Global Head Enterprise Change Portfolio — Banking Demand and Capacity Decisions

The mandate

The same specialist delivery capacity appears committed to several approved initiatives in a global banking services platform. Each sponsor has a defensible local case, but the combined portfolio cannot meet its stated dates without conflicting assumptions about technology, operations and review availability. A new global head will own enterprise change demand and capacity decisions below the investment council. Employment is open-ended, with an eighteen-month opening agenda to establish a realistic portfolio baseline and a lasting process for choosing what enters, remains in or leaves the change book.

Your work starts by distinguishing demand, authorisation and an achievable delivery commitment. Approved funding does not establish that shared teams are available, while an agile backlog is not evidence that a sponsor's entire outcome can be delivered within its preferred quarter. You will create comparable decision cases showing incremental value, dependencies and the consequences of stopping or delaying work. Mandatory conditions supplied by risk or compliance must remain explicit; they cannot become unexamined labels that protect an initiative from scrutiny or permit every other sponsor to claim equal urgency.

Fifty-five portfolio colleagues report through demand and planning leads. You control the portfolio evidence standard, challenge demand completeness and recommend capacity allocations or project exit. Delivery directors own their committed plans; finance validates funding and benefit treatment; sponsors remain accountable for business outcomes. The investment council approves material reprioritisation and termination. Within its approved framework, you may refuse to represent an unsupported date as a portfolio commitment. The role does not quietly cancel a sponsored programme or repurpose a protected control team simply because a consolidated dashboard would look more balanced.

By the second planning cycle, executives should see competing choices before commitments exceed available capacity. A stopped initiative must have an orderly closure decision covering sunk work, dependencies and continuing obligations rather than vanish from reporting. Later cycles will retain that discipline as priorities change. Bengaluru is the base, with scheduled sponsor reviews and protected analytical time for the team. The permanent function will develop portfolio managers who can challenge powerful sponsors using evidence and facilitate decisions without turning governance into an additional layer of project status administration.

What you will own

• Establish the enterprise demand baseline with sponsored outcomes, dependency assumptions and capacity claims, distinguishing a funded idea from work that delivery directors can credibly commit to execute.
• Decide the evidence required for portfolio entry and continuation, requiring consequential choices and residual obligations to be explicit before the council compares initiatives competing for shared expertise.
• Build cross-programme capacity scenarios with delivery owners, exposing double commitments and realistic sequencing alternatives rather than aggregating optimistic plans into a schedule that no team has accepted.
• Challenge benefit cases for incremental value and overlap, identifying when several sponsors attribute the same operating improvement to separate initiatives or assume another programme will absorb their implementation cost.
• Recommend pause, reshape or closure decisions with dependency and stranded-work consequences, preserving the executive choice instead of treating prior funding approval as an obligation to complete every initiative unchanged.
• Set portfolio review measures that reveal committed capacity, emerging constraints and outcome uncertainty, separating actionable decision information from routine status detail that belongs in delivery-team management.
• Develop portfolio managers through contested sponsor reviews, delegating demand challenge while retaining escalation for material disagreement about protected obligations, shared capacity or the evidence supporting council commitments.

Candidate qualifications

• Describe a portfolio choice where individually credible projects collectively exceeded capacity. Explain how you established the conflict, the alternatives you presented and the executive decision that followed. Evidence must show your own judgement about sequencing or stopping work, not only a consolidated resource chart or an observation that programme sponsors had supplied optimistic plans.
• Bring 18–22 years in banking or financial-services change with VP-level or substantial multi-programme leadership. Prince2 and agile methods should support a practical distinction between governance decisions, delivery commitments and evolving backlog scope. Show how you worked across those disciplines without assuming that one methodology removes the need for explicit sponsorship, dependency ownership or a credible capacity agreement.
• Demonstrate business-case and process-reengineering knowledge sufficient to test incremental benefits and implementation demands. You must recognise duplicate benefit claims, retained operational work and the cost of abandoning a partially delivered initiative. Strong analytical judgement is required without claiming finance approval or professional authority over risk and compliance conditions supplied by their designated owners.
• Evidence leadership of portfolio managers and delivery-director relationships under competing senior sponsors. Explain a difficult closure or reprioritisation discussion, how you preserved decision records and which managers could subsequently maintain the agreed plan. Clear writing, secure treatment of programme information and the ability to distinguish meaningful governance from status bureaucracy are essential to this enduring global change seat.

Application

Applications for this mandate are received in one way only: through the India Board Terminal's application process. It is automated end to end. Your Executive Passport travels to the mandate holder in its confidential form, your answers to the three questions below are read before anything else in your file, and every stage that follows is recorded on your applications page.

There is no address to write to and no intermediary to call. The mandate holder reads what the Terminal delivers and nothing else, which is what keeps the process the same for every applicant and keeps your name out of it until you release it. Applications close on 10 October 2026. Mandate reference CVU-PER-2026-IND-139.