Outsourcing Fail: Motor insurance Co shows how not to do BPM

Picture the scenario: you have a car accident, someone bumps into you. You exchange details and discover you both share the same insurance company. Perfect, it’ll all be dealt with internally and rather swiftly…….well, that’s what you think would happen in a rational world.

However it seems this company have a different view. A colleague of mine is going through a bit of a time right now with the exact same scenario. He deals with 5 different companies now, chasing down information about the state of the insurance claim.

: The Car Hire company are notified by the Legal Team who then notify another third party to arrange the hire vehicle
: The Legal Team don’t deal with recouping the costs of the car hire against the other person’s insurance policy (remember, it’s the same insurer !)
: A third party solicitor deals with recouping the costs of the car hire, but are not involved in dealing with claims of personal injury
: The Claims Department coordinate repairs to the damaged vehicle but he liaises directly with the garage who give him different information
: The Claims Department deal with personal injury claims

Are you following this yet ?

Then there’s the fact that not one person spoken to in the insurance company actually understands the end to end process entirely, the poor guy is repeating messages and information several times to different teams and third parties who deny they are responsible for receiving instructions.

Not only does it look like outsourcing gone haywire but I seriously doubt they actually practice any form of process discipline, or if they have, they’ve never catered precisely for the scenario of a claim handling process being conducted internally in the same company.

If you’re out there and listening, perhaps Co-Op Insurance UK would like to get in touch….

Ps: is this an excellent example of “Clam Handling” ?
(see previous blog post “How many shirts….” if you don’t get the in joke)


2 responses to “Outsourcing Fail: Motor insurance Co shows how not to do BPM

  1. I actually wouldn’t call it BPM (at least not in the BPMS sense) – it is more adaptive case management than BPM. In many cases (no pun intended) these processes tend to be ad-hoc human processes that change on a case-by-case basis.For me there is a difference not just in the technology needed, but also in the mindset of how the process needs to be handled (e.g. requiring that there be some owner of the process that can see the whole, emerging end-to-end process), and there needs to be a system-of-record that binds together the documentation and process – for both the participants and management.

  2. To me this is quite simply a case of too many departments with too many hand-offs.Five different parties dealing with a claim? (and it would be at least 6 if the other party wasn’t insured by the same company). This smacks of being a process in chaos. I bet nobody knows the end -to-end process and I’m sure nobody owns it. Even if you had a BPMS system over the top of this it would still be a mess.And don’t forget that processes such as this are increasing overhead (i.e. costs) and bumping up our premiums!My advice: Get a senior insurance company managers wife to make a claim and see what trouble she has with it. Things will soon change. A prime example of not putting the customer at the heart of the process.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s