Colleague Views Hub
Section 1.2 - Empowering Colleagues

Colleague Reporting & Analysis Components

Examples of the types of operational insights that Member Services colleagues could access to better understand and improve outcomes.

Illustrative Data - Not Real Values

These worked examples take tasks from the Data Model Specification and show what a colleague's operational view would look like.

Each view answers three questions:

  • What happened to the work I started?
  • Where are the problems?
  • How can I help improve this?

Value Demand vs Failure Demand

Every task a colleague handles falls into one of two categories. Understanding the split is critical to knowing where improvement effort should focus.

Value Demand

What we exist to do

Legitimate member needs arriving for the first time. The member wants something and we deliver it.

Examples: Cancellation request, address change, cover increase, new claim

Failure Demand

Demand caused by our failure

Chasing, repeating, correcting. The member contacts us because we didn't get it right the first time.

Examples: "Where's my cancellation?", re-submitted forms, complaints, chasing letters

A task can start as value demand but generate failure demand when it gets stuck. The colleague views below show both: the original demand type and the failure demand the process creates.

Cancellation

Highway cancellations pass through phone agent, admin team, and Finance with a 5-day SLA. The colleague who takes the original call currently has no visibility of what happens next.

Cancellation Retention Value Demand Highway
18
Initiated
14
Completed
4
Outstanding
4.2d
Avg. Time
0%
First Touch Res.
11%
Failure Rate
Value Demand
18 cancellation requests
Member wants to cancel, legitimate first-time request
Failure Demand Generated
7 chase contacts
"Where's my cancellation?" calls caused by 5-day delay
Member CallMon 10:15
Cancel DDMon 14:30
Manual Letters3 days in queue
Notify FinanceWaiting
CompleteWaiting
Case Member Status Current Step Days Open
#CX-4471 J. Harrison Delayed Manual Letters 3
#CX-4455 R. Chambers Delayed Admin Queue 4
#CX-4502 S. Patel In Progress Cancel DD 1
#CX-4489 M. Thompson Pending Awaiting Finance 2
  • Manual letter production is the bottleneck, avg. 2.8 days in queue this month.
  • 0% first-contact resolution on Highway cancellations. SSG cancellations resolve same day.
  • Complaint category CS-5 (Delay: Processing a request) linked to 3 of your cases this quarter.

Change of Address

Address changes on Highway require system updates and admin-checked letters. A task that should be simple but involves multiple handoffs and manual letter checks.

Change of Address Change of Party Value Demand Highway
32
Initiated
29
Completed
3
Outstanding
2.1d
Avg. Time
0%
First Touch Res.
3%
Failure Rate
Value Demand
32 address changes
Member moved house, legitimate update request
Failure Demand Generated
2 rework contacts
1 letter typo requiring re-send, 1 member chasing confirmation
Member CallTue 09:40
Update SystemTue 09:45
Admin Letter CheckIn progress
CompleteWaiting
  • Highway generates letters automatically but each one requires manual admin review before sending.
  • SSG address changes can be done by anyone, no admin handoff required.
  • 1 case this month returned because the letter contained a typo in the new address (complaint category CS-6).

All Tasks Overview

A single view of everything a colleague has touched in the last 30 days, across all task types. The starting point before drilling into any individual task.

All Tasks Overview Summary Last 30 Days
71
Total Initiated
58
Completed
13
Outstanding
3.4d
Avg. Time
28%
First Touch Res.
12%
Failure Rate
Task Initiated Completed Outstanding Avg Time FTR Failure Rate RAG
Change of Address 32 29 3 2.1d 0% 3%
Cancellation 18 14 4 4.2d 0% 11%
Increase in Cover 9 6 3 6.4d 0% 22%
Complaint 7 5 2 3.8d 71% 100%
Reinstatement 5 4 1 3.5d 40% 0%
Increase in Cover
4.1d, Underwriting
Cancellation
2.8d, Manual Letters
Reinstatement
1.5d, Manager Auth
Complaint
1.2d, Manager Review
Change of Address
0.9d, Admin Letter Check
Value Demand
64 tasks (90%)
Legitimate first-time member requests across all task types
Failure Demand Generated
13 chase contacts
Rework, chasing, and re-submissions caused by process delays and handoff failures
  • 82% of your outstanding backlog (10 of 13) sits in just two tasks: Cancellation and Increase in Cover.
  • Aggregate FTR of 28% means nearly 3 in 4 tasks require at least one handoff before completion.
  • Failure demand overhead: for every 5 value tasks, your process generates roughly 1 chase or rework contact.

