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

1. Competitive agility – How can we act faster in the marketplace London Business School Week 13 Group Agneta, Anne, Line, Mats, Måns, Poul

2. Overarching objectives To gain new and retain customers by building further on ‘Claims handling the way it should be’ “Disrupt the disrupters” strategy Little big things Differentiating yourself

3. How can we act faster in the market place? 1 Close the knowing-doing gap • Knowledge is not an issue 2 Encourage piloting in If • More flexible and experimental process needed 3 Nurture culture of business initiatives • Conduct a pilot , improving customer offer

4. Our approach Think about how to improve our competitive position Identity & conduct a practical pilot to test out our idea in reality Internal benchmark past experiences Team takeaways

5. Testing how we can differentiate within claims handling High Cost to purchaser • Unique partner benefits • More value to customers at low cost • Highly competitive claims steering ability If Niche insurer Low Value to purchaser High Low

6. Greenhousing - what to choose? • Simple = Do-able • Relevant = Customer value • Practical = Competence, resources and logistics Bank

7. 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.

8. High level plan for the experiment Benchmark study Conclusion Preparation Pilot execution Conclusion ”End product/Presentation” Week 5-6 Week 7-11 Week 12

9. VERY simple activity list Week Task/Activity Responsible Ready by date

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

11. The Pilot

12. Test and evaluate extended claims service • Provide an extra service to 100 customers that have their cars repaired • included cleaning (inside and outside) and delivery of the car at home or office • In return – the customer has to fill in a questionnaire about the service • Delivery and cleaning should be in cooperation with car repair shops. • Evaluate the result of the service (for further implementation?) • Collect learning's and compare with other projects

13. High level activities and timetable for the Pilot • Week 5-6 : Preparation • Meetings with Private claims, Business developer, Bilia and others to agree on details, activities and routines for the Pilot • Information letters, questionnaires and CSI solution created • Ad hoc questions and tasks where solved as they occurred • Week 7-10 :Execution • The start of cleaning and delivering cars (as aimed for) 14/2! • Files with delivered cars from Bilia every week, emails sent out from If with questionnaire and CSI reported at request. • Started to document the Pilot with films, interviews, pictures etc • Less cars delivered (offered) than expected end of week 10… (due to snow storm and holidays in Stockholm) • Week 11: Execution (with car cleaning) • Prolonged with one week with car cleaning only • Week 12: Conclusions

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

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

16. Customer satisfaction index, summary (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….

17. Main findings from the Pilot Sponsor - mandate Resources - key competence Bilia Keep it simple Minor investment Time – not an issue Minor IT development Ability to deliver fast!

18. Conclusions from the Pilot, with some more comments… • 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!

19. Benchmark projects

20. High level activities and timetable for the Benchmark • Week 5-6 : Preparation • Candidates for Benchmark interviews was listed – concluded on 7 projects+ the pilot • Check list / questionnaires was done for the Benchmark interviews • Meetings where scheduled for all interviews • Week 7-11:Execution • All interviews where performed and documented on the commonSharePoint site • Week 12: Conclusions

21. Description and scoring of the benchmark projects

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

23. High connection between success and “own interest”

24. Clear connection between success and “high competence”

25. Clear connection between success and “high delegation level”

26. Usage of IPM model not a success criteria for smaller projects

27. To remove daily tasks is not a success criteria

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

30. Team takeaway

31. Key success factors in piloting • Simplicity • Mandate • Pilot team profile • Attitude • FUN!

32. 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

33. 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”.