Refining BRM Policies and Practices at Unum. Sue Connelly / Angela Dillard

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Refining BRM Policies and Practices at Unum. Sue Connelly / Angela Dillard"

Buck Tyler
5 years ago
Views:

1 Refining BRM Policies and Practices at Unum Sue Connelly / Angela Dillard 1

2 Business Rule Management Refining Policies & Practices AGENDA Introductions Goals, Observations, & Actions Q&A 2

3 Business Rule Management Refining Policies & Practices INTRODUCTIONS Sue Connelly Systems Consultant 32 years at Unum Business Systems Architect for Client Services 3

4 Business Rule Management Refining Policies & Practices INTRODUCTIONS Angela Dillard Systems Consultant 13 years at Unum Technical Lead for Rules Automation Team 4

5 Unum Group. Unum in the US Chattanooga, TN 5

6 Unum Group. Unum in the US Portland, ME 6

7 Unum Group. Unum in the US Worcester, MA 7

8 Unum Group. Unum in the US Carlow, Ireland 8

9 Unum Group. Colonial Life Columbia, SC 9

10 Unum Group. Unum in the UK Dorking, Bristol, Basingstoke 10

11 11

12 Unum Group. Products Disability Insurance Short Term Long Term Individual Life Insurance Term Universal Whole Supplemental Insurance Accident Critical Illness Group Hospital Indemnity MedSupport Dental 12

13 Facts about Unum 13

14 Unum: A leading provider of employee benefits HIGHLIGHTS 160 years industry experience 1 Gen Re, 2012 U.S. Group Disability Market Survey (2013). Based on inforce cases. 2 Gen Re, 2012 U.S. Individual Disability Market Survey (2013). Based on inforce cases. 3 Eastbridge, U.S. Worksite Sales Report, Carrier Results for 2012 (2013). Based on inforce premium. 4 Gen Re, 2013 U.S. Group Life Market Survey (2013). Based on inforce cases. 5 Eastbridge, U.S. Worksite Sales Report, Carrier Results for 2012 (2013). 6 Employee Benefit Plan Review, Group Accident & Health Surveys ( ); Gen Re, U.S. Group Disability Market Surveys ( ). 7, 8 Unum internal data, Largest U.S. Corporations, Fortune (May 21, 2012). 14

15 Unum: A leading provider of employee benefits HIGHLIGHTS 22 million insured¹ 1 Gen Re, 2012 U.S. Group Disability Market Survey (2013). Based on inforce cases. 2 Gen Re, 2012 U.S. Individual Disability Market Survey (2013). Based on inforce cases. 3 Eastbridge, U.S. Worksite Sales Report, Carrier Results for 2012 (2013). Based on inforce premium. 4 Gen Re, 2013 U.S. Group Life Market Survey (2013). Based on inforce cases. 5 Eastbridge, U.S. Worksite Sales Report, ¹ Unum Carrier internal Results for data 2012 (2013). 6 Employee Benefit Plan Review, Group Accident & Health Surveys ( ); Gen Re, U.S. Group Disability Market Surveys ( ). 7, 8 Unum internal data, Largest U.S. Corporations, Fortune (May 21, 2012). 15

16 Unum: A leading provider of employee benefits HIGHLIGHTS 33% Of Fortune 500² 1 Gen Re, 2012 U.S. Group Disability Market Survey (2013). Based on inforce cases. 2 Gen Re, 2012 U.S. Individual Disability Market Survey (2013). Based on inforce cases. 3 Eastbridge, U.S. Worksite Sales Report, Carrier Results for 2012 (2013). Based on inforce premium. 4 Gen Re, 2013 U.S. Group Life Market Survey (2013). Based on inforce cases. 5 Eastbridge, U.S. Worksite Sales Report, ² Largest Carrier Results U.S. Corporations, for 2012 (2013). 6 Employee Fortune Benefit (May Plan Review, 21, 2012); Group Accident Unum & Health customer Surveys ( ); Gen Re, U.S. Group Disability Market Surveys ( ). 7, 8 Unum internal data, Largest U.S. Corporations, Fortune (May 21, 2012). database, 2012 (excludes Unum in the UK and Colonial Life). 16

