As a VP of Engineering in financial services, your mandate is clear: use AI to accelerate operations and enhance decision-making capabilities. Leadership alignment exists – the CTO supports your vision, the CFO has approved the budget, and strategic initiatives are taking shape.
The foundational hiring decisions are straightforward, too: ML engineers, data scientists, product managers. These are baseline requirements for any serious AI initiative.
KPMG's latest global research indicates that six in ten financial services organisations are currently implementing AI technologies. We're not breaking new ground here. Yet despite widespread adoption efforts, organisational failures consistently outweigh technical limitations. Engineering teams are waiting weeks for training data, models are hitting regulatory walls, and features are perpetually "90% complete."
The strategic differentiator isn't access to quick implementation guides that anyone can Google. The challenge lies in defining ownership, closing feedback loops, and maintaining a fast pace without needing quarterly "realignment" meetings.
In the end, success isn’t about model design – it’s about work structure. Here’s the playbook.
Leaders frequently base AI team structures on false assumptions. These misconceptions, while widely propagated in business publications and executive networks (we’ve lost count of illuminated CxO LinkedIn hot-takes on AI), consistently undermine project outcomes. They’re easy to share but brutal to execute, often leaving fintech engineering leads in a familiar predicament: I hired the right roles, gave them tools and budget, so why am I still explaining to the board why we don't have results?
Drawing on our financial services implementations, we’ve identified three persistent strategic errors that strongly correlate with project failure:
Define "huge" and "work." Team sizing decisions must align with project scope and complexity requirements. Enterprise-level fraud detection systems require substantial engineering resources. However, most early AI projects in finance start and succeed with 2-3 people – a small, focused core.
Consider data quality monitoring requirements, for example: one pipeline engineer for anomaly detection systems, one data analyst for interpretation, and part-time operations coverage for monitoring protocols. Project management responsibilities often integrate across these roles.
Or let’s take financial reporting automation with NLP. It requires three core competencies: NLG specialisation, development capabilities, and product ownership. That’s it.
What sinks projects isn’t usually team size, but:
Data analyst, data scientist, DevOps, MLOps – these roles get muddled fast. We’ve mapped them clearly in our article, so you can avoid confusion and get your team moving.
Remember the 2019 Cats movie? (Probably not – and that’s the point.) Beloved source material, A-list cast, massive budget, and yet, it tanked. When the fundamental structure is broken, individual talent becomes irrelevant, whether in ML or Hollywood.
The all-star fallacy is common in engineering. Teams with top credentials can fail if no one defines what "done" means or who leads the way. Clear operating models, defined role boundaries, and functional feedback loops are essential for realising expert capabilities, because the bottleneck isn't their skill – it's your system.
Here's what derails finance AI teams most often:
In finance, a centrally led AI strategy keeps priorities aligned, outcomes measurable, and risks controlled. One core function sets priorities, approves models and tooling, and holds timelines. Development and experimentation run through a specialist talent hub.
But centralisation can’t mean isolation. Staying plugged into cross-functional teams ensures AI reflects real user needs, operational realities, and regulatory demands. Without that link, you centralise decisions but lose insight, breeding rework, frustration, and risk.
The myth about “cleanly separating” delivery and research neatly fits organisational charts but fails in finance. Model development cannot operate independently from deployment considerations. Regulatory controls like SS 1/23 are not a one-and-done check – they must be woven into the model lifecycle, from pipelines to monitoring to rollback procedures.
When separated from research teams, delivery groups may end up reverse-engineering solutions, revalidating compliance requirements, or rebuilding models entirely, resulting in weeks of wasted work and investment.
That’s because the last mile – aligning data lineage, controls, explainability, and monitoring – accounts for roughly 90% of the work. Many critical requirements only surface once models are live: monitoring needs crystallise, and datasets assumed available in research may be restricted by regulatory policies. It’s no surprise that separated teams fail in predictable ways:
In one of our analyses, we flagged poor team alignment as one of the core reasons AI projects fail. In finance, the stakes are even higher due to compliance requirements at every step. When research operates independently from delivery, organisations develop sophisticated solutions that cannot be deployed and production systems that cannot adapt.
Corporate AI initiatives face substantial failure rates: approximately 75% according to recent studies, with one-third abandoned after proof-of-concept phases. AI project implementation represents a high-risk, capital-intensive undertaking with no guaranteed success methodology.
