what to own
Build an evidence-qualified landscape, compare strategic moves and define tests and remapping triggers.
35 minutes
Scenario
A regional bank plans an AI financial-coaching service. Leaders assume owning every component creates advantage, while product, architecture, procurement and risk teams disagree about what is novel, productised or utility-like.
- Your role
- Strategy lead preparing an 18-month platform decision
- Method
- Wardley Mapping
Evidence pack
User need
Customers need understandable, accessible guidance with an accountable human route.
Explanation capability
User tests show material differences between prototypes; no stable market pattern or standard exists.
Orchestration
Four vendors offer comparable managed products, but export and observability vary.
Infrastructure
Identity, messaging and storage have standard services, resilience controls and multiple suppliers.
Constraint
Consent, suitability review, model logging and human escalation are mandatory dependencies.
Power
The preferred vendor proposes proprietary prompt and evaluation formats with a 24-month commitment.
Constraints
- Keep the user need and accountable human route visible.
- Do not equate vendor availability with low switching risk.
- Separate current position from desired movement.
- Record workforce, data-rights and regulatory consequences.
Case steps
Work through each prompt using the evidence pack. These guided cases support self-directed practice; server-scored attempts are not available yet.
Create the anchor, dependency chain and evidence-qualified evolution positions.
Propose at least two moves and show assumptions, inertia, power and guardrails.
Choose a reversible test and define the signal that would change the map or decision.