Although we would hope it weren’t the case, sometimes our customers have a problem. It may be with the product/service itself, or it may be with the licensing process or other issue. This often leads to what is known as the “moment of truth” when the response to the customer determines whether that customer will abandon you, remain as an unhappy customer or become a loyal advocate. These interactions should be anticipated and a planned response ready for the occasion. Some of the responses are quick and inexpensive and others may be prolonged and expensive. Are the expensive solutions worth it? Can we implement inexpensive solutions that have higher ROI than the more expensive ones? An experiment can help determine how we should respond.
Case Study – Insurance Company
This insurance company had done several process improvement projects, some with designed experiments, to improve cost structure and customer satisfaction in the call center, insurance application and claims processing processes but still had a significant problem. There was an alarming trend toward more claimants hiring attorneys where there was bodily injury (BI) after an auto accident. When they looked at the data for a large number of claims they found that for claims with an attorney involvement 1) the cost to the company was significantly higher, 2) the claims process took significantly longer and 3) the claimant received less than $100 on average. Therefore, it seemed it would be in everyone’s best interest to reduce attorney involvement in the claims process (except for the attorneys 😉 ).
At the beginning of this effort 40% of the claims with BI had attorney involvement. Initial process improvement efforts targeting the “low-hanging fruit” lowered that to 36%. Each reduction of 1% equated to a savings of more than $5,000,000 to the company.
They held brainstorming sessions with many employees and did several surveys to get a long list of potential ideas they could test to reduce the percentage of claims where an attorney was retained in the first 60 days after the accident. They narrowed the list of ideas to be tested down to 15.
The screening test showed four ideas that had a beneficial effect (in order of benefit):
- Pay more than blue book value when the value of the automobile was debatably higher. (This was a controversial finding which went against the philosophy of the CEO and the industry – to pay more than necessary for property damage claims in order to reduce the overall cost of bodily injury claims.)
- When appropriate (and legal) give the claimant an open-ended BI release form, i.e. if the claimant came back later with additional medical expenses than originally anticipated, the company would pay those expenses.
- Increase the number of in-person contacts with the claimant.
- Increase the range and discretion by agents in settling BI claims.
These ideas were all put into a second (refining) experiment and not only were they validated, they got a more precise estimate of the cost and benefit of each idea. The final, verified improvement in percentage of claims with attorney involvement was a reduction of an additional 8%, from 36% to 28%.