Competitive agility – How can we act faster in the marketplace London Business School Week 13

Competitive agility

– How can we act faster in the

marketplace

London Business School

Week 13

Group

Agneta, Anne, Line, Mats, Måns, Poul

Overarching objectives

“Disrupt the disrupters” strategy

Little big things

Differentiating yourself

2

To gain new and retain customers by building further on ‘Claims handling the way it should be’

3

How can we act faster in the market place?

Encourage piloting in IfEncourage piloting in If

Close the knowing-doing gap

Close the knowing-doing gap

• More flexible and experimental process needed

• More flexible and experimental process needed

• Knowledge is not an issue• Knowledge is not an issue

22

11

Nurture culture of business initiatives

Nurture culture of business initiatives

• Conduct a pilot , improving customer offer

• Conduct a pilot , improving customer offer

33

Our approach

4

1. Think about how to improve our competitive position

2. Identity & conduct a practical pilot to test out our idea in reality

3. Internal benchmark past experiences

4. Team takeaways

Testing how we can differentiate within claims handling

5

Cost to purchaser

Value to purchaser

Low

Low High

High

Niche insurer

If

• Unique partner benefits

• More value to customers at low cost

• Highly competitive claims steering ability

Greenhousing - what to choose? oSimple = Do-ableoRelevant = Customer valueo Practical = Competence, resources

and logistics

Bank

High level organization and roles in the Experiment

Core team/Steering group (Line, Måns, Mats, Poul, Anne)

Agneta took the overall responsibility to coordinate the Experiment, (project leader)

We listed very early as much as possible of what we could foresee as activities in an activity list. To make sure that we could get what we wanted in the given time frame, use as basis for follow up and if needed as basis for replanning etc

We established a common team site on SharePoint, we agreed phone meetings every week and agreed that Agneta should make a day by day status to be able to follow the progress.

There where two major parts in the experiment that we could define and divide the responsibility for: The Pilot (Agneta) and The Benchmark study (Poul). Preparation and conclusion was done as a common task for the experiment as a whole.

We used the core team as a working steering group and we all contributed to the common parts of the experiment, though Måns got the main responsibility for the presentation parts of Hypothesis, scope, etc.

7

High level plan for the experiment

8

Pilot executionPreparation

Benchmark study

”End product/Presentation”

Week 7-11Week 5-6 Week 12

Conclusion

Conclusion

VERY simple activity list

9

Vecka Aktivitet Ansvarig Klart datum Reviderat datum5 Uppdatera presentationen, ver 1 Agneta 2011-01-29

Uppdatering av assignment Line 2011-01-31Utveckla frågorna som skall ställas till respektive jämförelseprojekt Poul 2011-02-04 2011-02-04Utveckla "Blockers" vidare Måns 2011-02-04 2011-03-04Finns fler projekt att jämföra med?, Meddela Poul Alla 2011-02-04 2011-02-10Möte med Gudmund Lindencrona Agneta 2011-02-03Ta fram dagens NKI frågeformulär (Helene Bergqvist) Agneta 2011-02-03Precisera kriterier för experimentet till möte m Owe Måns 2011-02-04Möte med Owe Pettersson Agneta 2011-02-04Avstämning med Tarja Olsen avs kundutskicken Agneta 2011-02-04

6 Ev Möte med Tarja Olsen avs ev stöd för kundutskicket Agneta 2011-02-07Förslag till slutpresentation Line/Mats 2011-02-? 2011-03-08Måns förbereder "License to run innovations" Måns 2011-02-10 ?Samtliga förutsättningar klara för experimentet (Owe) A/M/M 2011-02-11Möte med Bilia Jonas/Stefan 2011-02-11Leverera NKI frågeformuläret till Tarja Agneta 2011-02-11Boka möte med samtliga jämförelseprojekt Poul 2011-02-11

Week Task/Activity Responsible Ready by date

VERY simple form of status report…in swedish….sorry for that!

10

Status week 5-12 2011

- 31/1 Agneta skickar mail till Gudmund med beskrivning av uppdraget samt en önskan om ett möte

inom snar framtid. Vi enades om att träffas den 3/2.

- 2/2 Lade förslag till aktivitetsplan för experimentet baserat på vad vi kom överens om i London. Tider, ansvariga, aktiviteter och kommentarer.

- 3/2 Möte med Gudmun (Agneta, Måns, Mats). Gudmund hade redan tagit diverse kontakter inom sin organisation och var generellt positivt till experimentet och trodde att vi skulle kunna genomföra det. Hänvisade oss vidare till Owe Petersson för diskussion om detaljerna och det praktiska upplägget.

