Articles Library

INSURANCE T&C ISSUES ONE YEAR ON FROM FSA REGULATION - PART 2 (T&C News - January 2006)

Insurance brokers often cite cost as a major constraint in the context of training, but a great deal can be achieved in house, and by working with good-quality external training providers firms can employ a blend of e-learning and face-to-face workshops to deliver strong and cost-effective solutions.

E-learning systems can be particularly cost-effective when trying to keep costs down. They can also often play an important role in the assessment of competency. The better specialist e-learning systems available to insurance firms also provide a wide range of courses to assist with learning, rather than simply evaluating user's knowledge without offering any follow-up options. When choosing a system, insurance brokers should always ask for a trial licence so that they can assess exactly what any given system offers from the comfort of their own desks.

Choosing an external training provider can be a daunting task for insurance firms, but a few simple rules should help. The first question they should ask is whether a potential training provider is participating in the accreditation process being put in place by the Financial Services Skill Council (FSSC). The FSSC is the body to whom the FSA has devolved the task of regulating training providers to the general insurance industry. There are five different types of accreditation available, according to the type of training company and/or product provided. Depending on the level of accreditation attained this should provide insurance companies or brokers with a degree of reassurance as to their chosen provider's professionalism and suitability.

Companies operating in the insurance industry should also make sure that the selected training provider understands the insurance market and how FSA regulation impacts on it. This is particularly important when sourcing non-technical training, such as business skills and management skills where the guidance offered by companies without a detailed understanding of how the insurance market works could actually prove counterproductive. Insurance firms would be well advised to request sight of the CVs of the individuals who will be delivering face to face training.

They should also work with their training provider to determine at the outset how the results of the training are to be measured and evaluated. For example, sales training might lead to an improved conversion rate, customer care training may reduce the number of complaints, and so on. Finally, it is always advisable to ask a potential training provider to provide some references and to speak to the companies and individuals providing those references.

There is a strong case for arguing that today's successful companies are those who understand the tangible benefits of having a highly trained and competent workforce and have acted on this understanding over a period of years. That does not just mean just doing the minimum required by regulation. As Howard Davies, then Chairman of the FSA said in November 2000, "We want to help firms to see why just settling for the minimum is a poor business decision".

Put any industry under the spotlight and the vast majority of companies that are successful within it will be those with a strong commitment to training and developing their workforces. Many companies today find the question of what percentage of turnover spent on training and development is one that increasingly crops up when asked to tender for the provision of services. The clear inference is that this commitment will be reflected in the quality and competence of the people providing the service.

One of the eternal frustrations for those of us involved in people development has always been how quickly a training budget comes under pressure when other business priorities are identified. Cutting the training budget all too often seems to be the easy option. But why?

Maybe one reason is that the benefits of training can seem intangibl

< Back