A man and woman get married. The first weekend after returning from their honeymoon, the wife prepares to put a ham in the oven. The husband watches as the wife cuts seven inches off the top of the ham. Perplexed, he asks why she cut off seven inches. The wife explains she does not know, it is how her mother taught her. The husband calls up his mother-in-law and asks her why she cut off seven inches off the top of a ham before putting it in the oven. She too, does not know, but states it is how her mother taught her. Wanting to get to the bottom of the mystery, the man calls the grandmother. “All the women in your family cut seven inches off the top of a ham before putting it in the oven. I have traced it back to you. Can you tell me why?” The grandmother replied, “It’s simple. The first oven I had in 1922, the ham wouldn’t fit unless you cut seven inches off the top.”
Now suppose the wife no longer cuts the seven inches off the ham. Suppose the technology has reduced the cooking time for a ham to 30 minutes. However, suppose the new oven required you to put the ham in a glass baking dish for 10 minutes, a metal roasting pan for 10 minutes and a Dutch oven for 10 minutes. Suppose to start the highly advanced oven you had to go through 15 steps in exact sequence. In this case, it wouldn’t matter if you had improved your process, the inefficiencies of the technology would more than offset any gains.
What point am I trying to make? Process change must match technology change and technology change must be seamless and improve process efficiencies.
This is especially true in pre-funding technology. Over the last decade, we have witnessed rapid growth in the capacity and capability of pre-funding fraud detection technology. It is imperative that the findings pinpoint in a laser-like quality the significant red flags and potential fraud risks within the file. Going through multiple variances and reams of data can make looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack seem more like looking for a needle in a stack of needles.
At Interthinx, we’ve developed our new FraudGuard Evolution to help reduce the clutter of variances by strategically consolidating similar variances. Additionally, a new dashboard graphic provides a visual view of the main issues identified. These new enhancements will help end users increase productivity, decrease the time spent on each file and reduce redundancy.
So, what else can be done to create an environment of effective change and process improvement? I believe in using the 4 C’s; community, continuous, communication and commitment.
The first “C”–community‑means that the organization must value change and create an environment that encourages change. The employees who perform the normal day-to-day functions are the best source for ideas on how to improve the process. The majority of improvements to FraudGuard, including FraudGuard Evolution, came from suggestions made by clients who use the product on a daily basis.
The second “C”–continuous‑is self-explanatory. As it relates to pre-funding fraud technology, it means looking at the flags that are fired each month and the results. Which variances fire the most? Which variances in turn identify fraud verses being false positives? Continuous change means continuously evaluating the results and adjusting the variances and the weights behind each, then providing continuous feedback and training to the staff.
The third “C” is Communication. Communication, especially combined with community, is one of the best means to overcome resistance to change. Part of change and process improvement is having goals and measurable results. Communication means buy-in. Communication means reporting to the organization the outcome of the changes and process improvements.
The fourth and final “C” is commitment. This entails having a committed overall risk management strategy with your pre-funding fraud detection technology tool as the centerpiece. Commitment means that you are not afraid to change; that you are committed to change and not just involved. The best example I have ever heard about the difference between commitment and involvement is a bacon and egg breakfast. The chicken that laid the egg was involved, the pig that provided the bacon was committed. When it comes to commitment, be the pig.
I would love to write more, but all this talk about food has made me hungry.
For some reason, I have a craving for ham.
Gary W. Carr is a forensic underwriter at Interthinx.
