Symptoms Pointing in Three Directions
An insurance claims team processes 1,800 motor claims a month. Complaints have risen 30% in two quarters. The head of claims believes staff are poorly trained and wants a £200k training programme. Available evidence: average claim cycle time has risen from 9 to 13 days; 22% of claims are reassigned to a second handler; the proportion of claims requiring a supervisor override has risen from 8% to 19%; staff turnover is 34%; a recent system upgrade added two new mandatory fields to the intake screen. No time-and-motion data exists. Customer complaint text has not been categorised. The board wants an answer this month.
1. Evaluate the head of claims' diagnosis against the evidence and propose a structured investigation.
Read the worked answer
The training diagnosis is one hypothesis among several, and the evidence points more strongly elsewhere.
Against training as primary cause:
- Reassignment at 22% suggests handoffs, not skill gaps. Training does not reduce handoffs.
- Overrides up from 8% to 19% suggests either unclear rules or staff lacking authority/confidence in the system - often a process or system issue.
- The two new mandatory intake fields are a plausible direct cause of longer cycle time and possibly of rework.
- 34% turnover means training investment leaks out of the door and is itself a symptom worth explaining.
Proposed investigation (2–3 weeks):
- Categorise a sample of complaints (say 300) to find the dominant themes.
- Map the claim process end to end and measure where the 4 extra days sit - queue, handoff, rework or decision.
- Sample 50 reassigned claims and find why they were reassigned.
- Test the intake change: compare cycle time before and after the upgrade.
- Structured interviews and exit data on turnover causes.
Only then size the options. Training may still feature, but as one lever among several, and the board gets an evidence-based answer rather than a plausible one.
2. How would you present findings to a board that wants an answer this month, given the investigation is not complete?
Read the worked answer
Give the board a decision, not a data dump.
Structure:
- What we know - the four measured trends and the timing of the system upgrade.
- What we can and cannot conclude - state plainly that the training hypothesis is not supported as the primary cause by current evidence, and say why in one sentence per data point.
- Leading hypothesis - intake change and handoff design are the strongest candidates; training and turnover are contributing factors.
- What we recommend now - approve a bounded investigation (2–3 weeks, small cost) and defer the £200k training decision until it reports. Where quick wins are low-risk (e.g. reviewing the two mandatory fields), authorise them now.
- What we will bring back - a sized options paper with costs and expected benefit.
This gives the board a clear position and a date, without committing £200k to an unproven diagnosis.