1 · Engagement Overview
| Slide budget | 1–2 slides, 3 minutes |
| Alternative titles | Engagement Objectives · Executive Summary · Why We're Here |
| Skeleton asks for | The fragmented status quo and its business and technology risk · the market realities making this pressing · the value this engagement adds |
| Status | ⚪ Scoped — not written |
Scope
Three beats, in this order:
- The status quo costs something. Customers hold several relationships with one company and see several portals. Name the maintenance, security and experience cost in the client's own terms — the experience map and API landscape are the evidence base, and the SOW framing is the source for the engagement's own objectives.
- What has changed. Why now rather than next year. Needs one external anchor the audience accepts; we do not have one in the material yet, so this is the beat most likely to need something written rather than cited.
- What this engagement adds, and how it closes the problem. Target state architecture, the decisions it rests on, LOB alignment, and a sequenced costed roadmap — the four things SOW §3 commits to.
Close on the value sentence the skeleton drafts: a centralized target improves the customer experience while unlocking cross-sell and personalization. Rewrite it in Manulife's language before it goes on a slide.
Do not
Open with the engagement's org chart or work stream structure. That is section 3.