Systems Thinking
Systems Thinking
Bridging cultural intent and technical capability to deliver measurable change
The convergence of cultural intent and technical capability
The Exeter is at a point where several things are converging. Senior leadership is actively pursuing a cultural shift away from command-and-control management toward systems thinking. An approach that designs and manages work around real member demand rather than internal hierarchies.
At the same time, the Member CX programme is laying down practical infrastructure in H1 2026 that can make this philosophy operational: channel integration, a colleague workbench, and early AI use cases for email and phone.
Senior leadership is actively moving away from command-and-control management toward systems thinking. Designing work around real member demand rather than internal hierarchies.
The H1 2026 delivery plan is building the infrastructure to make systems thinking operational: channel integration, colleague workbench and AI-assisted contact handling.
These two streams — cultural intent from the top and technical capability from the delivery teams — need a bridge. The Systems Thinking Strategy for Member Services is that bridge.
The alternative is clear — and it is already the direction leadership is pursuing.
| Command & Control | Systems Thinking | |
|---|---|---|
| Perspective | Top-down hierarchy | Outside-in, studying the system from the member's perspective |
| Design | Functional silos | Demand, value, and flow |
| Decisions | Separated from work | Integrated with work — made where the work happens |
| Measurement | Output, targets, standards related to budget | Capability and variation, related to purpose |
| Change | Reactive, project-based change | Adaptive, integral — continuous and embedded |
| Management | Manage people and budgets | Act on the system — make the work work better |
This is not a theoretical preference. It is a direct response to what the current approach is producing: fragmented processes, invisible member frustration, and a service model that has no chance of delivering a market-leading experience in its current form.
Initial analysis of Member Servicing operations has surfaced findings that reinforce the case for systems thinking.
The majority of Member Servicing work relies on individual expertise and manual processes. A small number of subject matter experts each specialise in specific workflows, carrying out back-office work that creates real vulnerability. Variation in demand, holidays, or illness can directly and immediately impact service quality.
Work routinely passes between Member Servicing, Finance Operations, and other teams — not because the work requires it, but because processes were designed around team structures rather than member needs. The cancellation process, for example, touches a minimum of three teams for what is a single member request.
Member dissatisfaction grows without being visible beyond individual interactions. Some members vote with their feet rather than complain. Complaints — while critical as a diagnostic tool — represent only the visible portion of system failure. The full cost of friction is larger than our complaint data shows.
The same demand type often exists as multiple separate task types depending on which system (Highway or SSG) the policy sits on, with different processes, different capabilities, and different member experiences for the same underlying need.
These are not isolated problems. They are symptoms of a system designed around command-and-control logic: functional separation, decision-making removed from the point of work, and measurement focused on internal activity rather than member outcomes.
Three interconnected concepts that provide a structured way to study, measure, and improve Member Services.
What are members actually asking for? What triggers work? Is each piece of demand a legitimate member need (value demand) or demand caused by our own failure to do something right (failure demand)?
Of all the work we do in response to demand, which steps actually create value for the member? Which steps exist only because of internal process design — handoffs, rework, internal overhead?
How does work move end-to-end from the member's initial request to the fulfilment of their need? Where does it get stuck, handed off, duplicated, or delayed?
| Concept | What It Means | How We Capture It |
|---|---|---|
| Demand | What are members actually asking for? Is each piece of demand a legitimate member need (value demand) or demand caused by our own failure (failure demand)? | Channel integration (email, phone, post) into the colleague workbench gives us the infrastructure to classify every inbound contact by demand type and whether it is value or failure demand. |
| Value | Which steps in each workflow actually create value for the member? Which exist only because of internal process design? | Task analysis and process mapping — already underway — identifies which steps add member value and which are internal overhead, handoffs, or rework. |
| Flow | How does work move end-to-end from request to fulfilment? Where does it get stuck, handed off, duplicated, or delayed? | For retention-critical flows, end-to-end analysis is already underway. For other flows, the workbench captures whether tasks are one-and-done or handed off, and to whom. |
Systems thinking does not require a separate transformation programme. The H1 2026 delivery plan is already building the infrastructure we need.
| What's Already Being Built | What It Enables | Incremental Effort |
|---|---|---|
| Channel integration into the colleague workbench (email, phone, post) | A single view of all inbound demand across channels — the foundation for demand classification | Add demand type tagging and value/failure classification to the channel capture |
| Task management within the workbench | Visibility of how tasks flow between teams, where handoffs occur, and how long each step takes | Capture whether tasks are resolved at first contact or handed off, and track the handoff destination |
| AI pilot for email summarisation | Automated identification of demand type from email content, feeding the demand classification model | Extend the AI to tag demand type and flag potential failure demand |
| Retention workflow analysis (DD, cancellations, arrears, reinstatements) | End-to-end flow data for the highest-impact member journeys — the first candidates for redesign | Apply the systems thinking measurement framework to quantify friction and prioritise changes |
| PMI renewals (mid-year launch) | Event-driven demand data that extends the picture beyond direct member contact | Integration into colleague workbench and member portal, with demand and flow measurement built in from the start |
The colleague workbench, channel integration, and AI pilots lay down the infrastructure. Systems thinking is embedded as a lens: demand is classified, value and failure demand are distinguished and flow data begins to accumulate. Retention-related workflows are analysed end-to-end and redesigned where the data shows the greatest friction.
With foundations in place and data building, the second half moves further into flow: completing more demand at the point of contact, eliminating handoffs that exist because of system design rather than work requirements, and integrating PMI renewals into the workbench. The systems thinking framework provides the method for prioritising which flows to address next — always led by the data.
Unified workbench launch. Email, phone, and post channels integrated. Demand classification infrastructure in place.
Value vs failure demand tagging active. End-to-end analysis of DD, cancellations, arrears, and reinstatement flows. AI email tagging extended.
PMI renewals integrated into workbench and member portal with demand and flow measurement built in from the start. Priority flows redesigned based on friction data.
Complete picture of what members ask for, how much work is value versus failure demand, how work flows from request to fulfilment, and where the system creates friction.
A complete picture of demand, classified by type and channel
Distinguishing legitimate member needs from demand caused by our own process failures
How work flows from request to fulfilment, and where it gets stuck, handed off or delayed
This is the foundation for a permanently better way of working.
A detailed operational framework for turning strategic direction into measurable change.
A clear statement of what Member Services exists to do, against which every process and metric can be tested.
A method for understanding what members actually need, distinguishing value from failure demand, and mapping the full inventory of service types.
Using the existing complaint taxonomy to trace system failures back to specific process steps, not individual errors.
A North Star of single request, single touch point, single action, get success — with the realism to acknowledge that not every demand type will be one-and-done.
Capability charts and metrics that reflect what members experience, not what the organisation finds convenient to count.
A structured mechanism for frontline feedback, issue linking, and bottom-up improvement — because the people closest to the work understand it best.
Analysed end-to-end using real process data, showing exactly how the method works and what it reveals. The cancellation example demonstrates that a single bottleneck — manual letter production — forces a multi-team, 5-day process that SSG has already solved with auto-generated letters.