25 questions across 4 innovation pillars plus an Agentic AI spotlight. Receive a personalized readiness score and prioritized action plan.
25 Questions
4 Pillars
~8 min
Step 1 of 60 / 25 answered
👥
People & Leadership
Innovation fails or succeeds based on who owns it, how change-makers are treated, and whether leadership is genuinely invested.
Q01
✓
Who primarily drives innovation and technology decisions at your bank?
Consider whether decisions flow from leadership, staff, or are vendor-driven.
IT department or a single vendor relationship
Small internal group, limited cross-functional input
Dedicated team with C-suite sponsorship
Cross-functional leaders with clear ownership and authority
Q02
✓
How does your institution treat creative, change-oriented employees?
The people most likely to drive real innovation often challenge existing assumptions.
They're often sidelined or they leave
Acknowledged but rarely given real authority
Supported within defined boundaries
Actively elevated with resources to lead change
Q03
✓
How current is your team's practical knowledge of AI and automation tools?
Practical awareness of what AI can do and how peer banks deploy it, not deep technical expertise.
Minimal, mostly passive vendor-led awareness
Growing, some staff exploring independently
Structured, regular training and industry engagement
Deep, internal champions and active external partnerships
Q04
✓
How well does your bank attract and retain technology-forward talent?
Community banks often compete against fintechs and larger institutions for tech-literate hires.
We struggle, compensation and culture are misaligned
Neutral, no defined strategy for this segment
Improving, investing in retention and culture
Strong, we're a destination for this kind of talent
Q05
✓
How engaged is your board in the bank's technology and innovation agenda?
Board-level fluency in technology is increasingly a differentiator in decision-making speed.
Disengaged, technology is seen as an IT matter
Aware but not actively engaged in strategy
One or two board members champion the topic
Board actively engaged, tech is a standing agenda item
Answer all 5 questions to continue
🧭
Philosophy & Vision
A roadmap tells you what tools to buy. A philosophy tells you why and what transformation you're actually building toward.
Q06
✓
Does your bank have a defined innovation philosophy, not just a technology roadmap?
A roadmap tells you what tools to buy. A philosophy tells you why and what transformation you're building toward.
No, we invest reactively as needs arise
Partly, roadmap exists but no guiding vision
Yes, tied to planning but not yet fully embedded
Yes, a clear philosophy drives every technology decision
Q07
✓
How well does your innovation strategy align with a realistic time horizon?
Transformational change typically requires 3 to 5 years. Mismatched timelines create abandoned projects and technical debt.
We expect results in 12 months or move on
2-year budget cycles, often too short
3-year plans with milestone reviews
Multi-year roadmaps with phased milestones and board buy-in
Q08
✓
How focused is your technology investment on customer outcomes vs. internal efficiency?
Both matter, but customer-facing impact should anchor investment decisions, not trail them.
Mostly internal, solving operational pain points
Mixed, no deliberate priority
Leaning customer-first with operational support
Explicitly customer-outcome driven across the portfolio
Q09
✓
How clearly does your bank define success before launching a new technology initiative?
Vague success criteria are the most common reason technology projects stall or lose support.
Success is rarely defined before launch
General goals exist but no measurable benchmarks
KPIs defined at launch, reviewed periodically
Measurable outcomes defined before any project begins
Q10
✓
How well does your bank learn from failed or stalled technology initiatives?
Institutions that debrief failures systematically accelerate their next cycle.
Failures are quietly shelved, no structured debrief
Informal conversations happen, rarely documented
Post-mortems occur, findings sometimes applied
Structured retrospectives with learnings applied to future projects
Answer all 5 questions to continue
⚙️
Process & Operations
Technology layered on broken processes amplifies inefficiency. Data quality and system integration determine what's possible with AI.
Q11
✓
When you introduce new technology, what happens to the underlying workflows?
Technology layered on broken processes amplifies inefficiency.
We digitize existing processes, workflows unchanged
Some adjustments made, core process unchanged
We redesign workflows as part of each implementation
We rethink the process end-to-end before any tech decision
Q12
✓
How integrated are your core banking systems with newer tools and data sources?
Siloed systems are the single biggest technical barrier to deploying agentic AI effectively.
Highly siloed, manual handoffs between most systems
Partial, some API connectivity but many gaps remain
Reasonably connected, most key systems share data
Well-integrated, real-time data flows across the stack
Q13
✓
How would you describe the quality and accessibility of your bank's internal data?
AI tools are only as good as the data they operate on. Clean, accessible data is a prerequisite, not a byproduct.