But certain patterns reliably turn AI projects around. From our experience with client implementations, we’ve identified what works:
Successful implementations maintain close integration between research functions and product teams. This prevents focus drift toward purely theoretical optimisations (model accuracy improvements) that don't address operational business requirements, such as fraud detection or pricing optimisation.
Embedding data scientists and ML engineers within cross-functional product teams ensures AI initiatives directly address business challenges while accelerating iteration cycles and reducing misaligned R&D investment risks.
The client's internal AI capabilities required PhD-level Data Science leadership to integrate research directly into product architecture while maintaining business alignment. Direct research-product integration ensured models addressed practical requirements like minimizing pricing risks for agricultural and commodity trading clients rather than remaining theoretical exercises.
To maintain market relevance, AI updates (be it new fraud detection models or pricing algorithms) must move in step with feedback from users, customers, and market signals. Synchronising model release cycles with bi-weekly or monthly sprints ensures your products evolve with market conditions and avoid obsolescence, regulatory fines, and customer churn.
Achieving this requires comprehensive system tooling for automated AI model building, deployment, testing, and monitoring, including CI/CD pipelines, real-time performance tracking, and feedback gates to validate quality, compliance, and relevance before advancing milestones.
Getting wired in technical performance carries similar risks to technological perfectionism, which is potential irrelevance and project failure. Assigning ownership for business outputs shifts accountability from narrow metrics (accuracy, precision) to strategic objectives, including ROI, customer retention, compliance adherence, and revenue growth.
Technical metrics like latency, F1 scores, precision, and recall remain important tracking parameters. Yet revenue growth, compliance adherence, and customer retention benchmarks must receive equal attention. Balanced ownership between outputs and models improves accountability and motivation by connecting specific tasks to measurable business impact rather than development metrics alone.
Practically, pilots with measurable business impact achieve stakeholder buy-in, increasing the likelihood of production advancement and reducing abandoned AI project rates.
In 2024, over half of enterprise IT leaders reported AI talent shortages, increasing from 28% the previous year. Bain & Company research additionally demonstrates that 44% of global executives across industries cite insufficient in-house talent as significantly constraining GenAI implementation plans.
Given documented AI talent shortages, many financial services companies experience or anticipate internal momentum slowdowns during AI product development. Partnership models, including nearshoring arrangements, often provide the fastest, lowest-risk, and most sustainable approach for maintaining AI project schedules or accelerating development.
To illustrate how this can work, we like to mention our long-term partnership with Funding Circle. Over nearly a decade of collaboration, our satellite R&D office in Sofia has grown from a couple of developers to almost 50 specialists, fully supporting Funding Circle’s core projects, accelerating their ML model development, and functioning as an integrated extension of their team.
When you’re deep in delivery, it’s easy to miss the red flags. External perspective often reveals issues invisible from internal vantage points. Across dozens of finance AI projects, we’ve seen recurring patterns that systematically undermine success:
| Vague or absent success metrics | Absence of clear thresholds, benchmarks, or shared definitions of acceptable outcomes |
| AI product lead stuck in firefighting mode | Indicators include reactive organisational culture, pressure for immediate wins, and under-resourced team structures |
| No clear ownership of data hygiene | When everyone touches the data, but no one is held accountable for its quality |
| Architecture blocks | An over-engineered setup and rigid pipelines make minor changes feel substantial |
| Slow or missing feedback loops | When user and business signals aren’t integrated in real time |
| Ad hoc model monitoring | Without automated checks or continuous tracking, you’ll notice performance drift or anomalies after the damage is done |
| Roles and responsibilities are blurred | When it’s unclear who owns what, decisions bounce around |
Executive research is unambiguous: 74% of companies have yet to show tangible value from their AI investments, despite widespread implementation efforts. In finance, the weight of regulatory constraints doubles the difficulty.
The primary gap isn’t technical capability, but execution architecture and the confidence that comes from experience. We've built AI delivery setups where research informs delivery, delivery validates research, and both converge on measurable business outcomes. We’ve done it from the ground up – and jumped in when teams were stuck.
Looking for more than a checklist? Complete the short form or book a call with Tom Stewart, our UK account executive lead