The audit trail behind automated financial advisory matters as much as the decision itself. Models supporting this part of financial and banking practice fail quietly, and usually at the worst moment. The programme builds the judgement to know which parts of this strand of financial and banking practice to standardise and which to leave flexible. Plans for automated financial advisory often fail at the handover point between functions. Benchmarking exercises repeatedly place the practice within financial and banking practice among the areas with the widest performance spread. It is pitched for practitioners with responsibility for the financial and banking practice capability, not for observers of it. The method assumes participants will be challenged on their handling of automated financial advisory and prepares them for it. Content is organised around the decisions practitioners actually face in this aspect of financial and banking practice, not around theory headings. Participants finish with a short, specific brief on this area of financial and banking practice ready to put in front of a decision maker.
Expected Learning Outcomes
✓
Validate the assumptions inside any model supporting automated financial advisory.
✓
Set early warning indicators that flag deterioration in automated financial advisory.
✓
Build the client due diligence and monitoring appropriate to automated financial advisory.
✓
Handle the trade-offs in automated financial advisory between speed, cost and assurance explicitly rather than implicitly.
✓
Test the organisation's response to automated financial advisory under conditions that are less than ideal.
✓
Build the audit evidence that demonstrates automated financial advisory operated as designed.
✓
Sequence improvements to automated financial advisory so that each step makes the next one easier.