Project Terra
ING APAC Sustainable Finance Capability Platform — Strategic Decision Exercise
Background: What You Need to Know
Project Terra was proposed 18 months ago by the Global Head of Sustainable Finance in Amsterdam. Originally a simple ESG scoring dashboard, the scope has expanded to include AI-driven capability assessment, skills gap identification, and automated learning pathway recommendations.
The vendor is TalentForge, a mid-size HR tech firm based in Berlin. They have delivered for ABN AMRO and Nordea in Europe but have never deployed in APAC. Their APAC support team is 4 people in Sydney.
History: ING's last APAC-wide HR tech rollout — "PeopleConnect" in 2023 — took 9 months, went 40% over budget, and frustrated Country HR teams who felt excluded from design decisions. The post-mortem cited: insufficient local testing, unclear ownership between CoEs and Country HR, and a vendor that underestimated APAC regulatory complexity.
Executive sentiment: The Regional Executive Committee expressed "strong enthusiasm" for Project Terra's potential to differentiate ING's employer brand. The CFO raised concerns about the 15% cost premium for phased deployments, calling it "scope creep dressed as prudence."
Operations: ING Hubs Manila supports 14 APAC markets with 340 people. Current ticket volume: 2,800/month. The team has been at 92% capacity since Q1 due to a hiring freeze.
Global signal: The Global CHRO's office sent a memo last month titled "One Platform, One Experience" emphasizing consistency across regions. It did not mention Project Terra specifically.
Your Task
Global Wholesale Banking has mandated a 60-day rollout of Project Terra across APAC. This platform directly impacts ING's €150bn sustainable finance target and the region's competitive position in energy transition lending.
You have 20 minutes to recommend one of three execution strategies. The decision must be unanimous.
Option A: The Global Push
Implement the global platform exactly as designed, hard cutover in 60 days across all 14 markets.
| Pro / Con | Detail |
|---|---|
| + | Aligns with the Global Wholesale Banking mandate and timeline |
| + | Zero custom development — vendor delivers the standard package |
| + | Unified capability tracking for all APAC front-office staff immediately |
| + | Supported by "One Platform, One Experience" memo from Global CHRO |
| − | Massive change management effort compressed into a short window |
| ? | Vendor's APAC support team (4 people) has confirmed they can handle go-live |
| ? | Regional Executive Committee expressed "strong enthusiasm" for rapid deployment |
Option B: The Localized Rollout
Roll out country-by-country over 6 months, allowing each market to customize to local regulations and lending sectors.
| Pro / Con | Detail |
|---|---|
| + | High customization to local needs (shipping vs. energy vs. infrastructure) |
| + | Reduces immediate change management burden |
| + | Lower risk of single point of failure during launch |
| − | Misses the 60-day global mandate entirely |
| − | Fragmented user experience across the region for 6+ months |
| ? | Country HR teams historically preferred this model (per PeopleConnect post-mortem) |
| ? | TalentForge has offered a 5% discount for a longer implementation timeline |
Option C: The Matrix Integration
Phased technical rollout: core module in 60 days, localized features delayed until Q3.
| Pro / Con | Detail |
|---|---|
| + | Meets the 60-day deadline for the core module |
| − | Highly complex to manage two deployment timelines simultaneously |
| − | Vendor charges a 15% premium for phased deployment |
| − | CFO called phased approaches "scope creep dressed as prudence" |
| − | Requires significantly more coordination between CoEs, Country HR, and Hubs |
| − | No precedent for this approach at ING — never attempted in APAC |
| ? | Standard Chartered used a phased approach for a similar platform — positive results after 12 months |
Meeting Chair
You have gathered the following intelligence that the rest of the group does not know. Some of this may be more relevant to the decision than other pieces — use your judgment.
