And why the people behind transformation matter more than any technology you choose
Transformation has been a key theme in the Asset, Auto, and Equipment Finance industry for over 30 years, but something has clearly shifted over the last 18 – 24 months. Legacy constraints, rising customer expectations, regulatory pressure, embedded finance models, and the arrival of AI into underwriting and operations have closed the gap between “we should” and “we must”.
Yet when you look closely at the firms moving decisively, and those quietly falling behind, a pattern emerges. Technology may be shaping capability, but people are still determining outcomes. While new systems, integrations and data platforms are central to progress, it is the decisions, behaviours and expertise of the people behind them that ultimately decide whether transformation succeeds or stagnates.
This people dimension is the part our industry needs to discuss far more openly.
Transformation has become an organisational shift, no longer just a technology upgrade
For years, Asset Auto and Equipment Finance transformation meant ripping out old systems and installing new ones. That framing is obsolete. Today’s legacy challenge extends far beyond architecture: it encompasses culture, leadership structures, decision-making velocity, and internal capability.
Modernisation now touches every corner of the business. Credit teams are expected to trust data models they can’t see. Underwriters must make decisions in minutes, not hours. Operations adopt new workflows while maintaining service continuity. Meanwhile, subject matter experts find themselves shaping design decisions that will define the business for the next decade.
The technology is becoming commoditised. The differentiator is the organisation’s capacity to absorb, adapt, and accelerate change. That’s a people problem.
The capability gap is widening
A subtle divide has opened up in the UK and European markets between firms that invested early in capability and those now scrambling to react. The early movers built cross-functional teams, strengthened their business analysis capability, and appointed leaders with enough domain knowledge to guide vendors rather than be guided by them.
Late movers are discovering an uncomfortable truth: exceptional technology cannot compensate for insufficient internal expertise. Business-critical decisions get outsourced to vendors. Teams buckle under dual demands. Integration delays compound. And despite significant investment, transformation stalls. But the gap is not necessarily just about budget. It’s also about readiness.
What typically holds firms back
Three patterns recur across stalled transformation programmes:
Insufficient domain representation. Without people who understand asset-specific lending workflows, regulatory nuances, and operational realities in the room from day one, design decisions default to generic lending models. The industry’s complexity surfaces late, usually during UAT when change becomes expensive.
Bandwidth miscalculation. SMEs cannot simultaneously run BAU and support full-scale transformation. The result is predictable: programme delays, exhausted teams, and disengagement precisely when buy-in matters most.
Leadership ambiguity. Without a clear, consistent narrative explaining why transformation is happening, what it means for customers, and what teams can expect, uncertainty metastasises into resistance. Employees don’t resist change, they resist uncertainty about their place in it.
Each stems from the same root cause: capability gaps, not technical limitations.
When transformation succeeds, it’s because people create momentum
When the right people are involved at the right time, transformation gains a completely different rhythm. Decisions become faster and more informed. Teams anticipate risks instead of reacting to them. Vendors collaborate more effectively when the client-side team understands both the technology and the business. And instead of feeling threatened by change, employees begin to take ownership of it.
Momentum, created by people, compounds. High-performing teams attract other high performers. Leaders make clearer decisions because they understand the downstream implications. Teams trust the process because they trust the people guiding it.
Transformation stops being something that “happens to the business” and becomes something the business actively drives.
AI has raised the stakes and exposed capability gaps
AI is influencing credit decisions, automating document processing, predicting customer behavior, and optimising collections strategies right now. Yet AI’s impact, positive or negative, depends entirely on the people applying it.
Underwriters need confidence in how to interpret model outputs. Risk teams must ensure explainability and regulatory compliance. Data specialists have to validate quality, monitor drift and manage the ethical considerations of automated decisions. Operational teams must feel supported rather than replaced.
AI amplifies what already exists. It accelerates well-designed processes and exposes poorly defined ones. It strengthens confident teams and unsettles those unsure of their future. The technology is powerful; the people applying it determine whether that power creates value or risk.
Capability takes time to build, and time is a constraint the Asset Auto and Equipment Finance industry now faces
Here’s the reality transformation leaders underestimate: talent lead times exceed technology lead times by multiples.
You can procure new software in months. Building the capability to design, govern, change-manage, and roll out transformation takes years. Strengthening delivery functions, developing SMEs with deep lending and regulatory knowledge, and creating cultural alignment around new operating models takes time.
Firms acting now are building compound advantage. They’re developing capability before a crisis forces their hand. Others will face identical transformation pressure with far fewer people equipped to navigate both modern delivery methods and lending complexity.
What this means for your firm
The industry is entering its most significant transformation cycle in a generation. The firms that emerge stronger will be those that recognise transformation as fundamentally a capability challenge, not a systems challenge.
This starts with honest assessment: what strengths exist within your organisation? Where are the capability gaps? How can teams be supported to deliver at pace without compromising performance?
It requires leadership that communicates with clarity and consistency, giving teams confidence rather than anxiety. And it demands a cultural shift where people feel empowered to shape transformation rather than feel threatened by it.
Technology can modernise your processes. Only people can modernise your organisation.
The gap between these two realities is where transformation either succeeds or stalls. The firms moving decisively aren’t waiting for perfect conditions or unlimited budgets. They’re investing in people now, because they understand that every month of delay increases the capability deficit they’ll need to overcome later.
The transformation imperative is real. The window for building the human capability to meet it is closing. The question isn’t whether your firm will transform, it’s whether you’ll have the people to lead it when the moment demands action.
