Elevon in ForbesFive Product Options a Board Could Actually Choose Between
Two competitors were consolidating and the bank had to decide when to move and with what. Twelve research modules across two workstreams produced a board pack: five product directions, a scenario plan and a clear answer on timing.
Client
Our banking client
Industry
Banking
Solution
Strategic advisory
Deployment
Board decision pack
Twelve sourced research modules in. Five defensible directions out. Every claim traceable back to where it came from.
The Decision
Two competitors on the market were consolidating. That put a question in front of the client that intuition could not answer: when to move, and with what, in order to reach customers who would be reconsidering their bank during the transition.
The question had three layers. How customers in this market actually behave and what genuinely makes them switch. What to offer when a free current account is already a commodity. And when the communication window opens, and how long it stays open.
The board did not need a presentation about trends. It needed material on which one path could be selected and then defended, including to people who were not in the room when it was chosen.
How We Structured It
Everything was built so that a claim could be traced back to its source during the meeting, not looked up afterwards.
Twelve modules, each with its own source document
Two workstreams, market and competitive environment, and the competitor's customer base. Every module produced a standalone document with cited data, so the question where does this come from always had an answer.
Produced in two languages in parallel
The decision was being taken at two levels, local and group. Producing everything in both languages from the start meant neither version was a rushed translation of the other.
Timing treated as its own workstream
Five possible competitor approaches to the consolidation were mapped, each with an assigned probability and impact on the customer base. When responding to a competitor's move, the calendar matters as much as the offer.
“A single recommendation can only be accepted or rejected. Five defensible directions is something a board can actually work with.”
From Research to Options
The first workstream covered competitor positioning, macroeconomic factors, customer behaviour trends, a regional benchmark, the regulatory environment and the role of fintechs. The second covered bank selection motivations, a direct comparison of market players, trust and security, high-loyalty products, brand identity and historical acquisition campaigns.
The findings were then turned into five product concepts, each with a proposition, core differentiators, a headline message and a link back to the specific research that justified it. Sixteen potential competitive advantages were rated on a one to five scale, separating hygiene factors from genuine differentiators.
What this looks like in practice
Comparing eleven providers against the central bank reference rate exposed the widest open gap in the market offer: traditional banks mostly sat above one and a half percent, fintechs well below half a percent. That one comparison justified an entire product direction on its own.
What the Board Received
Figures are rounded to a level that preserves the finding rather than the exact value. Product concepts are described in summary form only, the detail stays with the client.
Five product directions, each tied to the specific research finding that justifies it
Sixteen competitive advantages rated, separating hygiene factors from real differentiators
Five competitor scenarios mapped, each with probability and impact on the customer base
A concrete conclusion on the communication window and what has to be in place before it opens
Every deliverable produced in both languages, for local and group decision-making
“The position has to be built well in advance. Once the window opens, there is no time left to build it.”
Why It Worked
Every claim had a source. Twelve separate source documents meant that where does this come from could be answered live in the room, which is what let the board treat the material as a basis for a decision rather than as one more opinion.
The deliverable was decisions rather than conclusions. Options with assessed impact can be compared, combined and rejected individually, which is how a board actually works through a choice of this size.
Timing was answered separately from content. Knowing what to offer is useless if the answer arrives after the window closes, so the calendar was worked out as its own question rather than as a footnote to the product decision.
Want a similar transformation in your organization?
Let's talk about how Elevon can help your team too.
Book consultation