An increasing number of wealth and adviser firms are looking to ‘launch their own platform’, but while there are several platform vendors offering a variety of compelling solutions in this space, there is no one size fits all approach or structure that can guarantee success (despite claims to the contrary!). Alongside this, there are countless articles in the industry press that swing drastically between heaping praise, or alternatively, predicting imminent disaster, for firms taking the initiative in this area.<\/p>\n
Our view is that this approach does not capture the full spectrum of propositional complexity around even the simplest of platform implementations. Of further concern, it promotes a false sense of security that there is a standard set of out-of-the-box platform approaches that can be implemented \u2018off the shelf\u2019 by an interchangeable set of homogenised platform vendors. I am sure we have all heard that before!<\/p>\n
Taking a step back, the phrase ‘your own platform’ can range from a very simple, white-labelled SaaS based offering, all the way through to a full in-house build, comprising an integrated custody, operations, digital and technology proposition. The key challenge is being able to understand and choose the correct blend of platform functionality, regulatory permissions, retained applications, operational responsibility, and contractual structure, to ensure that the resulting platform solution and operating model are the best fit for your firm\u2019s target strategic proposition, organisational culture, and future ambitions.<\/p>\n
Our view is that trying to reduce this complexity into a limited number of buzzword heavy platform models (Adviser-as-Platform, Platform+ etc.) is overly reductive, and it is more insightful to embrace this complexity via a comprehensive framework that encapsulates the essential components of a platform proposition, namely \u2013<\/p>\n
These components can be used as lenses for a \u2018deep dive\u2019 requirements analysis (defining respective levels of influence and responsibility), and then re-combined in various configurations to create a unique propositional ownership model that is understood, agreed, and adopted by both the wealth firm and platform vendor to inform and accelerate the implementation engagement.<\/p>\n
From the wealth firm perspective, this analysis involves challenging your rationale for embarking on a platform implementation project. Underpinning this is the assertion that \u2018defining what is important to you\u2019 is better than \u2018taking what you are given\u2019 when it comes to choosing a platform proposition strategy, provider and charging structure.<\/p>\n
From the platform vendor perspective, this analysis involves an honest assessment of \u2018propositional capability and fit\u2019 i.e., \u201care there any significant gaps or weak spots in our offering, can we talk confidently to our clients\u2019 strategic priorities, and how can we make the implementation process \u2018pain free\u2019 for wealth firms.\u201d<\/p>\n
Here is a summary of what to expect over the next few weeks:<\/p>\n
An increasing number of wealth and adviser firms are looking to ‘launch their own platform’, but while there are several …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":21660,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false},"practices":[70],"industries":[103],"capabilities":[104,112],"class_list":["post-22276","blog","type-blog","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n