The client does not care about your operating model

Internal complexity is not a deliverable

The client does not care that the data comes from another department. The client does not care that the system was procured before the current process existed. The client does not care that three service providers need to agree before an answer can be produced. The client cares whether the problem gets solved.

Of course, institutional clients have legitimate reasons to examine a provider’s operating model: who is responsible, how delegation works and whether the service can withstand disruption. But understanding that model should not become a prerequisite for getting an answer.

Perhaps I am old-fashioned, but I still think the provider should solve its own internal coordination problems before presenting them to the client.

Client-first is tested at the edges

Almost every financial institution says it is client-centric. The useful test is what happens when the client request does not fit neatly into the operating model.

Does the provider take ownership and coordinate internally? Or does the client receive a guided tour through the organisation’s boundaries?

“That sits with another team” may be factually correct. It is rarely a satisfying service proposition.

Good service includes a clear no

Client-first does not mean saying yes to everything. In regulated financial services, some requests cannot or should not be accommodated. Good service means explaining that clearly, early and without hiding behind jargon.

A direct no with a reason and, where possible, an alternative is often better service than two weeks of internal escalation followed by the same no.

Ownership lasts through resolution

For me, service means making sure the problem is followed through to resolution, even if the final work needs to be performed elsewhere. A handover should leave the client knowing who is responsible, what happens next and who will keep them informed.

It means updating the client before the client has to chase. It means acknowledging an error before writing the paragraph that explains why it happened.

Technology can make service faster and more scalable. AI can improve responsiveness. Portals can give immediate access to information. But a portal that simply gives the client another place to chase an unanswered request has not improved the service.

The foundation remains rather simple: take the client’s problem seriously, communicate clearly and do what you said you would do.

Not particularly disruptive. Still surprisingly differentiating.

This article reflects the author’s views and is intended for general information and discussion. It does not constitute legal, regulatory or investment advice.