Confidential Information
| # | Item |
|---|---|
| 1 | Global leadership has quietly tied APAC's entire Q4 bonus pool to a smooth launch — not just a fast one. A messy Option A launch will destroy the bonus pool for everyone in the room. |
| 2 | The Global CHRO personally called you last week and said: "I need APAC to show the rest of the network what 'One ING' looks like. Don't let me down." She did not specify which option to choose. |
| 3 | You heard from a colleague in Amsterdam that TalentForge is in early-stage acquisition talks with a larger vendor. If the acquisition goes through, all existing contracts will be honored but future support commitments become uncertain. |
What you've heard on the grapevine
- Two Country HR Heads have privately told you they feel "steamrolled" by global mandates and are considering whether to push back formally this time.
- The Regional Executive Committee chair mentioned over lunch that he doesn't actually care which option is chosen, as long as the team is aligned and can explain their rationale clearly.
Your Role as Chair
You are responsible for managing the discussion and ensuring the group reaches a unanimous decision within the time available.
PROCESS INSTRUCTION: Before the group finalizes its decision, ask if anyone has information they haven't shared yet, and ask each person to state one advantage of the option they currently like the least.
Menu of Possible Perspectives
You are free to adopt these, modify them, or ignore them entirely based on how you read the situation:
- You might focus on process facilitation and ensuring all voices are heard.
- You might feel pressure to drive consensus quickly and keep the meeting moving.
- You might wrestle with whether to share your bonus pool information early or hold it back.
CoE / Specialist Voice
You have gathered the following intelligence that the rest of the group does not know. Some of this may be more relevant to the decision than other pieces — use your judgment.
Confidential Information
| # | Item |
|---|---|
| 1 | You ran a data audit and discovered that the global data model required for Option A is incompatible with the legacy data systems in 40% of APAC markets. A hard cutover will require massive, impossible manual rework. |
| 2 | The vendor privately confirmed that Option C allows for a "data translation layer" to be built in phase two. This solves the legacy compatibility issue completely without breaking the global model. |
| 3 | Your team in the CoE spent 6 weeks designing a custom onboarding curriculum for the platform. If Option B is chosen, this curriculum becomes obsolete because each market will want their own version. |
| 4 | The Talent & Learning team in Amsterdam has expressed interest in using APAC as a "test case" for their new AI-driven skills taxonomy. This only works if the platform launches with a unified data model (Options A or C). |
What you've heard on the grapevine
- A junior analyst on your team mentioned that TalentForge's AI model was trained primarily on European workforce data and may produce less accurate results for APAC markets. You haven't verified this.
- The Head of Perf & Reward told you privately that they think the whole project is "over-engineered" but won't say so publicly.
Menu of Possible Perspectives
You are free to adopt these, modify them, or ignore them entirely based on how you read the situation:
- You might advocate for data integrity and ensuring the global model is maintained across the region.
- You might focus on the quality of the platform experience over the speed of delivery.
- You might be concerned about setting a precedent for rushing implementations that damage the platform long-term.
- You might worry about your team's work being wasted.
Country HR Voice
You have gathered the following intelligence that the rest of the group does not know. Some of this may be more relevant to the decision than other pieces — use your judgment.
Confidential Information
| # | Item |
|---|---|
| 1 | Your local legal team has warned you that Option A's data processing violates new privacy regulations regarding AI profiling in your market. Implementing it as-is will lead to severe regulatory fines and reputational damage. |
| 2 | Option C includes localized data hosting for the phase two features, which completely solves the privacy compliance issue. |
| 3 | Your Country Manager has told you that the local business team is "exhausted by change" after three major system migrations in the past 18 months. They have explicitly asked HR to "protect them from another Amsterdam experiment." |
| 4 | You recently lost two high-performing HR team members to a competitor who offered them roles with "less matrix complexity." Exit interviews cited "unclear ownership" and "too many stakeholders" as primary reasons for leaving. |
What you've heard on the grapevine
- A peer in another APAC market told you they plan to "agree in the room but delay locally" if Option A is forced through. They believe others will do the same.
