Life modelling and reporting teams are facing unprecedented challenges, including uncontrolled costs and ever-tightening deadlines, as well as resistance to change and inconsistent reporting practices. Complicating this is the need for complex calculations, ever-evolving projects, heavy technology reliance and concerns with model optimisation and maintenance.
How can life modelling and reporting teams properly understand what is and what isn’t working well? Also what are the implications of that for the business and how best to frame their situation to finance leaders to help secure the resources they need to deliver long-term improvements.
Go deeper with GlobalData
The case for change
There are a number of common reporting challenges that life modelling and reporting teams need to consider when developing their business case.
Your costs are out of control. Every year, actuarial teams work hard to complete the reporting in time and all the while, reporting demands deepen in their complexity. Errors start creeping in and the overtime bill is crippling their budgets, right when a rise in spend is needed on hardware to keep up with increasing reporting sophistication. The message to their CFO may be: We’re spending ever-more time and money just to stay still. We need to redeploy this spend smartly to make process and technology improvements that get us ahead of the growing complexity of the business’ modelling and reporting needs.
You’re delivering reporting, but only just in time…just about. There’s so much to get done within the reporting cycle: preparation, calculations, review, rework, reporting and dealing with those last-minute ‘what-if?’ questions. It’s a stretch to get everything done each time, but deadlines are met, just about. However, errors have started to creep in, with teams having to redo some tasks. They’re at risk of burnout.
While this ‘seat of the pants’ state of affairs accommodates the needs of stakeholders, eventually teams are going to start identifying errors too close to deadlines. Or auditors may ask last-minute questions and put the way actuarial reporting gets done under increasing scrutiny, creating additional workloads. The message to an insurer’s CFO on this might be: Positive process changes, backed by the right resources, can shield the actuarial function from the people risks of burnout and the business from the risks of ‘just in time’ reporting errors.
How well do you really know your competitors?
Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.
Thank you!
Your download email will arrive shortly
Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample
We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form
By GlobalDataYou’re fighting to keep pace with changing regulation and constantly deprioritising value-generating projects. Every few years, there seems to be a new set of regulations, with refinements in between. And just as actuarial teams are barely keeping up with the compulsory changes, management is looking to uncover more insights and greater value from data assets. While stakeholders may be asking simple questions, they don’t fully appreciate the scale of calculations to deliver the answers they seek, meaning it’s an uphill struggle to deliver even the most rudimentary responses. In this situation the team’s message to the CFO may be: The current status quo is pushing value-added work from the core to the margins. We want to deliver the insight business leaders need to generate more value, but we need resources to change our processes and the right technology solutions to make this happen.
You’re wrestling reporting inconsistencies. As various reporting projects have evolved, with managers or external processes requesting more information, reporting complexity has increased.
Life modelling and reporting teams may no longer even be sure who still needs which reports or for what purposes, and why they’re not consistent across all projects. And maybe it’s not possible to bring the reports into a single consistent framework because other systems have evolved to depend on them as they are. The message to the CFO in this type of scenario may be: Reporting inconsistencies have grown in response to business needs, but we need to simplify, automate and consolidate these if we want to prevent errors and actuarial resources being diverted to smoothing over the cracks, instead of adding real business value.
How did we get here and what lessons need to be learnt?
First, we need to acknowledge that these calculations are complex and business-critical. We are here because people have done their best — often with limited resources — to keep pace with changing needs. But in doing so, by being agile and reactive, problematic working patterns have crept in, which now need to be rooted out. Some of the most common of these are:
Point Solutions – Building a specific fix to a specific need, for example, a report or calculation. These localised components force the wider surrounding process to fit their needs and impose additional constraints. Where solutions aren’t flexible, they need to be reviewed.
End user computing – Challenges created by end user computing are similar to those found with point solutions. However, rather than locking the process into a particular approach, they often lock in the technology instead. For example, the use of Excel macros can force dependency on files and folders with specific naming conventions, text files and more Excel reports.
Model investment – Model development is often additive. Whether used or not, past features left in the code base can slow a model down, make it harder to maintain, sometimes generating spurious errors for new developments. Good models must be cleared out regularly to ensure they’re only representative of current needs.
Model goals – All too often, the goals of specific models are lost and forgotten. A good model will have a clear strategy around speed, precision and ease of maintenance. Often projects focus on simulation and precision as an easy target, which changes the philosophy of the model and hence its characteristics. This inadvertent refocusing can also result in a general deterioration of the model’s robustness, governance and auditability.
Next steps in driving change
A key takeaway from this is that it’s important to take a critical view of what actuarial teams are working with. Instead of asking whether a model meets current needs, insurers should ask whether this is what they would build if they were to start from scratch today.
Success in the short term is to start a virtuous circle, where small investments result in larger savings, which in turn fund larger investments for even greater gains. By showing willingness to think in these terms, life modelling and reporting teams can better align with the concerns of finance leaders and work collaboratively to access the resources they need for more fundamental process change.
Positive change may be highly desirable, but it isn’t inevitable. So, if you identify with any of the challenges in this insight, it may be time to disrupt the status quo.
Mark Brown is the Global Proposition Lead, Life Financial Modelling, Insurance Consulting and Technology at WTW.