Ambition Targets

Measures current performance compares to the ambition targets defined in the reporting framework. Gaps highlight where the system needs to change.

Performance vs Ambition Targets Last 30 Days
SLA Compliance
82% / 95%
First Touch Res.
28% / 80%
Member Sentiment
7.0 / 8.5
Failure Demand
12% / ≤20% ✓
Avg. Touchpoints
2.4 / ≤1.5
Complaint Yield
42.3 / ≤25
Task Worst Metric Current Target Gap RAG
Increase in Cover First Touch Res. 0% 80% -80pp
Cancellation First Touch Res. 0% 80% -80pp
Complaint Complaint Yield 42.3 ≤25 +17.3
Change of Address First Touch Res. 0% 80% -80pp
Reinstatement First Touch Res. 40% 80% -40pp
Cancellation - Current
5 steps across 3 teams
4.2 days average end-to-end
2.4 touchpoints per case
0% FTR, always requires handoff
11% failure rate, chase contacts
Cancellation - Ambition
2 steps, colleague completes in call
<1 day target end-to-end
1.0 touchpoint per case
80%+ FTR, resolve on first contact
≤5% failure rate, minimal rework
Increase in Cover - Current
5 steps including underwriting referral
6.4 days average end-to-end
3.1 touchpoints per case
0% FTR, always requires underwriting
22% failure rate, form rejections
Increase in Cover - Ambition
3 steps, validated form + auto-referral
≤3 days target end-to-end
1.5 touchpoints per case
30%+ FTR, simple increases on first call
≤5% failure rate, inline validation
  1. Increase in Cover 92 Highest failure rate (22%), longest avg. time (6.4d), biggest SLA gap
  2. Cancellation 84 0% FTR, sentiment dropping, admin queue bottleneck worsening
  3. Complaint 71 100% failure demand, CS-5 category trending up, systemic root causes
  4. Reinstatement 45 Manager auth delay, but improving trend and 0% failure rate
  5. Change of Address 28 Low failure rate (3%), relatively fast, minor admin check overhead
  • First Touch Resolution is your biggest gap, 28% actual vs 80% ambition across all tasks. This is a system design issue, not a performance one.
  • Increase in Cover is the highest priority for improvement, longest time, highest failure rate, and the worst SLA gap.
  • Failure Demand at 12% is within the ≤20% ambition target. Your process generates less rework than average.

Pipeline Board

A Kanban-style view of every outstanding case across all task types, distributed by pipeline stage. Makes it immediately obvious where work is stuck.

Pipeline Board All Tasks 13 Outstanding
Cancellation
3 outstanding
Member Call
Cancel DD
1
1d avg
Admin Queue
2
3–4d stuck
Manual Letters
0
Complete
Change of Address
3 outstanding
Member Call
Update System
Admin Letter Check
3
1–2d
Complete
Complaint
2 outstanding
Received
Logged
Manager Review
2
1–2d
Investigation
0
Response
Increase in Cover
3 outstanding
COC Form Check
1
today
Underwriting
2
3–5d stuck
Process Change
0
Manual Letter
0
Complete
Reinstatement
1 outstanding
Eligibility Check
Manager Auth
1
1d
Reinstate Policy
0
Send Letter
0
Payment (7d)
  • Increase in Cover stalls at Underwriting, 2 cases stuck 3–5 days waiting for sign-off. Every other step in that process is empty.
  • Cancellation bottlenecks at Admin Queue, 2 cases stuck 3–4 days against a 5-day SLA. The manual finance check is the blocker.
  • Change of Address, Complaint and Reinstatement are all flowing, cases moving through steps within 1–2 days with no stuck work.

With this level of operational visibility, colleagues are no longer passive participants in a process. They become active contributors to improving it. When the people closest to the work can see where tasks stall, where demand fails and where ambition targets are missed, they are uniquely positioned to provide feedback and insight into how to resolve the issues. Improvement becomes colleague-led, continuous and grounded in real scenarios.