CRM rollout pressure in an insurance claims team
You are first-line manager in an insurance claims call centre with 18 advisers. A new CRM system went live 10 days ago. Average handling time has risen 22%, abandoned call rate is 9% against a 3% target, overtime has reached 140 hours this month against a budget of 60, and three advisers have taken sickness absence in the last week. Advisers say the new system requires 14 screens to complete a claim, compared with five on the old system. Quality assurance scores are unchanged for experienced advisers but have fallen to 62% for the four advisers hired in the last three months. Customer complaints are up 15%. The operations director asks whether to roll back before the peak renewal season, which starts in two weeks.
1. What evidence would you use to decide whether to roll back, and what recommendation would you make?
Read the worked answer
I would separate the decision into three questions: is the problem system capability, user capability, or capacity? The 22% rise in average handling time and the 14-screen claim point to system capability, but the QA pattern matters. Experienced advisers have unchanged QA scores, which suggests they are finding workarounds and maintaining accuracy, while new hires at 62% are struggling to learn the process on a system that does not match their training. That is a user-capability problem amplified by system design, not a reason to roll back for everyone.
I would gather four pieces of evidence quickly. First, a screen-flow map for the top five claim types, with timings, to identify whether the 14 screens are all mandatory or whether some can be deferred. Second, abandonment by time of day and queue, to see whether the 9% is driven by a few peak slots or is flat. Third, overtime by adviser and task, to check whether it is covering system slow-downs or absence. Fourth, a sample of complaints coded by cause: system error, delay, or adviser explanation.
My recommendation would be a partial rollback only if the evidence shows a critical process is impossible to complete accurately within service levels. Otherwise I would not roll back two weeks before peak, because a second migration during peak would create a bigger risk. I would instead negotiate a temporary peak configuration: defer non-mandatory screens, add two temporary advisers to the new-hire queue, and cap overtime at the budgeted 60 hours with a daily approval rule. I would set a go/no-go review in seven days with clear thresholds: abandonment below 5%, average handling time within 10% of baseline, and new-hire QA above 75%. If those are not met, I would roll back only the new-hire cohort to the old system as a bridge.
2. How would you manage the team's workload and wellbeing over the next two weeks?
Read the worked answer
The sickness absence is a signal, not a staffing inconvenience. Three advisers off in one week after a system change suggests stress or overload, and the 140 hours of overtime against a 60-hour budget confirms the team is absorbing the gap through extra hours. I would not open with a motivational message. I would start with a short team huddle to acknowledge the system is slower and set a temporary rule: if a call is at risk of breaching service level because of the system, advisers should use the agreed short-form process and flag it, rather than skip breaks or work unpaid.
I would then make workload visible. I would publish a daily dashboard of queue, abandonment, overtime and absence, and review it each morning with the shift leads. I would introduce a 10-minute mid-shift check-in for the four new hires, because their QA score of 62% suggests they need coaching, not more calls. I would pair each new hire with an experienced adviser for two hours a day, using the experienced adviser's unchanged QA as a coaching asset.
On wellbeing, I would offer confidential one-to-ones to anyone who has been absent, and I would not ask for details in the team meeting. I would also check whether overtime is being distributed fairly; if the same people are doing most of it, I would cap individual overtime at 8 hours a week and use the two temporary advisers to cover the rest. I would escalate to the operations director that the 60-hour budget is not realistic with current abandonment, and ask for a formal decision: either accept a temporary service-level reduction or fund additional cover. I would document that decision so the team is not blamed for a resourcing gap.