Fragmented, inconsistent formats and hard to access
Centralized in some areas, siloed in others
Mostly clean and accessible with known gaps
High quality, well-governed, readily queryable
Q14
✓
How does your bank redesign workflows before deploying new technology?
Fixing the process first, then applying technology to accelerate it, is the sequence that produces durable results.
We don't, technology is deployed to existing workflows
Minor adjustments made during implementation
Workflows reviewed and updated as part of each project
End-to-end process redesign precedes every technology decision
Q15
✓
How dependent is your bank on core vendor timelines for innovation?
Your core vendor sets a floor, not a ceiling.
Entirely, we wait for our core to release features
Mostly, the core drives our roadmap
Balanced, core plus strategic third-party integrations
Independent, we complement core with proprietary capabilities
Answer all 5 questions to continue
🏃
Pace & Execution
Speed without strategy erodes the trust that is community banking's primary competitive asset. The goal is to move smart, not just fast.
Q16
✓
How does your bank approach rolling out new technology to customers?
Banks that pilot carefully and scale what works protect customer trust while building internal confidence.
Broad launch first, adjust based on customer feedback
Limited testing, mostly vendor demos and peer references
Structured pilots with internal stakeholders first
Rigorous pilots with measurable criteria and phased scaling
Q17
✓
How much does your core vendor's roadmap drive your innovation calendar?
Your core provider's roadmap should inform your strategy, not replace it.
Entirely, we move when our core moves
Mostly, we supplement occasionally with third parties
Balanced, core informs but doesn't dictate our pace
Independent, we set our own pace with deliberate vendor inputs
Q18
✓
How does your bank define "fast" when it comes to technology delivery?
True speed means minimizing rework, not just hitting launch dates.
Fast means launching quickly, quality issues addressed after
We prioritize deadlines, rework is expected
We balance speed and quality with some iteration built in
Speed is measured by durability, we minimize rework by design
Q19
✓
How does your bank balance acting on current customer feedback vs. anticipating future needs?
Customers often can't tell you what's possible. The best banks listen actively and lead proactively.
We respond primarily to complaints and stated preferences
We use feedback but rarely look ahead of it
We track trends and use them to shape our roadmap
We actively introduce customers to capabilities they didn't know to ask for
Q20
✓
How does your bank recognize and reinforce successful technology implementations?
Celebrating durable wins, not just launches, shapes the kind of innovation culture that compounds over time.
We celebrate launches but rarely measure long-term outcomes
Some follow-up, but no formal recognition for durability
We review outcomes and recognize projects that hold up over time
Durable results are explicitly rewarded and used to inform future decisions
Answer all 5 questions to continue
🤖 Agentic AI Spotlight
The most consequential near-term technology decision in community banking
Unlike a chatbot that answers a single question, agentic AI takes sequences of autonomous actions: pre-screening loan files, routing exceptions, populating compliance checklists, orchestrating departmental handoffs. These five questions assess your bank's readiness to move from curiosity to deployment.
Q21
✓
How would you describe your bank's current awareness of agentic AI?
Awareness of the term is different from understanding real banking use cases.
Heard the term but not actively tracking it
Aware but haven't mapped it to specific use cases yet
Identified 1 to 2 internal use cases to explore
Active pilot or formal evaluation underway
Q22
✓
How prepared is your governance framework for AI oversight and model risk?
The OCC, FDIC, and Federal Reserve are actively developing guidance on model risk, fair lending, and AI explainability.
No formal AI governance exists
Awareness exists but no formal policy yet
Policy drafts are underway
Established, documented, board-aware, and exam-ready
Q23
✓
Where is your bank's highest-priority near-term opportunity for agentic AI?
Select the one that best reflects your current strategic focus and operational pain.
Loan pre-screening and exception flagging
Compliance documentation and audit preparation
Customer service routing and intelligent FAQs
Back-office automation and workflow orchestration
Q24
✓
How confident is your leadership in explaining AI-driven decisions to regulators or customers?
Explainability is both a regulatory expectation and a community trust-building tool.
Not confident, AI is a black box internally
Somewhat, general awareness but nothing formal
Fairly confident, can speak to methodology and oversight
Very confident, documented, tested, and audit-ready
Q25
✓
How does your bank view the relationship between agentic AI and your existing staff?
The banks that win with AI use it to free their best people for higher-value work.
With concern, staff see AI as a job threat
Cautious curiosity, interest but no clear framework
Constructive, we've begun mapping AI to human roles
Collaborative, staff involved in designing AI workflows