- Someone in Finance mentioned that the 15% premium for Option C might actually be negotiable if APAC commits to a multi-year vendor contract.
Menu of Possible Perspectives
You are free to adopt these, modify them, or ignore them entirely based on how you read the situation:
- You might advocate for local compliance, risk management, and the employee experience in your market.
- You might resist any solution that puts local operations at regulatory risk.
- You might feel tension between being a "team player" for the region and protecting your market.
- You might feel that global mandates consistently underestimate local complexity.
Regional HRBP / Employee Relations Voice
You have gathered the following intelligence that the rest of the group does not know. Some of this may be more relevant to the decision than other pieces — use your judgment.
Confidential Information
| # | Item |
|---|---|
| 1 | The Regional Head of Energy Lending told you privately that if HR forces a hard cutover (Option A), the resulting system downtime will inevitably delay the critical Q3 sustainable finance deal pipeline. He will blame HR publicly if this happens. |
| 2 | You have confirmed that Option B's highly localized approach will legally trigger mandatory 90-day consultation periods with works councils in three major markets. This makes the 60-day global deadline legally impossible under Option B. |
| 3 | Option C leverages an existing, pre-approved technical framework for its core module, which legally bypasses the works council consultation requirement entirely. The phased approach also aligns with the Wholesale Banking division's agile squad sprint cycles — your front-office stakeholders would actually prefer this method. |
| 4 | The Employee Relations team has flagged that any platform involving AI profiling will require a new clause in employment contracts across 8 APAC markets. This applies to all three options equally and will take approximately 4 weeks regardless of which option is chosen. |
What you've heard on the grapevine
- A senior business leader told you at a networking event that "HR needs to stop being the department of 'no' and start being the department of 'how.'" You're not sure if this was directed at you personally or at the function generally.
- You've heard that the Global CHRO is considering restructuring the Regional HRBP model next year, which makes you want to demonstrate strategic value in visible projects like this one.
Menu of Possible Perspectives
You are free to adopt these, modify them, or ignore them entirely based on how you read the situation:
- You might advocate for business continuity and maintaining the trust of your front-office stakeholders.
- You might push back against global mandates that don't fit the APAC commercial reality.
- You might act as the reality check on timelines that ignore legal requirements.
- You might want to demonstrate strategic partnership rather than just risk management.
People Services / Operations Voice
You have gathered the following intelligence that the rest of the group does not know. Some of this may be more relevant to the decision than other pieces — use your judgment.
Confidential Information
| # | Item |
|---|---|
| 1 | Your analytics team estimates that Option B's fragmented, country-by-country rollout will generate over 4,000 localized support tickets in month one alone. Your current team capacity (operating at 92% already) will break under this load. |
| 2 | You negotiated a secret concession from the vendor: Option C includes an automated tier-1 support bot deployed on day one, which is guaranteed to deflect 80% of the anticipated user queries. |
| 3 | Your team recently completed a satisfaction survey: 78% of employees said they prefer "one system that works the same everywhere" over "a customized system for my market." This data has not been shared with the broader HR leadership team. |
| 4 | The ING Hubs Manila site director has privately told you that if another major project lands without additional headcount, she will escalate to the Global COO. She is not bluffing — she did this successfully in 2024. |
What you've heard on the grapevine
- A colleague in Amsterdam People Services mentioned that TalentForge's automated support bot performed "surprisingly well" during the Nordea implementation, resolving 83% of tier-1 queries without human intervention.
- You've heard that the Regional Executive Committee doesn't fully understand what ING Hubs Manila does, and tends to treat operational capacity as "someone else's problem."
Menu of Possible Perspectives
You are free to adopt these, modify them, or ignore them entirely based on how you read the situation:
- You might advocate for operational capacity and managing the inevitable flood of employee queries.
- You might focus on the practical reality of execution versus theoretical strategy.
- You might feel frustrated that operational concerns are treated as secondary to strategic ones.
- You might want to ensure that whatever is decided, your team is not set up to fail.