USE CASES · BRANCH NETWORKS

BRANCH NETWORK OPTIMISATION · COVERAGE DECISIONS

Shrink the branch network, keep the clients

Model every closure and merger before you commit: which branches carry their catchment, which duplicate a neighbour, and where your clients would actually go next.

NETWORK REVIEW BOARD

REGION CZ · REVIEW WAVE 1 · 128 BRANCHES

Schematic map of a branch network: branches with catchments, a merge pair sharing 64 percent of a catchment, a sole-coverage branch and a closure candidate

Branch

Merge or close

Coverage risk

REVIEW · SCORED ON ONE MODEL

B·12 · N1

Keep

Mill quarter

SOLE COVERAGE · 8,200 CLIENTS

B·07 · C4

Merge

Arcade

OVERLAP 64% · ABSORBED 96%

B·31 · S2

Review

Parkside

LOW TRAFFIC · LEASE ENDING

WHY NETWORK REVIEWS HURT

The cost of closing the wrong branch

Cost pressure says fewer branches. Clients, regulators and the board say prove it. Every closure is a bet on where thousands of clients go next.

01°

01°

Closing on cost alone

The cheapest branch to run can be the only access point for a whole district. Cost rankings cannot see coverage, so they quietly propose the wrong closures.

02°

02°

Clients do not move where you assume

Closed-branch clients rarely walk to the nearest pin on a map. Travel patterns and habit decide who stays, who switches channel and who leaves.

03°

03°

Two branches, one catchment

Duplicates hide inside network averages. Two branches sharing a catchment both look mediocre, while together they carry one strong territory.

04°

04°

Every region defends its own

Regional managers argue with anecdotes, HQ answers with cost sheets, and the review stalls where it always stalls: no shared evidence.

HOW NETWORK REVIEWS RUN TODAY

A cost ranking in a spreadsheet

Anecdotes from regional managers

A consultant study every few years

Backlash discovered after the closure

Coverage argued branch by branch

WITH NETWORK IMPACT MODELLING

Every branch scored on coverage and demand

Closures simulated before they are committed

Client travel and absorption quantified

Mergers planned where catchments overlap

A wave plan the board can defend

MODEL · TEST · COMMIT

Every closure tested before it happens

One review workflow. The whole network scored on one basis, every closure and merger simulated for client impact, and decisions rolled out in waves. The next review starts from a living model, not a blank sheet.

SCORE · WHOLE NETWORK

The whole network on one basis

Score every branch on demand, coverage and overlap

Find duplicates sharing one catchment

Rank closure and merger candidates by network impact

REVIEW RANKING · CLOSURE CANDIDATES

Arcade

Parkside

Mill quarter

SIMULATE · EACH CLOSURE

Test the closure before it is real

Simulate closing: where do the clients actually go

Quantify travel added and clients at risk

Drop closures that would strand a catchment

Simulations run on Network Impact Modelling, the same what-if logic behind the Generali network reduction.

CLOSE B·07 · ARCADE

Clients absorbed nearby

96%

Average travel added

+4 MIN

Coverage lost

NONE

SAFE TO MERGE · INTO 2 BRANCHES

ROLL OUT · IN WAVES

Commit wave by wave

Wave one bundles the safest closures and mergers

Client movement is monitored against the simulation

The next wave starts from an updated model

NETWORK · WAVE 1

Arcade

MERGED

Parkside

CLOSED

Mill quarter

KEPT

14 CLOSURES · COVERAGE HELD · WAVE 2 IN MODEL

KEEP, MERGE OR CLOSE

Why one branch closes and its twin stays

No branch is judged alone. A branch that looks weak on cost can be the sole access point for a district, while a busy city branch may add nothing a neighbour would not absorb. The verdict depends on the network around it.

The model is calibrated on your own client base: real visits and transactions joined with trusted location data and travel times from five to thirty minutes by car or transit. Keep, merge and close all read from one basis, so the review is consistent across regions.