- 4/2 Möte med Owe Pettersson rörande detaljerna för experimentet ex: 100 bilar ok, inklusive de som tackar nej. Ingår leverans och tvätt Både IMF, Volvia och If ingår. Vi utgår ifrån verkstaden och då blir det troligen en viss

spridning per automatik. Troligen kommer 1-2 verkstäder ingå i försöket. Verkstäderna skall upplysa kunderna om

försöket och att de som motprestation får fylla i ett formulär. Verkstäderna kommer sedan att fylla i en lista med samtliga bilar som levererats, denna skickas till Agneta som sammanställer till Tarja.

Vi behöver kolla att våra utskick inte kolliderar eller förstör för den ordinarie NKI som går ut vid slutregleringen.

The Pilot

11

Test and evaluate extended claims service

oProvide an extra service to 100 customers that have their cars repairedincluded cleaning (inside and outside) and delivery of the car at

home or office

oIn return – the customer has to fill in a questionnaire about the service

oDelivery and cleaning should be in cooperation with car repair shops.

oEvaluate the result of the service (for further implementation?)

oCollect learning's and compare with other projects

12

High level activities and timetable for the Pilot

13

Week 5-6 : PreparationoMeetings with Private claims, Business developer, Bilia and others to agree on details, activities and routines for the Piloto Information letters, questionnaires and CSI solution createdoAd hoc questions and tasks where solved as they occurred

Week 7-10 :ExecutionoThe start of cleaning and delivering cars (as aimed for) 14/2!oFiles with delivered cars from Bilia every week, emails sent out from If with questionnaire and CSI reported at request. oStarted to document the Pilot with films, interviews, pictures etcoLess cars delivered (offered) than expected end of week 10… (due to snow storm and holidays in Stockholm)

Week 11: Execution (with car cleaning)oProlonged with one week with car cleaning only

Week 12: Conclusions

–

Hej

–Tack för att du medverkar i vår undersökning som vi genomför i strävan att kontinuerligt se hur vi kan förbättra för Ifs och Volvias försäkringskunder.

–Vi är förstås intresserade av hur du upplevde den utökade servicenivån vi erbjöd i samband med din försäkringsskada och skulle vara tacksamma om Du kan svara på nedanstående frågor.

–Det tar högst 2-3 minuter och är viktig information för oss.

–Tack på förhand!

^slink^

–Vänliga hälsningar

–If Skadeförsäkring

14

Mail to the customers concerning the questionnaire and with a link to the web form

Just an example of the report we got back on CSI result….

15

1. I vilken utsträckning uppskattade du att få bilen tvättad? (q141) - Skala 1-5, där 5 är bäst. (1)1 0 0,0 %2 0 0,0 %3 1 20,0 %4 1 20,0 %5 3 60,0 %

Total 5 100,0 %AVG

2. Hur väl upplever du att tjänsten utfördes? (q142) - Skala 1-5, där 5 är bäst. (1)1 0 0,0 %2 0 0,0 %3 0 0,0 %4 2 40,0 %5 3 60,0 %

Total 5 100,0 %AVG

3. I vilken utsträckning uppskattade du att få bilen hemkörd? (q143) - Skala 1-5, där 5 är bäst. (1)1 0 0,0 %2 0 0,0 %3 1 20,0 %4 1 20,0 %5 3 60,0 %

Total 5 100,0 %AVG

4. Hur väl upplevde du att tjänsten utfördes? (q144) - Skala 1-5, där 5 är bäst. (1)1 0 0,0 %2 0 0,0 %3 0 0,0 %4 1 20,0 %5 4 80,0 %

Total 5 100,0 %AVG

Comments from the questionaires….Trevlig personal och det sparade mig ca två timmars arbeteEn annan tjänst som vore bra är om If garanterade bilia att rep ska utföras. så de kan beställa skärm o måla den innan man lämnar in bilen. Som det nu är tar det 2- 3dgr extra då de inte gör något innan bilen lämnas in pga osäkerhet kring att man lämnar in den. de påstod att de förlorar pengar på att folk inte dyker upp och de står med skärmar som målats som de får bekosta. ett scenario som inte kan vara vanligt när man har använt sin vagnskadefsk.... skulle sparat mig 2 dagars hyrbil. vilket är mer än en rekond av den typen ni gav(tack för den).Mycket bra initiativ! Att bilen är ren och fin underlättar även för bilreparatören som då psykologiskt får en press på sig att lämna ifrån sig ett perfekt slutresultat.