17 Unum: A leading provider of employee benefits HIGHLIGHTS Over 10,000 employees 1 Gen Re, 2012 U.S. Group Disability Market Survey (2013). Based on inforce cases. 2 Gen Re, 2012 U.S. Individual Disability Market Survey (2013). Based on inforce cases. 3 Eastbridge, U.S. Worksite Sales Report, Carrier Results for 2012 (2013). Based on inforce premium. 4 Gen Re, 2013 U.S. Group Life Market Survey (2013). Based on inforce cases. 5 Eastbridge, U.S. Worksite Sales Report, Carrier Results for 2012 (2013). 6 Employee Benefit Plan Review, Group Accident & Health Surveys ( ); Gen Re, U.S. Group Disability Market Surveys ( ). 7, 8 Unum internal data, Largest U.S. Corporations, Fortune (May 21, 2012). 17

18 Unum: A leading provider of employee benefits HIGHLIGHTS 257 on Fortune 500³ 1 Gen Re, 2012 U.S. Group Disability Market Survey (2013). Based on inforce cases. 2 Gen Re, 2012 U.S. Individual Disability Market Survey (2013). Based on inforce cases. 3 Eastbridge, U.S. Worksite Sales Report, Carrier Results for 2012 (2013). Based on inforce premium. 4 Gen Re, 2013 U.S. Group Life Market Survey (2013). Based on inforce cases. 5 Eastbridge, U.S. Worksite Sales Report, ³ Fortune, Carrier Results Fortune for (2013). ( Employee ; accessed Benefit Plan May Review, 9, Group 2013), Accident & Health Surveys ( ); Gen Re, U.S. Group Disability Market Surveys ( ). 7, 8 Unum internal data, Largest U.S. Corporations, Fortune (May 21, 2012). 18

19 Background Documentation Disaster 19

20 Documentation Disaster Problem Statement: Inconsistent documentation Difficult to change Difficult to determine how we do business High Level Vision: Manage Business Rules as an asset Increase agility 20

21 Critical Success Factors Documentation Disaster 21

22 Critical Success Factors # 1 One Source of the truth # 2 Traceability # 3 Consistency 22

23 #1 One Source of the Truth 23

24 Rule Inventory Goals Single source of all Business Rules Promote consistency of rule expressions Ensure traceability between business rules and the Business Capability they support What we think we did right Formal Training Promoted the use of natural language Incorporated our Enterprise Glossary into the rule inventory system Rule Governance Board to ensure consistency 24

25 Rule Inventory Observations User struggled with the concept of natural language Integrity of rule Inventory was being compromised Difficult to find all rules associated with a complete decision Traceability between Rule Inventory and Use Case artifacts was not being maintained Actions Taken Revised our Rule expression patterns Initiated an effort to clean up inactive rules Recognized need to better organize rules into complete decisions 25

26 #2 Traceability 26

27 Traceability Rule Inventory Use Case (business capability) Rule metadata is used to tie rules back to the Use Case(s) Rule numbers referenced in a Use Case step relate back to the rule inventory Rules tagged to a step should support that goal 27

28 Use Cases Goals Clearly document requirements and the business rules that support each requirement Ensure consistent documentation Ensure reliable traceability between business rules in a Use Case and the Rule Inventory What we think we did right Modify Use Case training to incorporate BRM policies and procedures Reinforced business accountability for accurate requirements and rules 28

29 Use Cases Observations Rules tagged to a Use Case step did not represent a complete, unambiguous decision Rules tagged to a Use Case step did not support the goal of that step Decisions were being documented as Use Cases Actions Taken Ongoing refactoring of Use Cases to standard format Beginning to change mind set from BRM to Business Decision Management (BDM) Identify and eliminate use cases that represent decisions 29