SCORE COMPOSITION

What moves a keep-or-close verdict, by branch type

Urban branch

Regional branch

CLIENTS

Active clients in the catchment

88

84

SOLE COVERAGE

Clients with no alternative nearby

90

38

ABSORPTION

How fully neighbours can take over

62

90

TRAFFIC

Visits and transactions at the counter

80

52

OVERLAP

Catchment shared with your own branches

66

72

COST TO SERVE

Running cost against branch output

70

55

Urban: overlap and absorption decide

Regional: sole coverage decides

SAMPLE WEIGHTS · CALIBRATED ON YOUR CLIENT BASE

THE PAYOFF

What a modelled review delivers

NETWORK COST

A smaller network that still covers everyone

Closures and mergers land where neighbours can absorb the clients, so the savings arrive without stranding a single district.

CLIENT BASE

Cost cuts without the churn spike

Client movement is simulated before every closure, so retention holds and the branches that remain inherit clients they can serve.

BOARD + REGIONS

Reviews that survive the boardroom

Regions and HQ argue over one shared model instead of each other, and every wave carries the evidence boards and regulators ask for.

BEYOND THE COST SHEET

A cost spreadsheet cannot see client travel

COST RANKINGS

Good for budgets, blind to coverage

A ranking by running cost proposes closures wherever rent is high, and never notices the district losing its only branch.

BI DASHBOARDS

Good for branch KPIs, silent on what-if

Dashboards report how each branch performed. They cannot simulate a closure, a merger or where the clients would go.

CONSULTANT STUDY

Good for one wave, gone by the next

A network study answers this year’s review and expires. The network keeps changing, and the next wave starts from scratch.

GUT AND SENIORITY

Good for speed, weak for defence

Experience matters, but a closure defended only by seniority collapses at the first board question about client impact.

CLEVERMAPS

One model from scoring to wave plan

Score the network, simulate every closure and plan the waves on one shared basis, with client impact quantified before anyone commits. The core workflow of the Performance solution.

Branch network optimisation is the core workflow of the Performance solution, built on trusted location data and shared decision logic.

PROVEN AT SCALE

Proven on a national branch network

FEATURED CASE STUDY

Reducing branch network by 35% while maintaining client access and profitability

Generali Česká pojišťovna modelled its whole branch network, cut it from 800 to 520 sites and kept client access and profitability. Every closure was simulated before it happened.

INSURANCE · NATIONAL BRANCH NETWORK

ALSO IN BANKING

Data-driven business decisions in banking, with Česká spořitelna

Read the story →

The whole network is scored on one model: client base, sole coverage, overlap, absorption and cost to serve. Closure candidates are the branches whose clients a neighbour can genuinely take over, and every candidate is simulated before it reaches the wave plan.
50.1033, 14.4458 · DĚLNICKÁ HQ

30-MINUTE WORKING SESSION

Put your network on the table

Bring your branch list. In 30 minutes we will score the network live, find the overlaps and simulate the first closures, on your own data.

CleverMaps footer visual for location intelligence and GeoDecision workflows

The GeoDecision platform
for the people who decide

CONTACT

CleverMaps, a.s.

Vídeňská 101/119

619 00 Brno, Czech Republic

© 2026 CleverMaps, a.s. · VAT CZ03728277

SOC 2 TYPE II · ISO 27001 · EU DATA RESIDENCY

CleverMaps footer visual for location intelligence and GeoDecision workflows

The GeoDecision platform
for the people who decide

CONTACT

CleverMaps, a.s.

Vídeňská 101/119

619 00 Brno, Czech Republic

© 2026 CleverMaps, a.s. · VAT CZ03728277

SOC 2 TYPE II · ISO 27001 · EU DATA RESIDENCY

CleverMaps footer visual for location intelligence and GeoDecision workflows

The GeoDecision platform
for the people who decide

CONTACT

CleverMaps, a.s.

Vídeňská 101/119

619 00 Brno, Czech Republic

© 2026 CleverMaps, a.s. · VAT CZ03728277

SOC 2 TYPE II · ISO 27001 · EU DATA RESIDENCY