How much do your staff know about insurance? In a structured assessment, basic knowledge and understanding can be revealed and benchmarked. Kate Foreman explains the process
The basic underpinning knowledge and understanding required at this level concerns the fundamentals of insurance. For example, at basic level an employee should know about:
In simple terms, a basic level knowledge should include those matters which relate to any level of practice irrespective of complexity. (This list is certainly not exhaustive).
The CII used to offer a course called "The elements of insurance" and that was the starting point of competence for all practitioners.
Only once you are happy that a member of staff (or director or partner) is reasonably competent in these areas should you focus on the next stage of knowledge and understanding which is job and product specific.
Within your firm you need to define what is a basic job and or product. For example: Advising on household or motor insurance, or motor insurance clerk, or junior claims handler.
Whatever you decide should be 'basic' so that person will have to demonstrate knowledge and understanding relating to the role or product. This knowledge should include:
This knowledge and understanding can then be applied to specific customer requirements, in order to demonstrate understanding of the knowledge and how to apply it in a working situation.
In fact, you will probably find that all this basic knowledge and understanding will represent the majority of the assessment of even the specialist practitioner.
What you do not need to include in the basic assessment is subjects such as this:
I would not expect the average broker employee to be able to explain, for example, the ramifications of the Carriage by Air Act 1961. In fact, I would not expect an employee at intermediate level in the average broker to know this. The likelihood is that only an employee in a firm specialising in aviation risks would know the importance of this Act and for that firm, it may be a basic level requirement.
However, and this is a most important point, you must understand that we are considering the requirements to satisfy reasonable competence benchmarks of a basic product or job. That does not mean that you as a firm should not develop your staff above this minimum level. Indeed there is great commercial advantage to running a development programme alongside your underlying assessment system so that those individuals who are willing and able to go beyond what is required for the job are in fact preparing themselves to be competent in other jobs and at other levels.
Sandy Scott publicly discussed the concept of continuing maintenance of competence earlier this year, and this phrase sagely defines the process of remaining competent to do the job in hand.
Continuing professional development is the process of taking you and your staff to a competence level beyond the job in hand.
For example, I worked with the claims manager of a first class provincial broker recently who, on the announcement that the FSA was taking over general business regulation, had been encouraged by a forward thinking managing director to learn about training, competence and HR matters as part of a CPD programme. This included membership of the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development, attendance at a variety of learning and networking sessions. In my view the person concerned had become sufficiently competent to manage the training and competence requirements of the firm part-time.
Exactly the same would apply if for example you decided that a basic knowledge of liability insurance was the right level for a household insurance clerk.
You can see the advantage of developing that person's knowledge and understanding of liability insurance beyond the job in hand.
So, the key guidelines are as follows:
For example, you may feel that basic fire insurance knowledge is sufficient for advising on household insurance, but that you would prefer an intermediate knowledge of theft cover because many of your clients are more wealthy and own antiques and art.
As a guideline only, if the customers' needs are standard, then basic might apply, but for customers with special requirements or complicated needs you should be stepping up the standard.
Next week I will look in more detail at benchmarking for intermediate and advanced knowledge and understanding.
Customer knowledge check
To download a PDF of this article as it appears in the magazine click here .