Measuring Progress

Lloyd’s Business Process Reform

&

London Market Standards Committee

Manage

Why measure?

Improve performance

Measure

Monitor

Measure what?

1. Policy production

2. Premium and claims payment

3. Claims processing

What are the dimensions?

1. Timing

2. Quality

3. Satisfaction

4. Cost

measure how long it takes

in the first instance, measure compliance and up take of reform initiatives.

monitor customer satisfaction

not in the near future.

REL Research

Timing Quality Satisfaction Cost

Policy production

Premium & claims payment

Claims processing

REL Research

Identified key client processes (touch points)

provided the first data on how long it takes for current processes

Provided valuable insight on the difficulty of collecting benchmarking metrics across the whole of the London market place.

Lessons from the REL work

The extent to which market participants measure their own performance is highly variable.

The data that is collected is not uniform across the participants.

Makes the process of bring these together extremely difficult.

Ideally to bring together data from multiple sources

Agree

Definitions

Harmonised processes

Collect the data centrally

Apply the same quality procedures

At each source, someone owns the responsibility for quality data.

Approach

Starting point – collect those that are captured electronically at

the bureau – very limited: inception date, presentation date &

signing date for Stages I & II.

Missing metrics – tie them to the existing reform initiatives:

Policy production – contract certainty [also regulatory pressure]

Premium & claims payment – A&S

Claims processing – ECF

Approach utilise available data and link to reform initiatives

Timing Quality Satis-faction

Cost

Policy production

1. XIS stage II presentation data

2. Legacy policy data

8. XIS rejection data [XIS reasons]

9. LMP Slip audit

10.XIS rejection data [PPR checks]

16.Lloyd’s custom

er service survey

NOT in the near future

Premium & claims payment

3. XIS stage I presentation data

4. A&S

5. ECF

11.XIS rejection data [XIS reasons]

12.A&S

13.ECF

Claims processing

5. XIS Claims payment data

6. ECF

7. A&S

13.Lloyd’s Claims Performance metrics

14.ECF

15.A&S

Policy production: TimingXIS stage II presentation data

inception date signing date for wordings agreement [Stage II signing]

Analysis will be reviewed by MRG next Tuesday

XIS received 27,000 stage II presentations last

quarter, representing about 20,000 contracts.

Policy production: TimingLegacy policy data

Stage I signing Stage II signing

Year account

Number of legacy policies as at Per cent increase / decease

Autumn 2004 Spring 2005

1993 - 1999 94,600 93,596 -1%

2000 19,637 20,046 2%

2001 20,720 20,631 0%

2002 24,052 22,890 -5%

2003 28,105 24,516 -13%

2004 25,702 29,379 14%

Total 212,816 211,058 -1%

Policy production: QualityXIS rejection data - XIS reasons

Rejection rate

0%10%

20%30%40%50%

60%70%

Q1-04b Q2-04 Q3-04 Q4-04 Q1-05

Binders

Open market

b – excludes Jan-04The volume of binders is about 15% of the open market contracts

Policy production: QualityLMP Slip

LMP Slip Quality and Contract Certainty

80%

83%

85%

88%

90%

93%

95%

98%

100%

Jan-Apr 2004(n=388)

May-Jul 2004(n=803)

Sep 2004(n=494)

Oct 2004(n=497)

Nov 2004(n=693)

Dec 2004(n=727)

Jan 2005(n=663)

Feb 2005(n=484)

Mar 2005(n=395)

Open market LMP Slip quality[36 components]

Contract Certainty[26 components]

Binders LMP Slip quality[49 components]

Policy production: QualityLMP Slip - open market

Average BSA for Managing Agents who had 8 or more slips audited in the reporting period

80.0%

82.5%

85.0%

87.5%

90.0%

92.5%

95.0%

97.5%

Jan-Apr 2004(n=19)

May-Jul 2004(n=30)

Sep 2004(n=19)

Oct 2004(n=21)

Nov 2004(n=27)

Dec 2004(n=28)

Jan 2005(n=27)

Feb 2005(n=22)

Mar 2005(n=14)

BS

A

75th Percentile

Market Average

25th Percentile

Policy production: QualityLMP Slip - open market

Average BSA for Managing Agents who had 8 or more slips audited in the reporting period

80.0%

82.5%

85.0%

87.5%

90.0%

92.5%

95.0%

97.5%

Jan-Apr 2004(n=19)

May-Jul 2004(n=30)

Sep 2004(n=19)

Oct 2004(n=21)

Nov 2004(n=27)

Dec 2004(n=28)

Jan 2005(n=27)

Feb 2005(n=22)

Mar 2005(n=14)

BS

A

75th Percentile

Market Average

25th Percentile

BPR Ltd

Uptake of ECF & CLASS for Lloyd’s

Uptake indicator Carriers Brokers

Readiness Acquisition of XIS-IMR log on ID.

Ability to transfer electronic documents to the XIS-IMR

Training for CLASS

Acquisition of CLASS IDs

Ability to initiate CLASS transactions

Implementation Volume of new claims

Volume of claims transactions

ECF: Electronic Claims File

CLASS for Lloyd’s: Claims Loss Advice Settlement System

XIS-IMR: Xchanging Ins-sure Insurer’s Market Repository

Satisfaction dimension:Is reform making a difference?

Funded by Lloyd’s – focus on branding and business processes

10 minute telephone survey – up to 55Q

2005 inaugural survey – establish the baseline

Annual survey until 2009 – monitor customer satisfaction

Customer: Lloyd’s broker, non-Lloyd’s broker, coverholder, insured & reinsured.

Questionnaire design based on research project on what matters most to the

clients.

Access – issue for Lloyd’s brokers

Quote – Speed & how comprehensive

Policy documents – Speed, match to quote, speed to agree changes

Claim – how well informed & speed of payment

Any questions?