30 Case Study 30

31 Case Study THE USE CASE Use Case name and goal implies that this is a decision IS 1.15 Determine Confirmation of Coverage is Required Goal: The goal of this use case is to determine whether confirmation of coverage should be generated for a Group product individual agreement on the Growth Platform. The rule in step 3 does not relate to the goal of the step Step 3: The system verifies the product has employee premium contributions BR1: Confirmation of Coverage Not Required Rules tagged to step 4 do not support the goal of that step Step 4. The system retrieves detailed information from the individual agreement. BR2: Active Individual Agreement BR3: Employee Paid Premium BR4: UK Employer Paid Above Guaranteed Issue BR5: Confirmation of Coverage per Product BR6: Confirmation of Coverage for Owner Class BR7: Individual Agreement Approved BR8: Individual Agreement Normal Premium Step 5 is a great goal but it has no rules to support that goal Step 5: The System determines confirmation of coverage is required 31

32 Case Study THE RULES BR8: Confirmation of Coverage must be provided for each product within the Individual Agreement. This is a requirement related to how confirmation of coverage should be provided Step 5: The System determines that Confirmation of Coverage is required BR1: Active Individual Agreement BR2: Individual Agreement Approved BR3: Individual Agreement Normal Premium BR4: Confirmation of Coverage is Not Required BR5: Employee Paid Premium BR6: UK Employer Paid Above Guaranteed Issue BR7: Confirmation of Coverage for Owner Class BR8: Confirmation of Coverage per Product BR7: Confirmation of Coverage must not be provided when all of the following are true for an individual agreement: - the customer organization type is not C Corporation - the eligibility class is Owner's Class No reference to affiliation assumption is that it s both US and UK BR1: An individual agreement must be considered active when at least one of the following is true: - the individual agreement is an approved individual agreement - the individual agreement is a normal premium paying agreement Represents an embedded decision 32

Case Study THE TRACEABILITY Use Case Step 5: The System determines that Confirmation of Coverage is required BR1: Active Individual Agreement BR2: Individual Agreement Approved BR3:

for Owner Class BR8: Confirmation of Coverage per Product Rule Number Rule Name Rule Inventory Rule Status Use Case BR1 Active Individual Agreement Active IS 1.

33 Case Study THE TRACEABILITY Use Case Step 5: The System determines that Confirmation of Coverage is required BR1: Active Individual Agreement BR2: Individual Agreement Approved BR3: Individual Agreement Normal Premium BR4: Confirmation of Coverage is Not Required BR5: Employee Paid Premium BR6: UK Employer Paid Above Guaranteed Issue BR7: Confirmation of Coverage for Owner Class BR8: Confirmation of Coverage per Product Rule Number Rule Name Rule Inventory Rule Status Use Case BR1 Active Individual Agreement Active IS 1.15 BR5 Employee Paid Premium Active IS 1.15 BR6 UK Employer Paid Above Guaranteed Issue Active IS 1.15 BR7 Confirmation of Coverage for Owner Class Active IS 1.15 BR8 Confirmation of Coverage per Product Active IS

34 Transformation 34

35 Case Study TRANSFORMATION TO FUTURE STATE Rewrite the Rules as a complete and unambiguous Decision Goal: Determine if Confirmation of Coverage is Required Expected Result: Yes or No Is Individual Agreement Active? BR5598: The individual agreement must be considered active when either of the following is true: - the individual agreement is an approved individual agreement - the individual agreement is a normal premium paying agreement BR 7110 Insured Confirmation of Coverage must be provided for an Individual Agreement when the Customer affiliation is U.S. and all of the following are true: - the Individual Agreement is Active - any product under the Individual Agreement has Employee Contributions (5599) - the Eligibility class is not an Owners Class (5602) - the Customer organization type is not C Corporation (5602) Is Confirmation of Coverage Required? BR 7111 Insured Confirmation of Coverage must be provided for an Individual Agreement when the Customer affiliation is U.K. and all of the following are true: - the Individual Agreement is Active - the Eligibility class is not an Owners Class (5602) - the Customer Organization type is not C Corporation (5602) - the change is not the result of a Group Anniversary Processing Event - at least one of the following is true; - any product under the Individual Agreement has Employee Contributions (5599) - all products under the Individual Agreement are 100% Employer funded and the Coverage amount is less than or equal to the Guaranteed Issue Amount (5600) 35

