The trading desk had built its own tools over the years. The regulator had a view on that.

What we did

• —Assessed the end user computing estate on the trading desk and established what each tool was doing for the business.
• —Set out how those tools would convert into Power Platform applications, with the governance and controls the regulator would expect to see.
• —Sequenced the conversion by regulatory exposure rather than ease of conversion, so the tools carrying the highest risk moved first and the rationale for that order could be shown to the regulator.

The economics

A fixed advisory fee, agreed in writing before work began, at less than five percent of the conversion program it was scoping. The assessment itself paid back before the program started: of 25 tools assessed, only 8 carried material regulatory exposure. The other 17 were retired, consolidated, or left in place with documented controls. Two thirds of the estate came out of scope before any Power Platform build started, reducing both the cost and the time to deliver.

The outcome

The firm left with a documented end user computing inventory, a Power Platform conversion plan, and a sequencing rationale it could put in front of the regulator. The regulator's question now had an answer: what's there, what moves, and in what order.

What we would recommend

Treat a regulatory mandate as a sequencing problem rather than a volume problem.

Rank the estate by exposure instead of by ease of conversion, and be ready to show the regulator the order you chose and the reasoning behind it. That reasoning carries as much weight as the conversion work itself.