Motor Claims: Separating Waste from Necessary Work
A mid-sized motor insurer handles 42,000 claims a year across three regional offices. The claims process has six hand-offs: FNOL, document collection, damage assessment, coverage check, payment approval and payout. Only 38% of claims are settled without manual intervention. Average cycle time is 11 working days against a market expectation of five. Customer satisfaction is 72%, and 22% of files are reworked because documents are missing or illegible. Fourteen full-time staff work the process; two of them spend most of each day chasing documents by phone and email. Managers believe the problem is slow assessors and have proposed a productivity target that cuts assessment time by 15%. Front-line staff say assessors wait for documents that customers believe they already submitted. The insurer wants a fact-based improvement case before changing targets or hiring.
1. Classify the six claims steps and the rework loop using value-added analysis. Which steps should the insurer challenge first, and which should it protect? Justify your classification rather than listing labels.
Read the worked answer
Value-added analysis should start from the customer's view: a step adds value only if it changes the claim in a way the customer would pay for, is done right the first time, and is not merely correcting an earlier failure. On that basis, damage assessment and payout are clearly value-added because they determine the repair and deliver the settlement. FNOL is necessary but largely administrative; it becomes value-added only insofar as it captures complete information once. Coverage check is a business-necessary control, often regulatory, and should be simplified with rules rather than removed. Payment approval is mostly non-value-added; risk-based thresholds and automated checks can eliminate routine approvals. Document collection is the strongest improvement candidate because it exists mainly to complete missing information, and the 22% rework rate shows it is failing. The rework loop is pure waste. Two staff chasing documents is a symptom, not a value proposition. The insurer should challenge document collection and approval first, protect assessment quality, and avoid a blanket 15% assessment-time cut before separating touch time from waiting time. Cutting touch time when files sit waiting for documents would reduce the visible work while leaving the 11-day cycle time largely unchanged.
2. The managers propose a 15% assessment-time cut. Using root-cause reasoning, construct two competing hypotheses and describe the evidence you would collect to test them. What would a 5 Whys or fishbone add?
Read the worked answer
Hypothesis one is the managers' view: assessment touch time is excessive because assessors work slowly or lack productivity pressure. Hypothesis two is the front-line view: assessors are not the constraint; the process waits for documents, and rework consumes capacity. To test these, decompose cycle time into active touch time, waiting time, handoff delay and rework time using timestamps from the claims system, not estimates. Sample files and record why each document was missing: unclear request, customer thought it was submitted, portal failure, illegible upload, or duplicate request. Compare assessment time per file for complete versus incomplete submissions. Track rework by source and assessor queue. A 5 Whys on a representative delayed claim might run: why did settlement take 11 days, why did assessment wait, why were documents missing, why was the request ambiguous, why is there no completeness check at FNOL. That chain points to intake design, not assessor effort. A fishbone would broaden the search across people, method, machine, material, measurement and environment, but it must be evidence-based. The output should be a causal map with data behind each arrow, not a blame list. Only then can the insurer decide whether a productivity target addresses the cause or merely pushes work into rework.
3. Recommend a to-be process and three measures to verify improvement without encouraging target gaming. What guardrails would you set?
Read the worked answer
The to-be process should make completeness a precondition for assessment. At FNOL, a dynamic checklist should list required documents by claim type, with digital capture and automatic quality checks. Customers should receive immediate confirmation of what was received and what is still missing. Routine coverage checks should be rule-based; payment approval should use risk thresholds rather than uniform multi-step approval. Assessment should start only when the file is complete, and a visible queue should show files waiting on customers separately from files waiting on the insurer. Measures should include median and 90th-percentile cycle time, first-time-right rate, and rework hours per claim. A fourth measure, customer effort or satisfaction at settlement, would show whether speed was achieved by pushing effort onto the customer. Guardrails are essential: no closure of a claim without documented customer contact, no reduction in assessment quality audit scores, and no reclassification of missing documents as customer-caused without evidence. Report cycle time by segment and by cause of delay, not only as an average. The insurer should also track redeployment of the two document-chasing staff, because if the work disappears but capacity is not used, the business case is incomplete.