Tom Nimmo compares the challenge of implementing "good process" to the tough grind of a half marathon. But the results of achieving both are worthwhile.
Back in 2007, at the age of 33, Steve Way was a 16 ? stone, heavy drinking, 20-a-day smoking office worker from Dorset. But short of breath and lacking real goals, Steve wanted to make a change in his life and so he started to run, and run seriously. Steve cut out his vices, began to train, and the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games saw a 40 year old Steve break his personal record and the British veterans' record for the marathon.
At the start of October I will be running in my 3rd half marathon. Admittedly, I'm at a level of athleticism that is closer to 16 stone Steve Way than elite marathon runner Steve Way, but that hasn't dampened my determination to go out and try to beat my own personal record. Like Steve Way, I run for the challenge. I don't enter races because it's fun, but because it's tough. I want to push myself to my limits and experience pain so that hopefully I can take some satisfaction in my achievements at the end of it all. And since I should be writing a pensions blog here, I think that this mentality can be applied to the pensions industry as well.
Working as a business analyst, specialising in data and process management, I am regularly involved in solving problems that have arisen because issues have occurred at some point in a process, and more often than not the "easy way" is to blame. The quick fixes and shortcuts employed to hit a deadline or meet a budget tend to cause the problems. However, these shortcuts rarely suffice and often lead to lengthy corrections or complications further down the line.
Poor processes can cause anything from mistakes in member communications to errors in scheme valuations. The actual impact to employers, trustees, and professional pensions firms can therefore range from minor embarrassment to severe financial cost. This is why the almost counter-intuitive principle of taking the hard road and adhering strictly to process can actually have quantifiable benefits for pension schemes. For example, I worked on a process plan that reduced the attempts needed to produce an accurate set of pension benefit data from 12 runs down to just 2. The result was an approximate 75% reduction in the resources and costs required to produce future datasets, increased quality in the processes that the data fed into, and an improved client satisfaction rating.
Good processes should be simple, robust, properly documented and controlled, fully communicated to all participants, and designed so that they are reliable and repeatable. Above all else, processes should be conceived with defined goals in mind. Usually in the pensions industry the goals of most processes are to improve quality and efficiency of output, whilst controlling costs. The way that these goals interact in the design and execution of a process, particularly around cost can entice participants into taking the "easy way" to the detriment of the end result.
Therefore, process design has to be about balancing goals and often this is the painful part, but I believe that it's time for the industry to walk the hard road and look at how they can become better at what they do. It's time to take the sometimes difficult steps to change existing ways of working, and gain some satisfaction from a job well done. It's time to be more Steve Way and less "easy way".
Written by Tom Nimmo, Senior Business Analyst at Veratta
