|

Portfolio conversion readiness diagnostic

7 checks for the timing, operations and activation risks of a defined conversion wave.

Decision systemPortfolio conversion7 diagnostic rulesInteractive
Read the framework ↓
Cards in scope
Support scope reference
Readiness score
Timeline buffer

Support planning only: below 15K cards, self-led; 15K–under 50K, specialist input; 50K or more, coordinated delivery. These are illustrative scope bands, not service packages, cost estimates or readiness rules. Confirm actual capability and complexity.

Conversion parameters

Context only — timeline computed from approach + size

Verification applies to this approach and wave only. Changing the approach resets it.

Diagnostic results

What this is

A portfolio conversion — whether a network switch, product upgrade, or M&A migration — is one of the highest-stakes programs an issuer undertakes. It touches every function, every customer, and every system simultaneously. The standard approach is a 200-line project plan that obscures which dimensions are genuinely at risk until it is too late to course-correct.

Seven readiness checks expose release prerequisites and unresolved work. Portfolio size also suggests a support scope; that guidance is separate from release readiness.

Three layers of conversion readiness

  1. Timeline — Does the chosen approach have a workable schedule and buffer? Size informs planning and support scope, not a standalone release gate.
  2. Operational Readiness — Can the issuer execute across strategy, IT, logistics, and compliance? These workstreams fail independently.
  3. Risk & Activation — Will the conversion retain customers, and is there a post-conversion program to capture the EMOB activation window?

Conversion types

TypeDescriptionComplexity
Network switchDomestic or competitor scheme to new networkHigh
Product upgradeStandard to premium within same schemeMedium
M&A migrationAcquired portfolio reissued under buyer brandHigh
Scheme consolidationMultiple schemes consolidated to single networkMedium

Conversion approaches

ApproachMechanismRisk profile
ForcedAll cards replaced on set dateHighest — maximum coordination required
Opt-outAuto-converted unless customer declinesModerate — requires clear notification
Opt-inCustomer actively chooses to convertLow per card; risk of low conversion rate
On-expiryConverted at natural renewalLowest disruption; longest total timeline

The 7 diagnostic rules

Timeline (Rule 1), operational readiness (Rules 2–5), and risk / activation (Rules 6–7). Resolve legal and route-evidence prerequisites before generic rule counts.

#RuleTests
1Timeline feasibilityIs there enough time for the chosen conversion approach?
2Strategy & segmentationIs there a segment-level conversion strategy with KPIs?
3IT & data readinessAre systems tested and the route-specific inclusion / exclusion files verified?
4Logistics & fulfillmentIs card production and staged delivery confirmed?
5Regulatory & complianceAre all legal and regulatory requirements cleared?
6Attrition riskIs projected churn within acceptable range?
7EMOB activation readinessIs there a 90-day post-conversion activation program?
On thresholdsThese are demonstration cutoffs for comparing decisions. Review the assumption notes and test nearby values; any use with an actual portfolio needs a relevant business case and evidence.

How to use

Set the conversion profile, assess operational readiness on each dimension, and input risk estimates. Rules evaluate in real time. Load a preset to see how different scenarios produce different verdicts. Start with failing rules — those are the blockers to address before proceeding.

Constructed comparison: open prerequisites

Use the open-prerequisites preset: 75,000 cards, opt-out approach, 10 months and a dedicated PMO. Strategy and logistics are scored 4; IT and early activation are 3. Compliance is In Progress, route evidence is Unverified and expected attrition is 4.5%.

RuleStatusDetail
R1 — Timeline feasibility✓ Pass10 months less the 7-month assumption leaves 3 months of buffer
R2 — Strategy & segmentation✓ PassScore 4 — segment plan in place
R3 — IT & data readiness△ WatchScore 3; route evidence unverified — tests and list reconciliation remain open
R4 — Logistics & fulfillment✓ PassScore 4 — vendor confirmed
R5 — Regulatory & compliance△ WatchIn progress — not yet cleared
R6 — Attrition risk✓ Pass4.5% — within the demonstration attrition band
R7 — EMOB activation readiness△ WatchScore 3 — basic plan, no milestones

Hold execution: 0 failures and 3 warnings. A three-month buffer passes the timeline check, but compliance and consent/list evidence are still open. Additional calendar time does not resolve those prerequisites.

What this demonstrates

The seven checks expose timing, operational and activation assumptions for a named wave. A small portfolio with adequate internal capability can use self-directed support and still pass readiness; support scope does not authorize execution.

When the conclusion changes

This is a release screen for a defined portfolio wave. Legal clearance and consent / list evidence are prerequisites, not points that other workstreams can offset.

Counterexample: six passing checks and compliance “In Progress” still mean hold execution. A 10K-card wave with all seven checks passed is not blocked merely by support scope.

Trace one cohort through consent, inclusion / exclusion, migration, delivery, activation and use. Confirm exception owners and rollback evidence; none of these checks guarantees retention.

How these assumptions were set

Scenario construction

The prepared wave uses 175K cards and 16 months, giving four months above the assumed 12-month baseline. The open-prerequisite example uses 75K cards, opt-out and 10 months, giving three months above seven. The compressed case deliberately leaves a negative buffer. These are planning exercises, not recorded conversions.

Why these bands

The month table assumes coordinated waves need more preparation than expiry-led waves; larger waves and missing coordination add time. The exact months, 100K size break, 5/10% attrition bands and 15K/50K support bands are retained planning assumptions, not delivery or vendor benchmarks. Support bands never determine readiness.

Test the sensitivity

A two-month buffer warns and a three-month buffer passes the timeline check. Neither can clear missing consent/list evidence or compliance approval. Compare a wave of 10K versus 50K with the same readiness evidence: the support prompt may change, but size alone cannot hold release.

Evidence boundaryThe comparison scenarios are constructed examples, not client cases. Cutoffs and weights are demonstration assumptions; the assumption notes explain their purpose and sensitivity. They are not empirical benchmarks, and a passing screen does not establish deployment, adoption or realised results.