4,4

4,6

4,4

4,8

(Scale 1-5, 5 is best)

To what extent did you appreciate to get your car cleaned? 4,9

How well do you think the service was performed? 4,9

To what extent did you appreciate to get your car delivered? 4,6

How well do you think the service was performed? 4,8

Any comments? Yes, a lot….

16

Customer satisfaction index, summary

Main findings from the Pilot

17

Resources - key competence

Sponsor - mandate

Minor IT development

Minor investment

Ability to deliver fast!

Bilia

Time – not an issue

Keep it simple

18

–

Resources – high competence, dedicated, positive and supportive

Clear task – easy to explain

Very good relations If/ Bilia and Bilia was very professional and solution oriented

Time was never an issue – some resources worked on this even on weekends , evenings and vacations

Sponsor involvement – positive door opener and an “unlimited mandate”

Relatively small investment and minor IT investment/involvement. Early decision to take the cost without BC

No real issues occurred during the Pilot – NO BLOCKERS!

A lot of fun!

We have the ability to deliver fast!

Conclusions from the Pilot, with some more comments…

Benchmark projects

19

High level activities and timetable for the Benchmark

20

Week 5-6 : PreparationoCandidates for Benchmark interviews was listed – concluded on 7 projects+ the pilot oCheck list / questionnaires was done for the Benchmark interviewso Meetings where scheduled for all interviews

Week 7-11:Execution

oAll interviews where performed and documented on the commonSharePoint site

Week 12: Conclusions

Description and scoring of the benchmark projects

Project name CategoryComplexit

y It hours

IPM project

Done as planned

Own interest

Delegationlevel

Removal of daily tasks

Competence

JunoService/Product

Medium 20 NoYes, 3 months

Yes High No High

Iphone App Service Medium None NoYes, 4 months

Yes High Partly High

Miss Deductible Product Medium Minor YesNo, 17 months

No Medium Yes Medium

MTPL Finland Service Very High Minor YesNo,

YearsYes High Yes High

Leisure houses abroad

Product High 780 PartlyYes,12 months

Yes High Yes High

Claims handling cross borders

Process High None NoYes, 11 months

Yes High No High

Credit card insurance

Product Easy None No No No Medium Yes Medium

LBS Pilot Service Medium None No Yes Yes High No High

Clear connection between “failure” and “lack of own interest”


y It hours

IPM project

Done as planned

Own interest

Delegationlevel


Competence

JunoService/Product


Yes High No High









Yes High Yes High



Yes High No High




High connection between success and “own interest”


y It hours

IPM project

Done as planned

Own interest

Delegationlevel


Competence

JunoService/Product


Yes High No High









Yes High Yes High



Yes High No High



LBS Pilot Service Medium None NoYes, 6 weeks

Yes High No High

Clear connection between success and “high competence”


y It hours

IPM project

Done as planned

Own interest

Delegationlevel


Competence

JunoService/Product


Yes High No High









Yes High Yes High



Yes High No High




Yes High No High

Clear connection between success and “high delegation level”


y It hours

IPM project

Done as planned

Own interest

Delegationlevel


Competence

JunoService/Product


Yes High No High









Yes High Yes High



Yes High No High




Yes High No High

Usage of IPM model not a success criteria for smaller projects


y It hours

IPM project

Done as planned

Own interest

Delegationlevel


Competence

JunoService/Product


Yes High No High









Yes High Yes High



Yes High No High




To remove daily tasks is not a success criteria


y It hours

IPM project

Done as planned

Own interest

Delegationlevel


Competence

JunoService/Product


Yes High No High









Yes High Yes High



Yes High No High




28

We are innovative and we are fast!

29

Conclusions from interviews on benchmark projects

Competence, own interest and a broad mandate is the key elements if you want to be successful

An advanced governance model (IPM) do not add any value in smaller to medium scale projects – maybe even the opposite

To release extra time for people involved in the development work is actually not necessarily a success criteria

Team takeaway

30

Key success factors in piloting

– Simplicity– Mandate– Pilot team profile– Attitude

– FUN!

31

Conclusions

–Assumptions – we assume that we are not innovative however internal benchmark survey tells no stories of major blockers

–More pilots – very useful way of seizing opportunities and testing ideas

–Practical experience – to do it ourselves was very important to support our take on If’s ability on being competitive agile

–Encouragement and visibility – will be important factors to foster If as innovative company that it is

32

Next step activities…

–”End result” presentation to the pilot group 20th of May.

–Discussion with Private management – should we continue with the increased service or not, and if so, find an owner/sponsor for it!

–Learning's from the Pilot to be taken into the ongoing work with ”development model in If”.

33

Documents

Competitive agility – How can we act faster in the marketplace London Business School Week 13