36 Case Study TRANSFORMATION OF RULES Rewrite the Rules as a complete and unambiguous Decision Goal: Determine if Confirmation of Coverage is Required Expected Result: Yes or No Identify all Use Cases that includes or extends the base use case Replace with requirement and supporting rules Step 5: The System determines that Confirmation of Coverage is required D1: Determine Confirmation of Coverage is required 36

37 Rule Analysis The Game Plan 37

38 Traceability Rule Inventory Use Case (business capability) Decision Service Spec (physical implementation) Rule metadata is used to tie rules back to the Use Case(s) Rule numbers referenced in a Use Case step relate back to the rule inventory Rules tagged to a step should support that goal Rule numbers referenced in the DS spec relate back to the rule inventory The Use Case step being implemented is referenced by the DS spec Naming standard is <BPA_Use Case Name_Step Goal> 38

39 Rule Analysis Goal Receive requirements and supporting business rules early in the SDLC Generate clear, concise artifacts to carry into system design & coding What we think we did right Gained management support to embark on BRM journey Introduced Decision Service technical design concepts & artifcat templates 39

40 Rule Analysis Observations Rules to support steps within Use Cases not fully realized early enough Use Case realization tended to be very focused on business requirements not Rules Rule requirements came in many forms Actions Taken Expanded BRM training Identify rules earlier in the SDLC Include a rules team member in project Initiation and Elaboration phases Educate about Decision Services Decision Services process flow Decision Services Specification Template 40

41 Rule Design & Implementation Plan Execution 41

42 Rule Design & Implementation Goal Traceability from Rule Inventory to system implemented code Provide clear, concise artifacts which enable development of code and test scenarios Generate accurate and efficient code Deliver a higher quality solution at a lower cost What we think we did right Decision Services Specification template (v1) Open dialogue with project teams 42

43 Rule Design & Implementation Observations Lack of business knowledge Traceability breakdown Workload peaks and valleys for developers under short timelines Delayed delivery of code for business testing Costly re-work & re-testing late in the construction phase Actions Taken Developing a program for building business acumen Decision Services Specification template (vx) Decision Services sequence diagram Decision Services schema diagram Align rule developers to delivery teams Design & code review sessions 43

44 #3 Consistency Lack thereof 44

45 Consistency Goal provide clear, concise, and consistent artifacts that can be consumed by all What do we think we did right Gate Reviews to ensure artifacts are consumable 45

46 Consistency Observations Inconsistent artifacts being used to document rules Rules are still being expressed inconsistently Business Rules are not easily understood Project teams are not willing (or allowed) to take project time to improve documentation Actions Taken Education Raise awareness of the impacts 46

47 Wrap It Up 47

48 Final Thoughts If we could do it again.. Manage Decisions Don t try to boil the ocean Involve critical practitioners! Next steps Step back and evaluate current and future state Agility Maturity Build out our roadmap to maturity Formally transform to decision management Education BA and Management Traceability Consistency 48

assessments # 3 Consistency Enables efficient and quality consumption of

49 # 1 One Source of the Truth Exposes how we do business Promotes reuse of rules/decisions # 2 Traceability Enables quick and accurate impact assessments # 3 Consistency Enables efficient and quality consumption of artifacts Provides the ability to plug and play resources Results in Quality Deliverables! 49

50 . QUESTIONS?? 2013 Unum Group. All rights reserved. Unum is a registered trademark and marketing brand of Unum Group and its insuring subsidiaries. Insurance products are underwritten by the subsidiaries of Unum Group ADR

Delivering Business Value Gone are the days of the big bang approach. Chris Castleberry Sue Connelly

Delivering Business Value Gone are the days of the big bang approach Chris Castleberry Sue Connelly 1 Introductions Introductions Presenters Unum The problem with the big bang approach Changing our mindset