Hapax LogoLatest News
Blog Post

Who should spearhead generative AI strategy at my bank?

No matter who spearheads generative AI strategy at your institution, the combined power of this cross-departmental group and/or individual with Hapax’s industry, regulatory, and institutional expertise enables every bank to become a leader in the AI revolution.
Written by
Hapax Team
Published on
January 15, 2025

Whenever new technology takes center stage in the financial services industry, banks become divided into two categories: the leaders and the followers. 

The leaders (typically larger institutions with ample resources) will take the tech for a spin and determine how they can extract the most value out of it. They’ll identify who in the bank could benefit most from the latest innovation and which use cases might be irrelevant. They’ll implement specific policies and procedures to guide employees on how to responsibly leverage the technology to prevent misuse.  

Once the big banks have worked out the kinks, smaller banks and credit unions will follow the same playbook. These institutions may not have the ability to test and iterate on every new tech tool that promises to make their lives easier or improve their workflows, so they’ll look to industry leaders for guidance. 

While this approach has worked well for the emergent tech trends of the past, it has become obsolete in the face of generative AI. 

When “follow the leader” falls short 

With AI, the difference between leader and follower isn’t just about who gets there first; it’s about who gets left behind. 

The way we search for information, the way we complete our daily tasks, and the way we communicate with our customers - all of these processes have irrevocably shifted in the age of artificial intelligence. So too must the way community banks and credit unions evaluate new tech tools, namely those powered by generative AI. 

Here’s why: following the big banks’ lead isn’t going to work for AI. Most larger institutions’ generative AI strategy involves hiring a Chief AI Officer and/or building their own custom solutions in-house. These organizations are able to allocate vast amounts of resources to AI-focused roles. They can hire or appoint an executive lead who’s responsible for oversight. They can build on existing solutions to fit their institution’s unique needs. They can partner with a Big Four consulting firm and outsource development. 

But these options don’t exist for most banks and credit unions. Many such institutions may lack the budget to hire a brand new executive, or the in-house technical expertise to create a new solution from scratch. Spending a large sum of money to hire and/or outsource isn’t always an option. Even for banks that do have the resources, it’s not an approach we’d recommend. 

Alternative approaches 

A lack of resources or desire to conserve them shouldn’t (and doesn’t need to) hold banks back from generative AI strategy. Here are three alternative approaches for institutions to consider:

  1. The AI Strike Force: A team of people led by one executive who has strong relationships across all functional areas of the bank, as well as knowledge in both technology and business. The AI Strike Force should be a cross-section of the institution, not just a team of executives and managers. This will allow banks to strategically implement AI in a manageable, low-risk way, where value can be systematically obtained across all levels and functions.

  1. CEO-Led: Adopting generative AI is a leadership responsibility. It must be embraced and encouraged by the CEO. Like all strategic imperatives, the CEO can chart the course forward and set the tone for what defines success. Since the CEO sets the strategy for the entire institution, they can align generative AI to that strategy and quickly identify where it stands to make the biggest impact. 

  1. One Bite at a Time: Start with one functional area of the business and define AI’s use cases. Each experiment will have varying degrees of success based on the area’s leadership, existing resources, and education. Set a project plan and conduct experiments across all functional areas, then evaluate which areas are the best candidates for generative AI using the following key indicators: 

Utilization: Which teams used GenAI the most and why? The ROI may not be there yet, but why was this group the most active? 

Impact: Which group had the most measurable impact? Did using generative AI save time? Money? How much? 

Adoption: Which team had the most users? This is separate from general utilization, because a few power users may skew a team’s overall utilization metrics. Which team had scale? Why? 

Creativity: Which group expanded on existing use cases and pushed innovation? What prompted them to do so? 

It’s critical to set clear goals at the beginning of this process. Value is created in any number of ways, some of them non-traditional (e.g. employee satisfaction, customer response times, reduced time to complete tasks, fewer errors on specific tasks, etc.). 

The applications of various generative AI solutions will be unique to each institution based on their long-term goals and how they operate. Success must be defined by institution, functional area, and individual. By finding strength areas within the institution, banks can create peer groups that can educate, train, and identify new opportunities as GenAI becomes a staple in daily operations. Identifying those people now and creating a culture that supports these efforts will result in less time to adoption and measurable ROI. 

How can Hapax help? 

You can’t be a follower in the age of AI. 

No matter who spearheads generative AI strategy at your institution, the combined power of this cross-departmental group and/or individual with Hapax’s industry, regulatory, and institutional expertise enables every bank to become a leader in the AI revolution.

Are you ready to outsmart the future? Book a demo with Hapax today.

Get a Demo
The future of banking is here.
Outsmart The Future
REQUEST A DEMO
COPYRIGHT © HAPAX ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2024